Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 08-29-2002 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes SPECIAL MEETING August 29, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Akins, Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Jones, Mr. Hearn (Absent - With Notice); Mr. Trias (Absent Without Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director stated that Agenda Item # 3, Ordinance 02-027, which deals with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the West Chester DRI, has been withdrawn. He continued that we received a written request today to have their application withdrawn at the present time so that they could make revisions and upon submittal of the revised application it would be rescheduled at that point in time. He also stated that once the new application and submitted and a date has been set a new advertisement and mailing will be done then. 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 Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: ORDINANCE 02-020 Clarification on Enforcement Proceedings for Violations of Section 7.10.12 Scrap, Waste & Recycling Operations: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments stated that Agenda Item # 1 was Ordinance 02- ons regarding scrap, waste, recycling operations and more specifically those operations involved in the collection of yard waste for recycling purposes. He advised that they are proposing to amend paragraph 15 and add new paragraphs 16 and 17 to clarify what the enforcement process is and who the enforcement authority is for these particular sections. He continued that currently the enforcement authority is the Environment Control Hearing Board and that under the current structures the more efficient way of enforcement would be through the Code Enforcement Board. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 02-020 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Matthes questioned if there would be an increase in manpower if this ordinance were approved. Mr. Murphy explained there would not be an increase and that they felt there was enough personnel to handle these issues as well. Mr. Lounds questioned Section 7.10.12 (A) (1) and where it specifically stated non-ferrous metals and asked if that is what are acceptable or unacceptable materials. Mr. Murphy explained that is what is acceptable under a scrap and waste operation in the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning. He also stated that there were no changes to that portion of the code, as it already exists. Mr. Lounds questioned why they would not be allowed to collect ferrous metals at these types of operations. Mr. Murphy stated that is not allowed under the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District. Mr. Lounds stated he was concerned that Code Enforcement would not have the ability to enforce these issues with the code, as it currently is to prevent problems that have existed in the past. Mr. Murphy stated that he believed that Code Enforcement did feel they would have the ability to enforce these issues based on the rules and regulations of the code, as it is. He also stated that the reason they were looking to make this change was to allow Code Enforcement to enforce these issues and also give the County the opportunity to bring it to the judicial level if the violations are not corrected. Mr. Lounds stated that he was hoping to see the ability to have the offenses considered misdemeanors. Ms. Young stated that currently most code violations are considered to be misdemeanors. Mr. Merritt stated he would like to see something incorporated that gave them three strikes and complaints they would have the ability to pursue it further. Ms. Young stated there are provisions available where an injunction could be issued for consistent offenses to stop the activity. Mr. Lounds stated that was what he was looking for and is glad to see the injunction ability there. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt made a motion for approval of Draft Ordinance 02-020 as proposed. P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 3 Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 5-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE 02-025 C: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was Ordinance 02- 025, which would amend the County Land Development Code to provide for a limited use of parking of tow vehicles in residential areas that are on the call list for local law enforcement. He continued that recently the County Commission was approached by the local towing industry to have the code changed in a manner that would permit them to have their on-call operators be allowed to take their tow trucks home with them so that in the even that they are called out to respond to a law enforcement emergency, they could do so within their obligated response time frames. He advised that currently these operators are not allowed to bring their commercial grade vehicles home with them, and when they are on call they must either first go back to the towing compound or to another location where they keep their tow truck. He also stated that it was reported to the Board that having to use these off-site parking areas results in longer response times than what is ca enforcement agencies. He continued that this proposed ordinance would limit the size of the towing vehicle that may be parked in residential areas. He stated that under this new draft, a vehicle in a residential area and would be subject to the restrictions as listed in the draft classes would be considered to be a tow truck or car carrier, including flatbed slide back carriers with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds but less than 15,000 pounds and with a gross combination weight of 30,000 pounds but less than 80,000 pounds. Mr. Murphy stated that recently he had received some comments from the County Administrators Office regarding this that they would like to see included, which he had not had a chance to do yet. He advised that they would like to see a restriction added that the vehicles must be parked on a paved surface or driveway or something like that and something showing that there is a maximum of one commercial vehicle allowed per lot. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 02-025 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Akins questioned how they would enforce these issues. Mr. Murphy stated that when n the office it would be handled through 911. He continued that there would be a follow up the next day by the Code Enforcement Department to cite anyone violating this. He also stated that if they have one offense, they would be taken off the list and no longer would be allowed to park under this ordinance. Mr. Akins stated that he was concerned that there might be some sole proprietors on the list, which would mean they could park their vehicle there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Murphy said he w Mr. Merritt asked if this request was brought by the towing companies or by the law enforcement agencies. Mr. Murphy stated that it was his understanding that they both were requesting this and that the law enforcement have not had anything objections about this request. Mr. Grande stated that what he gets from reading the ordinance is that any owner/operator or P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 5 on him. He continued that tow trucks of any class are among the most unattractive commercial vehicles that could be parked in a residential neighborhood. He stated that the problem is when a driver lives too far away from where the vehicle is normally parked or stored to meet the contractual obligations. He advised that rather than parking these vehicles in a residential neighborhood the business should make arrangements with someplace nearby to store the vehicles. He stated that if we make this provision for them, what about the 24-hour locksmith, operators needed to degrade a residential neighborhood for their own convenience. He stated that this felt like they were doing this for one particular group like they did when they brought forth the ordinance with regards to non-conforming lots and was not for the good of the County as a whole. Mr. Merritt stated that he had mixed emotions about the ordinance because he spent a lot of time in law enforcement and only a few times in many years was a wrecker needed on an emergency basis. He advised that the only way he would vote for this was if it was a necessity on an emergency basis only. Chairman Matthes stated that is the problem and what they are trying to correct with this to allow that option to be there in case of an emergency. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Lewis Powell stated that he has been a resident of St. Lucie County for his entire life, 33 years, and is a third generation tow truck driver. He advised that the tow companies were not the stated that he understands their concerns about having these trucks in residential areas. He continued that the tow trucks of today have to pass the emission laws of California, which are stricter than any of our laws and have to be very quiet. He stated that these trucks have the same engines that are in an F-250 pickup truck or a 3/4-ton pickup. He also stated that within the past four months he was called to several emergencies where the victims where trapped in their vehicle and without prompt help they would have had to loose their limbs to get them out of the vehicle. He advised that they are give a twenty minute response time to meet anywhere in the ponse time. He stated that if they have to be delayed by driving to the yard to pick up their trucks it is subjecting the victims to more accidents. He also stated that it has been proven by DOT that 71% of secondary accidents are caused by on-lookers to the first accident and the time it takes to clean them up. He advised that there are no owner/operator tow companies on the rotation list because they require more than one vehicle as a back up. He stated that if you are unable to respond to a call you are given only three chances to respond or else you would be taken off the rotation for one year. Mr. Grande questioned if Mr. Powell was an owner or a driver. Mr. Powell stated that he is a driver and that the reason he felt this was important was because of the emergency situations involved with the rotation list. He also stated that he has had experiences where he has lost fellow drivers in the line of duty and that he wants to make sure that everyone is kept safe. He continued that he is not an ow concerned about the emergencies and the amount of time they need to respond safely. Mr. Merritt asked if the drivers would be paid by the hour or once the truck is put into service if they take them home to their residence. Mr. Powell stated they are paid only when the truck is put into service. Mr. Merritt questioned of all of the companies on the list operate that way. Mr. Powell stated generally that is the case. Mr. Merritt asked how many calls he usually goes on per P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 6 night. Mr. Powell stated that on the rotation it is approximately two or three per night depending on the situations. He also stated that the rotation is set up so that several companies are involved and it is fair to everyone on the list. He advised that it would not be feasible to hire anyone who lives next to the shop to drive the trucks efficiently. Mr. Merritt questioned that if this would apply to anyone who lives in the County and is on a rotation list for the City of Fort