Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-20-2002 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING June 20, 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. Trias, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Jones (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: 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 June 20, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS through his company last year. He stated that he does plan to vote on th see any conflict of interest, as long as no one has any objections. financing from his employer and therefore, under the advice of counsel, he would recuse himself from both items. Chairman Matthes stated that his employer was involved with the project in Agenda Item # 5 and would recuse himself from that item. Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect fo 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 June 20, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: May 16, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Lounds moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Mr. Grande stated that on Page 12 and P pipeline there was one condition added and he stated he believed there were two conditions added. He advised that he would like Staff to review the tape to see if they voted for a second condition, which was that there would be no tanks above ground for storing gas. He stated that if tape, then he may be incorrect. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff will review the tape again but that he had spoken with the Secretary and it is reflected in the discussion of the minutes and she believed motion. Mr. Kelly stated they would review it again to be sure and if there were a second condition, the minutes would be changed to reflect that. Note: Upon review of the tape, the minutes were not changed. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE NO. 02-003 Extension of the Urban Service Boundary: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were both the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. He also stated that they were listed on the original agenda in the wrong order because the Urban Service Boundary Line would have to be moved before the Future Land Use Change could be done. He also stated that since these two items are from the same petitioner and are closely related, they would be presented together. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff provided the Commission with a report, which did not include additional data that the applicant has since provided. He stated that the information has been provided to them tonight to review and his presentation would include some of that information. He advised that the first issue is the extension of the Urban Service Boundary. He stated that the current Urban Service Boundary comes down Emerson and makes a small jog at Indrio and then picks up again out in an area for the interchange. He also stated that there is a gap in the Urban Service Boundary be extended eastward from the interchange and goes north as well to include ut the parcel is not large enough to close the entire gap. He stated that if the Urban Service Boundary were to be expanded the second part of the petition is for a change in Future Land Use from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban). He continued that at the time the Staff report was prepared there were a number of outstanding questions/issues from the applicant. Staff provided the applicant these questions. Since, the distribution of the staff memo the applicant has submitted a response to these questions, which were provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency tonight and really answered pretty much all of their questions. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant supporting documentation demonstrated that if the County wishes to move the Urban Service Boundary or expand the amount of land in the general area of Indrio that is within the Urban Service Boundary and increase densities from going from RE to RU, the change probably would not impact any of the required services in a negative manner. He continued that the real question is if this is an appropriate change to the Urban Service Boundary and should the County make a positive change to expand that area. He stated that they are in an odd position for several reasons. He advised that during the time of the Comprehensive Plan hearings he recommended that the County close the existing gap in the Urban Service Boundary that he made those same statements to the County Commission and made the same recommendation and they decided they did not want to do that at that time and instead wanted to take a comprehensive look at the Urban Service Boundary in that area and also in the Gatlin, Okeechobee Road areas and various other areas too. He advised that the Board of County Commissioners funded in the budget to hire somebody to look at those issues and Staff went out with an RFP and received seven proposals. He stated the proposals have been reviewed and the rd committee has short listed three. On July 23, the Board of County Commissioners will hear proposals from the three top candidates and may then choose one of the three to look at the issue of the Urban Service Boundary, north to south, within the County over the next year. Mr. Kelly stated that there are two issues with this application be processed at this time. The first issue is that there is no real demonstrated need to modify the Urban Service Boundary at this time. The second issue that the County is moving forward with the Urban Service Boundary Study. Further, there is an additional more pressing issue and that is the Department of Community Affairs has responded to our Comprehensive Plan and has indicated they are going to find us to be not in compliance. He stated that DCA has identified four primary issues with the P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan: they are, with the Conservation Element, Capital Improvements Element, Transportation Element and the Future Land Use Element. The DCA has indicated that the the County might need to take sixty to ninety days, maybe even a little longer, in order to solve the outstanding DCA issues. He also stated they are trying to set a meeting with DCA in Tallahassee for hopefully next week to identify what the County will need to do to enter into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the reason that is important tonight is that the County may not be able to process Future Land Use changes on the Land Use Map for State review until we are found to be in compliance. He stated that once this position where they can transmit it to the State because the other issues would not have been solved yet. He advised there are several things going on, all involving the Urban Service Boundary, this application, the study on Urban Service Boundaries, and the State telling us that we are clearly not doing enough to protect the lands outside of the Urban Service Boundary. Mr. Kelly stated that the proposed application demonstrates additional need, Countywide, in the long term, but in this section of the County, he thinks that there is not a need for additional units and land until 2010. He also stated there is the study, which hopefully will help Staff, the Local Planning Agency and the County Commission, to make determinations about what should be done with the Urban Service Line as a whole and lastly the issues with the State and the inability to send it to the State at this time. He stated that Staff recommends that they hear from the applicant this evening and Staff will answer any questions they can with regards to the application, but they find their selves in an odd situation given all of the things that are occurring. Mr. Matthes asked if there were any questions from the Board for staff at this time. Mr. Akins stated that it sounds to him like the timing is a bit premature. Mr. Kelly stated that he felt it might be premature on potentially two fronts. He questioned if it is premature with regards to the overall need of the County to begin to put housing out there and if it is premature to consider this ahead of the Urban Service Boundary Study. Mr. Akins asked if it was premature to consider it tonight when the County Commission cannot transmit it at this time anyway. Mr. Akins stated that there is a problem with the Comprehensive Plan regarding approval by the DCA Urban Service Boundary. He questioned if this would further exacerbate the problem since we are seeking to expand the Urban Service Boundary rather than protect those lands outside of it. Mr. Kelly stated that if someone were to review this only from an office in Tallahassee, not knowing much about St. Lucie County, he probably would. He continued that from an office in the Planning Department in St. Lucie County, he thinks in some time period, the area from Kings Highway to the interstate along Indrio Road is clearly in an area that is going to become a part of the Urban Service Area. He stated that out to the interstate he thinks they are going to see growth he believes that what the State is really looking for is the protection of the lands located in the far western two-thirds of the County. He stated that in the long run, the areas easterly of the Interstate will eventually be incorporated within the Urban Service Area. Chairman Matthes requested a show of hands from the public to identify who attended the meeting to speak for or against these petitions, other than the petitioners. Only one person raised their hand. He stated that they have tabled these petitions many times and put the general public out and that they need to hear what the public has to say. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant has been working on this issue and the public has been here and he believed that it was appropriate P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 5 after all that has been done to get the petitions on an agenda, to let them know what the issues were even if the County Commission ultimately cannot go forward it was time for it to be heard tonight. Chairman Matthes stated that he has a hard time acting, right now, on something that he knows DCA will think poorly of the overall decision making process. He also stated that he feels they need to hear the applicant and the public on these issues. Mr. Lounds stated that from what he can see there is an Urban Service Area that is virtually an island. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct and there was actually a second one out on Orange Avenue. Mr. Lounds asked if the area connected anywhere with a current Urban Service Area and Mr. Kelly confirmed that it did not. Mr. Hearn questioned why the Urban Service Boundary was extended around the interchange and requested the history and significance of it. Mr. Kelly stated that it had to do with the uses around the interchange. The intent was to provide the services central to the interchange, appropriate at the time the Comprehensive Plan was drawn up to identify all of that area as Urban Service Area but they did want to make the interchange available. Mr. Hearn questioned how those land owners around I-95 uses would be affected if that Urban Service Boundary was not out there. Mr. Kelly stated that they would need Comprehensive Plan Land Use amendments prior to approving any interchange type of uses. Mr. Lounds questioned if the petitioner is asking to extend a boundary around their piece of property without connecting it to the Emerson Avenue boundary area. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct and that the petitioner does not own the other piece of land to request that it be included. Mr. Hearn asked if Staff had any record of the amount of traffic accidents on Johnson and Indrio Road regarding the side railing out there. He continued that he has heard stories through homeowners meetings that the railing usually gets knocked down each month. Mr. Kelly stated he did not have that information available with him at the moment. Mr. Matthes asked if the applicant was present and would he come forward and make his presentation. Mr. Richard Sneed stated he is an attorney in Fort Pierce and represents the applicant, Lin Indrio, Inc. He stated that Lin Indrio, Inc. is a Florida Corporation and the principle of which is Lloyd Moody, who is in the audience. He continued that Mr. Moody has a home in Singer Island and also in Houston, Texas. He stated that their engineer Earl Masteller, of Masteller & Moler in Vero Beach was present, as well as Mr. Mark Matthes and Mr. Greg Boggs who are land planners with Lucido & Associates. He advised that this project started back in August 2001 and that he has had several discussions with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Murphy since that time. He stated that they had spent a lot of money based on discussions with Staff and have submitted thousands of dollars worth of documentation in seeking these approvals. He also stated that their plans are far beyond the cartoon plans that are occasionally brought in by applicants requesting a change in zoning or to move lines and to do things in the community. He continued that his client is committed to building a first class golf course community on the property that he has purchased on Johnston Road and Indrio Road in our community. He stated that ironically there is a pod floating out in never-never land and a gap between his property and another property between the Urban Service lines that seems to be a mysterious area that cannot be addressed this evening because of an opinion of Staff. He advised that they are here this evening to prove the contrary and to support P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 6 their position and to answer every question that Staff has raised in opposition to their applications. He stated that they have submitted complete plans for the golf course design and engineering to County Staff and also offered into record those submittals. He stated that specifically they have submitted one original complete planned development application, a check for $4040, fifteen copies of the site plan graphics and other related plans, ten copies of the required boundary and topographical survey, four copies of an environmental impact report, four copies of landscaping plans, as well as one original vegetation removal application and required a preliminary drainage data plan, a traffic report and all of this was submitted in October 2001 to the County Staff. He continued that they have hired a traffic engineer, landscape architect, golf course architect, engineering firm, environmental audit firm and an environmental audit was submitted to the County Staff. He advised that they have hired a soil-boring firm who conducted soil-boring tests on the property and a firm that provided a storm water drainage system plans and designs for the property. Mr. Sneed stated that they would like the Commission to consider this application. He continued that they have heard from a gentleman who he respects as a land planner, but not as a legal person and has given the Commission a legal opinion about something that is not legally correct. He nsider their position and that the County Commissioners could not approve their applications is not founded in law, whatsoever. He suggested that they discuss that information with the County st baseless. He stated that they are here to support their position in that regard and are confident that they can support each of the comments of County Staff concerning the application. He requested that the Commission take a look at their comments and listen to his planners and their responses. Mr. Grande asked that Mr. Sneed speak into the microphone to be on the record and Mr. Sneed stated that he has his own recorder who is taking it all down. Chairman Matthes stated that he would prefer that he speak into the microphone and Mr. Sneed complied. Mr. Sneed asked if the Chairman would place on record if he were going to consider the application that is before him. Chairman Matthes stated that was a decision that would be made by the Commission as a whole after the presentation. Mr. Sneed stated that he thought that Chairman Matthes had said that he and that what he said was that he had concerns with taking any action if it would be against something that DCA has told the County that they are not properly doing. Mr. Sneed stated that it is his point about relying on a County Staff planner about what the law is with regard to DCA and it seems as if it has they have come a long way to get here and that the last time they were supposed to be here they s why the Commission decided to hear their petition this evening as opposed to delaying it any further. Mr. Sneed stated that it seemed from the prejudicial atmosphere and tone that they are now faced with, concerning this application, is not the type of public hearing or the process that they thought they were going to be involved in here tonight. He advised that they thought they were going to come before the Commission and present their responses to County Staff. Chairman Matthes stated that he did not think that they had any prejudicial thoughts at the Commission with respect to his plan. He continued that their concerns are with respect to what DCA had to say and that they are there to listen to him tonight and to make a decision in their capacity. Mr. Sneed asked Chairman Matthes if he knew of anything specifically that DCA said that he could share with them this evening and Chairman Matthes stated he did not. Mr. Sneed questioned if it is his understanding that they are simply relying on what Mr. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 7 Chairman Matthes pointed out that the staff person who made the report was Mr. Kelly, not Mr. Murphy. name has been inserted in paren Chairman Matthes stated that he is relying on what Mr. Kelly stated with respect to making a (Mr. Kelly) representation as to what DCA said. Chairman Matthes stated that the whole that one point. Ms. Young stated that it is her understanding that the Board of County Commissioners can take action on it and can send it to Tallahassee but that Tallahassee will not accept or review it while this process relating to the Comprehensive Plan is ongoing. Mr. Sneed stated that he would like it placed on the record that the process that counsel has referred to has been ongoing since he has been a lawyer in the community and will continue to be ongoing forever. He also stated that the EAR amendments that they are speaking of are amendments that perhaps should have been made a long time ago and through a process of failing to do that, the t he heard from counsel they can consider this unbiased without prejudice to what went forward earlier in this meeting and was announced by Mr. Murphy (Mr. t the DCA. Mr. Hearn questioned Mr. Sneed if at the present time the zoning is the same as it was when his client purchased the property; one unit per acre. Mr. Sneed stated that they have made no other applications other than the ones before the Commission tonight. Mr. Hearn stated that is not what he was asking and that he is asking if the zoning is the same today as it was when it was purchased; one unit per acre. Mr. Sneed advised that is correct and they have not made any applications other than the ones before them tonight. Mr. Hearn stated he wanted to confirm that it is zoned for only one unit per acre currently and Mr. Sneed stated that if it were RE-1 when they purchased it, then it would be RE-1 today. Mr. Hearn also asked if the County, at any time, encouraged them to move forward with this project. Mr. Sneed confirmed that County Staff had and that they would not have spent thousands of dollars but for those comments. Mr. Hearn