Pierce, City of PSL, or Florida Highway Patrol. Mr. Murphy stated that would not be correct and that this ordinance, as stated on page 4, paragraph A, only applies to those on the rotation list for the St. Chairman Matthes asked how many contractors were on the rotation list. Mr. Murphy stated that he did not have that information. Mr. Powell stated that there is nine companies on the rotation inance took away the rights of those in the residential community. He also stated that they are planning on putting stickers to identify the class of the tow trucks and to identify those on the rotation list to make it easier to spot violators for Code Enforcement and the local police departments. He advised that this ordinance would not apply to those who live in deed-restricted or gated communities. explained that each time there is an accident the next person on the list is called. He continued that once everyone on the list has been called, then they start over on the list again. Mr. Grande stated that if there were nine accidents on one night, then nine drivers would be called and each one would have their truck parked in a residential community. He questioned if these drivers would be asked to do any jobs that happened within city limits, especially if they live within the city. He continued that he felt twenty minutes was a reasonable requirement and that anything think this ordinance was the correct solution to the problem because this could result in many trucks parked in residential areas every single night of the week, not just a few once in a while. Mr. Powell stated that the trucks are already there and have been for quite some time. He advised that if someone complained then Code Enforcement more hours than the average worker and they are trying to bring everything into compliance to be more efficient. things that happens right now is that if these drivers cannot take their vehicles home then they just float around all night long rather than go home and get rested. He continued that it would be be a solution but th to serve the community, then why are the plumbers, mechanics and lawn care operators allowed to do it. the definition of a commercial vehicle and therefore are not in violation as the tow trucks are. Mr. Lounds stated that he thought that paragraph (C) (2) addressed the lawn care operators. Mr. Murphy stated he did not believe they would meet the definition of a commercial vehicle. Ms. Young stated that the section he was addressing was with relation to industrial equipment not necessarily the vehicle itself with the trailer having equipment on it. P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 7 Chairman Matthes stated that basically the definition of a commercial vehicle was 5 tons or greater. Mr. Murph there were very many vans or vehicles that would meet that gross weight. total gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or greater. He continued that most of the one-ton doolies that can be bought at a dealership qualify as a 10,000-g.v.w truck. Mr. Akins confirmed that the rotation contract requires at least two vehicles to be in service and Mr. Powell confirmed that would be correct. Mr. Akins stated that would mean that at least 18 tow trucks would be stored in residential areas on each night. Mr. Powell stated that would only apply to those drivers that were on call and when they we home and would be stored at the yards. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated that he felt this was an ordinance of convenience and that he was against more helpful if Staff could have used their imagination to come up with a better solution to this problem. He continued that this ordinance was just to try and solve a problem and would not be able to vote for this ordinance. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt everyone made valid points about some problems with the situation. He advised that in emergency situations we all want someone there in a timely fashion. He continued that for these drivers to have to go to a yard, unlock, and then come to the scene takes time and that time can become an issue. He also stated that there are many other vehicles throughout the County that are being overlooked and are nowhere near as necessary as these tow trucks are. He continued that if the County decides to not to allow this then they need to get Code Enforcement out to clean up the entire County and stop all of the violators. Mr. Merritt stated that the issue of the rotation was brought about due to past experiences with ambulance chasers. He advised that the rotation list was started to cut down on this and he something that is currently going on illegally. He advised that he does sympathize with the situations of the drivers and could support it if there were a way to add limiting language that the neighbors have no objections and give their written consent. He also stated that the main concern is protecting the surrounding property owners and yet still try to serve the interests of the business owners. Ms. Young stated that there is a provision in the ordinance that allows the neighbors the option to complain twice and then that truck could not park there anymore for a year. She continued that the provision was added because of a meeting with the tow truck drivers and they were willing to accept that. Mr. Akins questioned if the two complaints had to be about a specific violation and Ms. Young stated they did not. She advised that two complaints of any form would be cause to stop the driver from keeping the truck there. Chairman Matthes stated that this ordinance would be one of convenience and right now if they are doing it illegally neighbors can call Code Enforcement and have them cited. He continued that the issue of the complaints, he feels, would become a moot point. He also stated that at this point he tends to agree with the P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 8 views of Mr. Grande and Mr. Merritt against the ordinance. Mr. Grande stated that he feels that the provision really sets the ordinance up to fail and this would be creating a situation where we are challenging the neighbors to challenge each other. He they have legally recognized that quick response times are necessary. He also stated that he feels the operators need to structure their business in such a way that they can meet the time requirements Mr. Lounds stated that he too has problems with the ordinance the way that is written and that the operating company could provide facilities for the on-call staff to help avoid these problems. He stated that his main problem is that there are already other violations that Code Enforcement is Matthes stated that he didn operators but that some operators just wanted to see if they could legally park their trucks at their residences. Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval of Draft Ordinance 02-025. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Mr. Merritt stated that there is a gentleman who lives three houses down the street from him who has a 3/4-ton doolie with a diesel engine and he gets woken up every morning at 5 a.m. Mr. Grande stated that he was going to make the same comment as Mr. Merritt and that he they are in th residential area. Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 2-3 (Mr. Grande, Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against). Mr. Grande made a motion for denial of Draft Ordinance 02-025. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 3-2 (Mr. Lounds and Mr. Akins voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-027 West Chester DRI: Mr. Dennis Murphy stated that Agenda Item # 3 was Ordinance 02-027. He advised that the petitioner has requested that this ordinance be withdrawn at the current time and would be resubmitted at a later date. P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM 4: ORDINANCE 02-028 Interim Architectural Standards: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was Ordinance 02- 028, Interim Architectural Standards. He advised that the ordinance was last brought to them at the June 16, 2002 meeting in which they voted to separate these Draft regulations from Draft Ordinance 02-015 in order to provide additional time for the Board to consider the proposed amendments. He stated that this ordinance was being brought back to them in basically the same format as previously. He also stated that this ordinance proposes to establish Interim Community wide Architectural Standards that would apply to all areas of the unincorporated County as minimum criteria for all new construction or substantial expansion to existing buildings, structures, or building in areas zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood), CO (Commercial, Office), CG (Commercial, General), I (Institutional), RF (Religious Facilities), PUD (Planned Unit Development) (Commercial Components only), 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 are 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 are intended to serve as a short-term regulation until a broader set of community design criteria is developed. He stated that they anticipated that a broader review process would be conducted within the next twelve months. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 02-028 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. record was a good idea. He advised that he felt was in the best form and then they would review and send it forward with their recommendation. He continued that they had a lot of input on this ordinance the first time it was brought before them origin prohibition. He advised that he thought that the Commission had agreed that should not be included since reflective glass is beneficial and environmentally friendly. He continued that he that they will apply something. Mr. Murphy stated that if there were any items that they did not want to see on the list or changed he would be more than happy to pass those recommendations along to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Grande stated that he would like Staff to take the previous input from the Commission and then apply that to what they bring back before the Commission at a later date. Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. He stated that he feels that the previous input of the Planning and Zoning Commission was simply ignored. Mr. Murphy stated that he did not ignore their input and would be passing that information onto the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Merritt stated that he was interested in seeing some sort of architectural standards applied but Road Corridors are poised for tremendous growth over the next five to ten years. He advised that he thought Lakewood Park residents would like to have a voice in the architectural standards that P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 11 would be on their front door step. He also stated that White City would be upset because they would like to go back to the look o Mr. Murphy explained that the County is currently in the final phase of completing the final RFP th scope of work for the White City / Midway Road PD&E evaluations from U.S. 1 to 25 street. He stated that as part of that project they would be doing a specific architectural review of that corridor for the development of specific architectural standards along that corridor. He continued that once those are developed they would supercede the general County wide interim standards. He advised that once they are close to that point they would have extensive public input and comment. He continued that there are currently no similar conditions