stated that it is very important for him, as a Commission member, to know if Staff encouraged this project from the beginning. Mr. Sneed asked that Mr. Matthes be allowed to present his information as long as it would not be an imposition. Chairman Matthes stated it would not be an imposition and that would be part of the procedure. Mr. Mark Matthes of Lucido & Associates stated he would like to make some comments on behalf of their application tonight and to address the comments of Mr. Kelly and the Staff report th as well as his correspondence to them from June 5 and their response with the resubmitted report th of June 17. He continued that he would mostly be referencing their report and would be glad to provide page numbers and so forth as he moves through the document. He continued that he had an opportunity to review the Department of Community Affairs report regarding the EAR based amendments and would like to speak to that also as it relates to this plan amendment a position with regard to the EAR does and does not relate to their request before the Commission tonight. Mr. Matthes stated that he would like to first discuss the Urban Service area at I-95 and the P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 8 interchange he has found through his experiences in planning that is a typical arrangement to have a freestanding Urban Service area to accommodate this type of unique feature. He continued that it is also commonplace to have transitioning from that type of urban development to the more rural development that may surround it. He stated that this particular island of urban service area does not necessarily have transitioning land uses before it and you basically end up with a sea of urban area next to orange groves. He also stated that typically you have a transitioning of land from higher intensities to the lower intensities as you move toward the agricultural areas but as Mr. Kelly indicated this area more than likely will grow. That someday it may all be together and that timing is an important issue. He continued that the sixty to ninety day time period to potentially resolve the DCA objections and reports on the EAR based amendments will more than likely be a bit longer and in addition to that, the one year study on the urban service area itself is possibly going to be longer than a year especially with the very comprehensive scope and tremendous amount of work that is before the consultant, which Staff ve Plan amendments to make changes to the Urban Service Boundary before that study could be implemented and those amendments themselves take about a year. He stated that if their application is put on hold pending a result they are effectively shut out of any type of development for the County for numerous years while this is worked out. He continued that through his presentation he feels he can show the Commission this is not a premature development proposal and land use application request. Mr. Matth the Urban Service area and also as Mr. Kelly had mentioned, DCA sitting in Tallahassee may be more concerned about the vast majority of the two-thirds of the county west of I-95 instead of the pockets necessarily of state land uses that are inside and surrounding the current urban service area for many reason. He continued that the first reason is that 2010 is the planning time frame that currently supports the housing and population needs analysis of the Comprehensive Plan is not a long-term estimate. He stated that all those numbers based on 2010 are really talking about a short-term horizon and their analysis shows there is already a deficit of land for residential needs in the short-term horizon and will only get worse in the long-term. He advised that timing is very important and these projects cannot go online in a day and if they were given a supportive recommendation tonight through the Commission it would be about six to nine months before this land use could be affected and before they could even begin to get an approved PUD. He also stated that the development of this site would be phased over three to five years as they phase the houses in and construct the golf courses and would not be fully in place until about 2007 or 2008. He continued that clearly the timing is appropriate for this project. th request for additional information, they have answered all of their questions and that this development will not impact urban services to the degrading point and in fact through their contributions of impact facts and developers agreements and additional ad velorum taxes would more than likely benefit the county in many ways. He continued that they have provided clearly two analyses within their staff report th beginning on page 9 of the June 17 revised report. He stated that of the two analyses that they performed one was on a countywide level based upon data directly out of the Comprehensive Plan and clearly shows a deficit of residential land through and by 2010. He continued that at th letter they went on to do a sub area analysis of the north county area, which is generally defined by the canal just south of Indrio Road and just south of the airport to the north county line from I-95 to the intercostals waterway. He advised that they had received data from St. Lucie County Staff, including the property appraisers data of development status. They did a detailed analysis of the use of the residential land within this area and P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 9 and assumptions within the Comprehensive Plan and other government approved documents, such as the 2025 long-range transportation plan that prior to 2015 there will be a deficit of residential land within the north county area. He advised that deficit is clear within the long- range planning time frame and as you move forward in those planning activities you try to address these deficits before they get to a short-term horizon because time is needed to respond to these needs. He stated that they feel in the north county area it is an appropriate time to act. He advised that Staff made recommendations at prior discussions of the Comprehensive Plan and the need to close that gap and they are one parcel that is willing to step forward and move forward with that concept. Mr. Matthes stated that the second point was there seemed to be a discrepancy between their analyses regarding the numbers they used of four units per acre as an average development density for a single-family housing project and their development, which is approximately 1.6 units per acre. He advised that is clearly resolved by the nature of their development and single family urban development is consistent with the other urban developments within the urban service area. He stated that the golf course, which will be open to the public for use and will be a benefit to the community. He stated the third request being an analysis of the uses in and around the site, they did provide that analysis and primarily that area is an undeveloped in urban uses because it is currently outside of the Urban Service Boundary. He continued that the I-95 interchange is also undeveloped in urban uses because currently urban utilities do not exist there. He advised that to their east less than a half-mile you begin to get into urban type development and you begin to get into the eastern urban service area, which again is shown to be having a deficit of residential land. He stated that Staff requested a more thorough traffic analysis, which they had provided as part of the PUD but did not supplement the land use amendment with a comprehensive long-term report so they did as requested. He advised they used the typical methodology of a comprehensive plan analysis with generalized capacity tables from the DOT and analyzed the impact of their development on area roadways and it clearly shows, from a generalized prospective, the links that will be impacted are adequate to accommodate that impact. Mr. Matthes stated the fifth request for information was regarding police, fire and schools was addressed. He advised that the response they got most often when they contacted everyone was that they had never been asked for that before and they needed time to get back to them with a response. He stated that the fire department stated their development is within their service area location to the fire station. He continued that they acknowledged that they would need to do more specific personnel analysis as part of the development application. He stated that unfortunately he had not received responses from the police department or the school district. He advised that the police department told him that they would be glad to provide that information as a part of the development respond to their request. He also stated that the school district just was not able to get the they did acknowledge that indeed through their impact fees they use that method to plan for the capital needs of their facilities. Mr. Matthes advised that the sixth request was for an additional analysis of recreational amenities. He stated there are specific requirements within the Comprehensive Plan, which they feel they meet all of, that you cannot create by expansion of the urban service area a deficit in mandatory facilities. He also stated that there is already a deficit in community parks in St. Lucie County at this time but that deficit is not caused by this project and you could argue that their P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 10 development would make it worse, however, they could argue that their payment of impact fees contributes to the resolution of the deficit. He advised that Lakewood Park is in that area and a population and those numbers are in the report and could accommodate the existing units and also for the vacant land within their service area and would still have extra capacity. He stated this demonstrates that even though the county may have a countywide deficit in community parks, the north county area does not currently within the service area of Lakewood Park. He continued that the recreational analysis is on page 18 of their staff report. They added an analysis of agricultural vacant lands and viability because there is a statement within the Comprehensive Plan that says expansion within the urban service area is not supposed to degrade the ability of other lands outside of the urban service area from continuing to operate with agricultural purposes. He stated that the development of their site in no way would impose any conditions or restrictions on neighboring properties from being able to be used for agricultural purposes. He also stated that advised that they have obtained copies of the Master Plan from the Utilities Department and provided excerpts of their maps and tables within their report, which clearly shows that a main line will be extended to the I-95 interchange area within 2005 to serve that urban area. He stated there would be utilities available by the time they need them and they fully meet the timing of that requirement also. He also stated that this is a smart, timely planning task to bring this property in now instead of waiting two years and coming to the same conclusion at that time because the utilities, parks, fire and everything are in place. He stated that in his opinion this is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in all aspects. ates to utilities was related to the ambiguous language of policies that would allow development of an urban nature without utilities and that was their main objection. He also stated that in his review of the ORC report was that they did not think we were protecting the urban service area enough because the policies that required urban services was not strict enough to be only within the urban service area. He advised that their plan is not going against that because they will have urban facilities of al Mr. Trias stated that the applicant had mentioned several times that they had prepared a site-plan and wanted to know if they had it tonight and could show the members. Mr. Matthes distributed copies of the site-plan to each member for their review. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Matthes had mentioned that urban service utilities would be atthes questioned if that date was based on a cost feasible plan or just based on a master plan which desires to provide services by that date. Mr. Matthes stated that he could not answer that question because he personally did not review the program. Mr. Earl Masteller, of Masteller & Moler stated they are the engineers on the project. He stated they have been working on this project from the beginning and are familiar with the water and sewer situation. He advised that they are under continuing contact with the County Utilities Department and understands that Mr. Blazak wants to get the water and sewer extended out Indrio Road. He stated as far as the funding of those lines, they are both sized to be twelve inch and this project would basically pay for those lines out to it in the form of impact fees. He advised that several months ago the utilities department contracted with a consultant to do a study of the north county area with regards to sewer and water for that area. He stated that study is moving forward and it is ironic that there is conflict within the county where an Urban Service Boundary that is not permitting projects to be developed that are going to be served by a sewer P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 11 system that is now being sized in the study to serve. He continued that there is money being spent on this study and that the sewers are going to be put out in the north county area and the Urban Service Boundary will have to be adjusted to accommodate the development to make the sewer viable. Mr. Lloyd Moody stated he was the developer and it was his intention to create a project that would be a credit to St. Lucie County as well as himself. He also stated that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Kelly have been very cooperative with them over the period of time they have been working with them and they have enjoyed it. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jeff Furst, Property Appraiser for St. Lucie County stated he has had the pleasure of dealing with the real estate business in St. Lucie County since 1970 and can say that in that time he has only met a few visionary developers who have both the means and the vision to do something outstanding. Mr. Johnson from Lakeport, Mr. Thomas White from the Peacock Ranch and the ryone that when they created that interchange that become so valuable because of the development within the near future that would increase their property values by the development of that road. He stated that they called the interchange a prime location and then showed all the development that would spread from the interstate all the way east to the Indian River. He advised that they were correct because if you ride that corridor starting at Gatlin and come up to St. Lucie West, Okeechobee Road and Orange Avenue, other than Indrio, that is what has happened. He stated that everyone has known for a long time that everything east of I-95 will be developed in some form or fashion and that has been the history of it. He said that if the Comprehensive Plan has lagged and if the Urban Service Boundary is not time to figure out what we know all over Florida, it is going to happen. He continued that his dilemma as the Property Appraiser is being faced with an increasing amount of requests from the State for recognition of properties that are no longer justifiable for agricultural purposes and to remove the exemptions. He stated that they clearly recognize that most of the properties within the corridors east of those interstates are unlikely to be agricultural in nature. It is very difficult to justify a keeping a property for agricultural use. He advised that they are, in effect, telling us that we really need to recognize what the land use and future plans are going to be, what the values are, get the exemptions off and tax them. He stated it is exceedingly difficult when Staff says there is no real urgency, but there is an urgency because there are members of the community that have gone bankrupt. He advised that he is faced with having to decide on pulling their exemptions or not on the assumptions that something is going to be done out there other than agricultural. He also stated that if the County truly believes the areas should be converted back to agricultural then they need to be able to have aerial applicators out along that corridor. He continued that he feels we cannot keep doing anything and something needs to be decided one way or the other and he cannot keep extending exemptions when there is no decision. He stated that from a valuing and exemption stand points they are in a dilemma and this means large amounts of money to these people who own land out there and have no alternatives. He stated that he feels there really needs to be a decision and he has no problem either way but he needs to know for sure which way the County is going to go. He also stated that t is not as dire as many others that he has seen, but the lack of decision of direction is causing havoc in those areas east of I-95. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 12 Mr. Akins asked Mr. Furst why are we doing a piecemeal consideration of the Urban Service Boundary or are we getting into spot changing. Mr. Furst stated that he believes there was a real and that at the rate it was developing they needed a central water and sewer system. He also stated that a lot of the reason they had to piecemeal and do some of the things they did in the original development was because there was no infrastructure or a plan for one at the time. He advised there is a fairly large sized development on the western side of I- there or if it made sense to do or not. He said that he is not submitting that tomorrow the urban service district should be taken to I-95 the length of the County because there are clearly areas it Mr. Grande stated that philosophically he agreed with Mr. Furst but found that the focus needs to be on this specific applicant and he thinks the applicant is saying that their engineers have a better handle on when the county provided infrastructure is going to reach their area than the County does. He stated that he has a problem with that and he thinks that the developer is saying that their impact fees and the development of less than two units per acre is going to more than pay for the infrastructure that they are going to require outside of the urban service area. He also stated that he believes that the situations and problems that occurred in the past were because of statements like that and that citizens who sat on these types of boards believed them because it made sense in theory. He continued that there is a real danger here if they move faster than Staff has requested because there are two alternatives. He stated they could either recognize the problem and in a planned and controlled fashion move the Urban Service Boundary to where it should be moved based on what they see coming in five or six years and prepare for it. He advised that the other alternative would be to take the reports that they get and do them one at a this application should be reviewed, as a whole, based on where the County is now through its Staff and where they are planning to go within the next twelve months. He also stated that a three, four or five month delay is not a game breaker and when you consider that the developer understood that he was purchasing land outside of the Urban Service Boundary and chose to buy it anyway. Mr. Furst stated that he has no difficulty with a decision being made within a time certain. He continued that his concern is if two years from now there is still only discussion and no finalized decision or plan. Mr. Trias stated that the issue of the Urban Service Boundary has been discussed for quite a long time throughout many counties and that St. Lucie County can review what they have done or d that he believes that other counties would agree that most of the area east of I- question is how and what type of developments are we going to have and are the developments going to enhance our tax base. He continued that he feels those are the issues that we should be discussing and he would prefer not to talk about so many technical issues of the DCA and it is more important to discuss whether or not this type of development is what is best for the community. He stated that he would like to ask Mr. Furst if he believes residential projects pay for themselves. Mr. Furst stated that he believes that in this county it usually takes a home cost of about $107,000 to pay for itself in the community. Mr. Merritt asked what the tax rate was in comparison to Martin and Indian River County. Mr. rising better than the other counties in relation to the need and thinks the millage rate will be very close. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 13 Mr. Lounds stated there is a very large golf course on this project and questioned if there is any rule of thumb that the appraisers office uses with regards to the value of that type of community. Mr. Furst stated that developers use golf courses as a draw and the draw usually is that they can get more money for a smaller piece of property and put a bigger house on it than they could without the golf course. He advised that in most cases golf course properties are generally more valuable. He stated that may not be true in every case, but he could not think of any case in this county. He also stated that they are not put in because they provide a public service, it is property in this project, would they figure the golf course as proportionate to each lot or separate the two. Mr. Furst stated it would enhance the value of all of the lots. He continued that he feels the County really needs to take a direction one way or the other because these types of problems have been going on for too long. Mr. Hearn stated that this project is in the part of the county where he lives and he would like to see a project of this nature built in that area. He also stated that it could set a precedent for future development but he has two problems with it. He advised that the first problem is that there would be homes adjacent to agricultural land and if the property owner to the west decides to put in a hog farm this could cause major problems for those living in the development. He stated that the second problem is Indrio Road and how narrow it is and the amount of traffic on it. He also stated that the intersection of Johnson and Indrio Road has been the scene of many accidents and if this development is approved, there needs to be improvements made to that intersection. Chairman Matthes stated that he agrees with Mr. Hearn but believes that would be something to consider and review later in the process, not at this time. Mr. Hearn advised that issue would tend condition an Urban Service Boundary change or a Future Land Use Change. Ms. Young stated that was correct because they are not conditional issues. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that they did do traffic reports with their PUD and it specifically identifies numerous off site intersection modifications to address both safety and capacity issues. He continued that these issues are all address within the traffic report and would be the responsibility of the applicant. He also stated that he agrees with the Chairman and that information would be submitted with their PUD request. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Matthes if he believed this type of a development with one entrance and a large cul-de-sac as a general form of development in that area will cause any traffic problems. Mr. Mark Matthes stated there are two entrances but generally speaking that this type of plan most desirable method. He continued that he believes in the many small roads concept because they usually have slower speeds and better safety records and so forth. He also stated that not all developments will be the same and cannot expect to have a typical pattern. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Matthes if the plan they presented is the best plan and layout they could come up with. Mr. Mark question. He also stated that they are not here to speak about the PUD today and would rather just discuss the Urban Service Boundary issues. Mr. Grande stated the project is moving along and if this request was not approved on the basis of moving forward. He continued that there is still a lot for them to do before they would have to come to a halt because of the County. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that he disagrees and they have P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 14 already submitted a complete PUD application that the County is waiting to review until these issues are resolved. He also stated that they could time the approval of the PUD so that it could be heard very soon after a potential approval of the land use amendment. He advised that he feels they are in a holding pattern right now and until they know if their request is moving forward potential fallbacks and their development is only 1.6 units per acre, which is less than the two units per acre requirement. He stated that they want and require urban facilities for this development and according to the Comprehensive Plan urban service area development must be two units per acre and higher. He also stated that since they are less than two units per acre, they could move forward without the expansion of the Urban Service Boundary with an approval of a Residential Suburban land use classification. He advised that would not change their plan at all and they would do it under Residential Suburban land use classification instead of Residential Urban because it would avoid the discussion of moving the primary Urban Service Boundary. He stated that their support for Residential Urban is easily translatable to a Residential Suburban request. He also stated that if they find that they cannot move forward with their request for Residential Urban and the change in Urban Service Boundary they do have the fallback of requesting Residential Suburban land use. he request already to change to Residential Matthes stated that they are offering that for discussion now. He also stated that they believe all of their analysis to date and it never came across their minds until very recently. Mr. Lounds asked Staff what the differences are between their original request for Residential Urban and the change proposed of Residential Suburban. Mr. Kelly stated that Residential Urban allows up to five dwelling units per acre and would take a change to the Urban Service Boundary. He also stated that Residential Suburban is allowed outside of the Urban Service Boundary and would allow up to two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Matthes if they are proposing less than two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Matthes stated that their request tonight is only about the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Urban Service Boundary change. He advised that their PUD application has been submitted to the County that does have less than two units per gross acre. Mr. Lounds questioned how many units per acre they were planning. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that it is approximately 1.7 gross dwelling units per acre. He stated that for larger lot suburban developments in a rural area. He advised that their reasoning for requesting Residential Urban is because their development is smaller and more urban than suburban but due to the math and the design they come below the two units per acre. He stated that had they came up with 2.1 units per acre, they would have been stuck at Urban even though they are just slightly over the cap for Suburban. Mr. Grande confirmed that they are asking for a change in the Urban Service Boundary but Staff and their attorney are not in total agreement about if that should be done. He stated that they have reached a point where they do know what they want to develop here and just demonstrated He advised that the Residential Suburban and PUD could all be done outside of the Urban Service Boundary and Urban Service Boundary change. He stated that he feels there is a pattern here and they are reviewing the wrong application. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that the application for the site stands P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 15 as submitted but they would accept as a compromise a Residential Suburban recommendation to keep this project moving forward. Mr. Grande stated he appreciates their willingness to do that but on the other hand it would be easier to just reject the Urban Service Boundary change and ask the applicant to come back with a zoning change and PUD at the same time. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that unfortunately Residential Suburban is also a land use amendment and they would not like to have to expose themselves to the time penalty of starting the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle all over again when this application could just be amended. He also stated that the LPA and County Commission always have the right to approve something that is less dense than requested. He stated that denial of the Urban Service Boundary would not have any affect on a request for Residential Suburban land use classification. Mr. Grande stated if they deny the Urban Service Boundary and review the second application for a change in future land use as a Residential Suburban instead of Residential Urban. Mr. Matthes stated that they would want to review with Staff and the County Attorney to understand their time penalty for the EAR based amendment complication. Mr. Merritt stated that if they remember when they reviewed the Comprehensive Plan he asked if our Urban Service Boundary matched up with Indian River County and was told it did at the time rd and it does not. He stated their Urban Service Boundary is from 43 avenue (Johnson Road) and allows three units per acre but our Urban Service Boundary swerves around like a snake. He also stated that common sense should tell you that the Urban Service Boundary is going to move and all they are doing by delaying this is costing the applicant more money. Mr. Grande stated that he did not suggest delaying their applications in any way. He advised that if they deny this request for a change to the Urban Service Boundary because they feel it is a spot change request and then they approve the second application with a change to the land use they are asking for, they would come back next with a PUD change request and plan. He stated that it will take no more time and perhaps less time than approving the Urban Service Boundary change and in no way would that be a time delay for them. Mr. Mark Matthes stated he does believe Mr. . Mr. Trias stated that he suspects that part of the reason they were requesting the Urban Service Boundary change is that a project of this magnitude is outside of the Urban Service Boundary it could be challenged as being sprawl and could be a problem later on. Mr. Grande stated that he views that from exactly the opposite perspective because the project should be able to stand on its own merits and is too far out for the supporting services it probably should fail. Mr. Trias stated he would be more comfortable if Mr. Matthes, being a professional land planner, would explain that they would need to look at the long-term vision of their request for Residential Urban and the urban uses expand all the way to I-95 and then transition at that point to the agricultural and rural areas. He also stated that the second vision could be that they create a very nice mixed use node at I-95, which is what the land use is, and from there transition out to different uses. He advised that is what they may end up with around their area and in that gap in the Urban Service Boundary is the suburban land uses, which separate the eastern urban uses from the mixed-use node at I-95. He continued that either of those visions are valid planning visions but there is a different answer for each request. He advised that he thinks suburban is a transition land use from urban. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Moody if he would be willing to withdraw the application for the Urban Service Boundary change and move forward with the second application tonight. Mr. Moody stated he would not have a problem with that. He also stated that the regulation is not a 100% P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 16 clear on some things and the reason they requested the Urban Service Boundary change was that they felt it was clearer what they would be able to do. He stated there were some questions about advised that there were also questions about the size of the lots. He stated even though they are allowed two units per acre, what size does the lot have to be. Mr. Grande stated he believes that their engineer answered the first question by telling them that he knew when the services would be in their area. Mr. Moody stated that originally they thought the regulation read that the source could not be extended beyond the Urban Service Boundary and they were not in that area so they could not get sewers there. He also stated that they found out recently that it is probably possible to extend the sewers even though it is not within the Urban Service Boundary. He advised that Mr. Kelly might be able to confirm that information. Mr. Grande stated that he would like Mr. Matthes to address the sewer issue since he stated earlier in their presentation that he knew all of the specifics. Mr. Moody stated that the question is that even though they are going to be run out there, do they need to change the Urban Service Boundary to run the sewers into that district Mr. Lounds confirmed that they are being asked to make two decisions this evening. Chairman Matthes confirmed that was correc project at all and that portion of the county needs this type of development and is a prime area to help balance the developments in St. Lucie County. He also stated that it helps to develop the utilities and services in an area that is truly going to move. He advised that his problem is not with the development itself but with the motion to readjust the urban service line without due cause from the study group that has been asked to do. He also stated that if they change their request to Residential Suburban; he has no problem with that at all. Mr. Moody stated they would change their request as suggested. Mr. Lounds stated that he believes that by 2005 these issues should have been discusse comments were right on target and this county has some important decisions to make that need to be done quickly and precisely. Mr. Kelly stated that he has spoken with Mr. Matthes and if they wish to move towards the compromise that Mr. Grande had outlined, there is an alternate and safer way for the developer to approach that. Mr. Kelly advised that staff wants to do some research about whether projects outside of the Urban Service Boundary can have utilities and some various other items. He also stated that he is recommending that they recommend denial of the Urban Service Boundary change and to recommend instead approval of Residential Suburban. He stated that would leave the Urban Service Boundary change request on the table for the County Commission should they find that there might be problems with getting utilities out into that area. He continued that if they withdraw the application, they are done with the County Commission. Mr. Grande stated that is exactly what he was considering. Mr. Matthes stated that they are in support of motions to that nature. Mr. Merritt stated that his reason for voting for this Urban Service Boundary change was to make sure it went before the County Commission to get them to move because there are going to be more requests like this in the future. He also stated that he feels the Commissioners idea of spending $40,000 to do a study with regards to moving the Urban Service Boundary is not good common sense. He advised that he wanted to send it forward with a recommendation of approval to send a message to them. the Board of County Commissioners guidelines and some feeling from the Planning Commission, P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 17 Board of County Commissioners clearly needs to get the study and get moving on this. Mr. Trias stated that he tends to agree with Mr. Merritt on this issue and thinks that the Urban Service Boundary should be more reasonably defined in the future. He stated that he does believe they need better land development guidelines and his objection is to layout of the development. He advised that would affect what happens in the future and the trend that we are setting. He stated that his recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners would be to start looking at the design and development issues more seriously because otherwise we know exactly what is going to happen. Mr. Akins stated that he agrees and supports the project because he feels it is a quality project. e Boundary is going to affect the fact that there is money that is going to be spent on the study. He other money to be spent on that study because that process is already ongoing. He advised that he feels they need to address the issue here tonight. minutes detailing virtually everything that was heard here tonight. He advised that the philosophies that have been stated in terms of the Urban Service Boundary question being moved quickly will be reflected in the minutes and will be read by the Board of County Commissioners. He stated to Mr. Trias that this would be two separate items and then his issues could be discussed with the second application instead of now. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Lin Indrio Inc., for an amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to extend the Urban Service Boundary, because we have found this evening that request is totally unnecessary and everything else will occur in the next hearing on the subsequent application. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-2 (with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Lounds voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-002 Future Land Use Change: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were both the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. He also stated that they were listed on the original agenda in the wrong order because the Urban Service Line would have to be moved before the Future Land Use Change could be done. He also stated that since these two items are from the same petitioner and are closely related the presentation for the previous item should be considered for this item. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve the application of Lin Indrio Inc., for a Change to the Future Land Use Designation from RE (Residential Estate) to RS (Residential Suburban), because it apparently is the best way to resolve the issue before us tonight. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with further discussion. -alone application. Mr. Trias stated that his comments would really be more appropriate for a PUD review and right now they are only reviewing a land use change. He also stated that he feels this is the fundamental problem with the process because they are dealing with everything in little pieces and by the time they get to the end it is too late to look at the big picture. He advised that sometimes when he makes comments that deal with planning and design people look at him like he is not making sense. He stated that this type of development that has one big cul-de-sac going out to one road is not a good way to develop based on their experiences with development in counties that have done this. He also stated that in his view to do this type of development, which is completely disjoin not require review from Staff or any other review boards. He stated these types of developments are going to happen because the market is enough to make many of these things happen. He advised that the value that any of them may bring to the table is to try to put it all together. He continued that right now there is no process that he knows of that asks for that discussion to happen, which forces them to review each part of the project individually. He advised that they do not deal with any kind of comprehensive vision for this area and until they do projects like this will be all developed like this and having nothing left to do. Mr. Grande questioned what Mr. Trias said and asked if the relationship between the land use change and the PUD, which will follow, would the process be better served if the land use change were being voted on at the same time with the PUD. Mr. Trias stated he does believe that would be more helpful. Mr. Grande stated that had this been submitted without a request for an Urban Service Boundary change but with the land use change and a PUD plan request, they would be in a position to do the best job possible. Mr. Trias stated he agrees. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Moody if it would be a problem for him to come back with the land use change application at the same time as the PUD request, which from prior testimony sounds like it is virtually ready. Mr. Moody stated it would be a major problem because they would have to spend all that money up front without knowing if the land use change would be approved. He P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 19 continued that even though they have already done a lot of work, there is still a lot more expenses that have to be spent to finalize the plans for the PUD. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Moody if he would feel more comfortable waiting to spend that money if they had the Residential Suburban land use change already approved. Mr. Moody confirmed that was correct. Mr. Merritt asked that everyone use their common sense. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 20 AGENDA ITEM 4: EMILIO MARTINEZ - FILE NO. RZ-02-012: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of Emilio Martinezfor a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District for 1.08 acres of property located on the East side of the Turnpike Feeder Road, approximately 300 feet north of Palomar Parkway. He continued that the stated purpose for the rezoning is to develop the property into a dental office. He also stated that the surrounding zoning is CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) to the South, north, and west with RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family 5 du/acre) to the east. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Matthes requested that a letter from the Bel-Aire Estates Homeowners Association be re th June 8, 2002 concerning the rezoning of property within 500 feet of 5106 Turnpike Feeder Road. On behalf of the Bel-Aire Community Hall located at 325 Pandora Avenue, we have no objection to the rezoning of 5106 Turnpike Feeder Road from Commercial, Neighborhood to Commercial, Office by Dr. Emilio Martinez. Respectfully submitted, Diane E. Shaw, President, Bel- Chairman Matthes questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. Emilio Martinez came forward and stated that he was the petitioner for this application and thanked the Commission for considering his petition. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes 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 11.06.03, 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 Emilio Martinez, for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District because it fits in with the existing land use. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 21 AGENDA ITEM 5: EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC. - FILE NO. CU-02-006: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow social services (educational services and facility) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for property located at 3950 Juanita Avenue. He continued that the surrounding zoning is RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) to the south and east, I (Institutional) zoning directly east and further east and RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning to the west. He also stated that IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning is located to the north and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning is located to the northwest. He continued that the applicant has applied for the requested conditional use in order to establish an educational facility for a maximum of 200 students for a religious school. A church facility is currently located on the subject property. The applicant is proposing the addition of two new 4,320 square foot classroom buildings. Educational Services and Facilities are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to two limiting conditions. 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 200. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 A.M to 6 P.M., Monday through Friday. Mr. Grande questioned if there is an entrance already existing off of Juanita Avenue or is a new entrance going to be constructed. Mr. Flores stated that there is currently an existing entrance with parking in place at this time. Mr. Grande asked why the difference of solid and dotted lines on the site plans. He continued that on the site plan there is a parking area to the right of the existing sanctuary in solid lines and then on the left it shows dotted lines for an additional parking area. He questioned if the parking west of the sanctuary exist today and Mr. Flores stated that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that the aerial photograph provided in their packets shows the existing parking more clearly. Chairman Merritt asked if the petitioner or their representative were present. Mr. David Phillips from Culpepper & Terpening stated they would be representing the applicant. He also stated that this project was originally developed back in 1990 and the dotted lines on the site plan originally represented the grass stabilized parking areas. He continued that as part of the development, they tried to locate the two modular buildings on the corner, and the existing grass parking would be moved towards the south property line. He stated that the applicant is looking to open the educational facilities in mid-August 2002 and are trying to obtain an expedient schedule. He also stated that they have had pre-application meetings with the SFWMD, as well as the local FPUA and DEP. He advised that everything has been submitted for approval and are waiting on the permits. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. o remain but Mr. Phillips just advised that it is grass parking. Mr. Phillips stated that right now there are portions of the project that have paved parking and driveways and the grass parking that currently exists P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 22 wraps around the east side of the project and continues around the north side. He advised that everything shown within the solid lines is paved parking. Mr. Hearn then asked Staff if the grass parking area is acceptable. Mr. Flores stated that it is acceptable with church facilities and they based parking on the sanctuary area, which allows them up to 75% in grass parking. Chairman Merritt opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Charles Hendly stated he is a member of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association and stated he has a concern because the staff report shows daycare and pre-school facility but they are proposing a school. Mr. Flores advised that was an error in the report but was advertised for educational facilities and services. Chairman Merritt questioned the hours of operation listed at 5:00 P.M in condition #2 because they might need later hours for after hour activities. Mr. Hendly stated that he believes they changed the hours to 6 P.M. because most individuals get done work at 5 P.M. and this would allow them time to pick up their children. Mr. Flores stated that in his presentation he confirmed the new time of 6 P.M. instead of 5 P.M. Chairman Merritt questioned why a school was being restricted to a closing of 6 P.M. because they might want to have activities at 7 or 8 P.M. at night. Mr. Flores stated that in review of their applications they had stated that the church services and school operations would not be operating at the same time. Mr. Hendly stated they would accept that because usually there is not any church service at night and they were mainly concerned with having sufficient hours to allow time for parents to pick up their children. Ms. Pinky Hendly stated that they had listed their hours of operation but would certainly have activities from time to time past the closing time of 6:00 P.M. She advised that would not conflict with the church services and stated she did not want the time limited to 5:30 P.M. She also stated that they were planning on having activities at the facility on a limited basis. Chairman Merritt questioned if Ms. Hendly was stating that they need additional hours at certain times and she confirmed that they would indeed need