on Indrio Road but that is o establish some type of standards in the interim to address things that are being corporately presented. He also stated that currently with no standards they have to rely on the cooperation of the companies that are submitting their projects to abide by definitely a possibility because what works in some communities may not work in others because of area differences. Mr. Grande stated that he does not disagree with the concept but that there were a number of recommendations made by the Commission previously with regards to this ordinance, which should be applied before they are re-presented. Mr. Akins questioned how many times they had seen this ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that he believed that it went to them two or three times and nothing was ever finalized. Ms. Gilmore, recording secretary, explained that it was first brought to the Commission at the May 16, 2002 meeting and that is where they had their discussions about the particulars of the ordinance. She explained that there were no final recommendations made and that their only motion was to continue the ordinance to the June 20, 2002 meeting for further discussion. She continued that it was then again heard at the June meeting and their motion was to delete all of the sections from Draft Ordinance 02-015 regarding creating interim architectural standards and have the standards resubmitted under a separate ordinance number. Mr. Merritt stated that he had problems with passing this ordinance just to get something started because of those defined areas along the corridors that would be affected. He also stated that with their façade guidelines there would be some industrial areas there that would become expensive to develop. Mr. Murphy explained that these standards do not apply to industrial uses as stated on page three, paragraph A of the draft ordinance. Chairman Matthes questioned if it would be better to hold some small meetings in the communities to see what kind of input they receive with regards to architecture before passing this. Mr. Murphy stated that ultimately that is what they plan to do. Chairman Matthes stated that he felt that once they get that input it would probably cause them to have to throw out all of these interim standards. Mr. Murphy stated that it may or may not depending on the input that they receive from the specific areas. Mr. Merritt stated that he has never seen an ordinance that was passed be thrown out. Mr. Murphy explained that ordinances are not thrown out but they get amended quite often. Mr. Grande asked where their previous discussions with regards to this ordinance were reflected in the minutes. Ms. Gilmore explained that the original detailed discussion is reflected in the May 16, 2002 meeting minutes and their second discussion, which was to separate the ordinance from non-conforming lots, was detailed in the June 20, 2002 meeting minutes. Mr. Grande stated P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 12 that he felt this ordinance was fully discussed in the May meeting and that those discussions were not reflected in what was brought before them tonight. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt reconfirmed that if they forward a recommendation tonight Staff would go back afterward and revisit those specific areas for their input after the fact. Mr. Murphy stated that was what they were intending to do. Chairman Matthes questioned if this draft ordinance was basically patterned after the City of Port St. Lucie. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct and that the only thing was removed were some procedural issues that the city has, which are different from the County. He also stated that they were seeking voluntary compliance to these standards from the developers but without an ordinance they would not be able to force them to comply if they chose to be defiant. Chairman Matthes asked if he was present at the May meeting when they had discussion with regards to these issues. Ms. Gilmore explained that both he and Mr. Trias were not present for those discussions either and questioned if he was present. Ms. Gilmore explained that he was present at the May meeting. Mr. Lounds stated that paragraph A on page 5 of the standards discusses prohibited façade features and materials and specifies plastic siding, plastic laminates. He questioned if that eliminated all use of vinyl siding. Mr. Murphy stated that would be correct. Mr. Lounds stated building. Mr. Murphy explained that these standards would apply to commercial projects only. Mr. Lounds stated that he also questioned the wording of irregular modernistic window shapes Mr. Merritt stated that colors change with the times and trends and wanted to know if the preferred color chart would be revised every five years to accommodate that. Mr. Murphy stated that he agreed that colors do change but that as in all of the regulations they would have to be looked at later in time to see if they need to be amended then. Chairman Matthes stated that he believed this ordinance works for the City of Port St. Lucie get more into more area specific guidelines then he would need a specific recommendation from them to take to the Board of County Commissioners for their review. may work wel revise it based on their input from the minutes so that it could work for us on a countywide basis. He also stated that he would like to see a revised ordinance with their suggestions that is a lot less restrictive than what was submitted now and that would allow them to make a recommendation as a starting point of standards. Mr. Merritt stated that the city of Sebastian adopted an architectural standard in and they lost P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 13 some very upscale business because they