additional hours at certain times. Chairman Merritt questioned Staff if this would be a problem. Mr. Kelly stated that they do not have a problem with that and that the sanctuary could be used because there are no limits on the hours for the sanctuary. He also stated that they were not intending to limit the actual use of the classroom building in the e Merritt stated he could see setting times for a daycare but since this is a school it should be a different situation. Mr. Kelly stated that if the Commission wished to change the conditions Staff would not have any objection. Mr. Lounds stated he would not have any problem extending hours to a school that is associated with a religious facility. He also stated that any time a church wants to extend their teachings to education and provi seeing them having children at the school at 7 or 8:00 P.M. doing something productive with their time. He questioned if there was any feedback from those on Jo Haywood Drive. Ms. Hendly stated that they have not spoken to them directly and has not heard any comments at all from anyone in that area. Mr. Lounds stated that sometimes those who live right next door to a school become concerned with noise and things. Ms. Hendly stated that their actual school day ends at 3:00 P.M. and will allow three hours for aftercare to allow time for parents to pick-up their children. Mr. Lounds stated he has no problem with extending the time so that it best suits the applicant and would best benefit their plans. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to assure Mr. Lounds that those on Jo Haywood Drive have been notified via the mailing and the signs. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the Public Hearing. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 23 Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District because it is going to be a quality extension of their church services, it seems to fit into the community, and there are no residents here in objection to it , with the following conditions: 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 200. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias. 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 June 20, 2002 Page 24 AGENDA ITEM 6: ORDINANCE 02-015 Amend Land Development Code (Architectural Standards & Non Conforming Lots): th Mr. Hearn stated that due to the hour he would like to continue this item again until the July 18 meeting. Ms. Young stated that if they wish to make a motion to continue again, they do need to open the public hearing and hear any testimony and then once closed make that motion. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Rob Russell stated that he has been trying for almost three years to get a permit to build a th house on the lot he purchased. He also stated that he was in attendance at the previous June 20 meeting but did not speak and that was continued. He advised that he is in real need of help with his matter and would hope that they would not continue this item again. Mr. Hearn stated that he wanted his motion to continue the portion of the ordinance that related to architectural standards and would like to resolve the non-conforming lot issues tonight. Chairman Matthes questioned if that could be done since both items were originally presented as one ordinance. Ms. Young stated that it is one ordinance and they could discuss the portion that relates to non-conforming lots but they would have to make a motion with regards to the ordinance as a whole. She continued that since it is one ordinance, they would not be able to just vote on half of it. Mr. Hearn questioned if they have to give a yes or no on the whole ordinance or could they give two separate recommendations on each subject. Ms. Young stated their motion could indicate that they are making an overall recommendation for the ordinance as a whole, but add that they are in support of one part or the other. Chairman Matthes asked if they could recommend that the architectural portion be broken out of this ordinance and have it re- presented under a separate number. Ms. Young stated that they could recommend that it be done that way. Mr. Grande stated that this point came up last month and that they would really not like to have ordinances that cover multiple, separate categories under one number and would not like this to happen again. He continued that ordinances should be single topics only and would like some justification as to why they are lumping together different subjects. Ms. Young stated that they should make a recommendation for approval or denial of the ordinance as a whole, but then include in the recommendation that they would like the architectural portion separated. She continued that it would go to the Board as presently drafted unless directed differently by the Commission. Mr. Kelly stated that the LPA could recommend that they would like to have it separated when it goes to the Board. Chairman Matthes questioned if they could request all reference with regards to architectural standards be deleted and then leave the rest of this ordinance as it is with regards to non-conforming lots but bring back the architectural portion under a separate number. Ms. Young stated they could recommend that if that it what they want. Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager stated that Agenda Item # 6 was continued from the June th 20 Code. He stated that he was going to use St. Lucie Gardens as an example to show a pattern of lots that has a row of easements for access alternating on the property lines. He advised that several years ago this was reviewed and they decided that it was not a good idea to continue to allow lots of development on easements where the county would not be able to provide roads and could cause service issues. 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 P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 25 they had been approached about situations 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 also stated that this amendment would eliminate the contiguous lot prohibition. He continued that, if approved, a series of lots under common ownership 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. Trias asked how this would be solved. Mr. Kelly stated that by changing the language in the Land Development Code to take out all of paragraph 2 and some of the language in paragraph 1 common sense in the way the current code is written. Mr. Kelly stated that is why they are trying to correct some of these issues with this change. Mr. Grande stated that if they were public roads instead of private easements, then it would not be an issue. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. th Mr. Hearn questioned the wording in the first paragraph, around the 18 line, about a variance from yard dimensions and if it meant the distance that a house has to be from a side yard. Mr. Kelly stated that it is pointing out that any variances that may be needed have to be acquired from Kelly stated it is discussing those areas other than area, width, or frontage. Mr. Hearn stated that correct. Mr. Rob Russell stated that he is in this situation because he bought a lot from someone in St. Lucie Gardens who had owned lots that were contiguous. He continued that he received a letter from Ms. Linda Pendarvis of the Public Works Department that stated they determined his property does not meet the criteria for a non-conforming lot of record and lacks the required road frontage for AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) zoning. He stated that his lot is off of Tilton Road, which is east of U.S. 1 off of Dyer Road. He continued that the man who sold him the lot had purchased three separate lots at three separate times but since the one he purchased was contiguous it became unbuildable. He questioned why they are considered to be one lot when they were each purchased at separate times and they pay three different property taxes for each individual property. He also stated that there are homes to the right and left of his and they corner of Tilton Road and has spoken with Commissioner Bruhn about these issues. Chairman Matthes questioned if this proposed change would so advised that it is his understanding that it would. Mr. Merritt questioned if by changing this they would be creating more problems. Mr. Kelly t it would resolve many of the problems that have come from the original change. Mr. Hearn stated that he ran into a situation where he sold a lot but previously the same man owned two contiguous lots, the lot he sold was not considered to be buildable. Mr. Russell stated that is the same type of situation he is in today problem has arisen because Meehan Lane (which is now Tilton Road) is a private road. Mr. Kelly confirmed that is correct and if it were a county or public road, in general, this would not be an issue. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Russell if he was planning on building a home on that lot. Mr. Russell P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 26 stated that he had been approved to build a home, using the lot as collateral, almost three years ago, but was denied when he came in to request his building permit. He continued that he had his lot prepped to be built on at that time but has been fighting ever since to get a permit to build. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the wording in - Conforming Lots and also to delete all sections regarding creating Section 7.10.24, Interim Architectural Standards and have those resubmitted under a separate ordinance number. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. 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 June 20, 2002 Page 27 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be July 18, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hearn made a motion to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 28