were too restrictive for them to keep their corporate idea of having some neighborhood input workshops prior to adopting something like this. Mr. Murphy stated that Midway Road input is already in progress and the rfp is looking at everything. Mr. Merritt stated that Lakewood Park has the opportunity to do some nice things out in that area. Mr. Murphy agreed but stated that without some sort of guidelines on the books there would be no way for him to be sure that they do something good in the area. Chairman Matthes stated that he agreed with Mr. Grande and if the immediate need for something is there it should be less restrictive. He advised that he also believes the County should review this on a community by community basis and set standards for those particular communities. Mr. Grande made a motion to not pass Draft Ordinance 02-028 along but ask that Staff bring it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency as soon as possible with their revisions as requested in the May 16, 2002 minutes, make it less restrictive, and then once they review the revisions they would make a recommendation along with a request for individual neighborhood workshops for area specific input. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt, with discussion. Mr. Merritt stated that he would like to have a recommendation submitted to the Board of County Commissioners that they would like to consider this on a street by street basis rather than as one complete countywide ordinance. Chairman Matthes questioned if he would like Staff to compile a list of specific corridors as well as specific neighborhoods for these standards to apply to. Mr. Merritt stated that he is trying to make sure that the community gets involved and have an input on what is going to be done in their communities. Mr. Grande stated that he does agree that neighborhood input and that is why he wanted what is resubmitted to them to be less restrictive and should include only those items that could be generalized countywide. He also stated that anything that could be questionable for a specific corridor should be left out until the neighborhood input is gotten. Chairman Matthes stated that he did not feel it should be up to him to pass standards that would affect everyone in the county without any input from the public. Mr. Akins confirmed that currently there are no standards whatsoever. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Mr. Akins questioned if it would be feasible to consider this a minimum standard for now with the intention that it would be amended based on specific areas at a later date. Mr. Murphy stated that was what Grande stated that is why he wanted these standards revised as to remove anything that would not be universal countywide and brought back to them as soon as possible. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 5-0) to not pass Draft Ordinance 02-028 along but ask that Staff bring it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency as soon as possible with their revisions as requested in the May 16, 2002 minutes, make it less restrictive, and then once they review the revisions they would make a recommendation along with a request for individual neighborhood workshops for area specific input. P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 5: ORDINANCE 02-029 Planned Development Sign Standards: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was Ordinance 02- 029 for Planned Development Sign Standards. He advised that this ordinance would provide for a series of minor adjustments to the regulations governing signage for all Planned Development projects in the community. He stated that this would make available a process for larger Planned Development projects to submit an optional alternative signage plan for their planned project, instead of defaulting automatically to the sign restrictions normally applied to smaller Planned o be applied literally to these projects the Planned Development projects would only be allowed one ground sign for their entire parcel that could not exceed 32 square feet in area. He advised that staff is proposing that an optional signage plan be provided for that would be developed as part of the Planned Development Plan review process and could then be included into the base approval for given Planned Development projects. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 02-029 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Grande stated that he believes changes do need to make and on page 8, section 9.03.00, page 3, section 7.01.03, paragraphs 1 and 2 have quantification that leaves out anything that is stated those same type of changes should be made on pages 4 and 5 as well. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Betty Lou Wells stated that she was concerned with the number of billboard signs that were being put up throughout St. Lucie County especially when compared to Martin and Indian River Counties. She stated that she was hoping that somewhere in the context of these changes something could be done to stop the number or maybe add to the distance between these billboard signs. She also stated that many years ago she served on a sign committee that was concerned about these issues then and nothing happened. She advised that she would hope that we could phase out the massive billboards, especially along the I-95 and Turnpike areas. Chairman Matthes questioned how billboard signs are regulated along I-95 and the Turnpike. Mr. Murphy stated those types of signs are only permitted within certain zoning districts. He advised that St. Lucie County regulates it based on zoning district. He continued that DOT regulates them based on the Land Use Category. He also stated that DOT would not allow outdoor advertising signs in any area that is residentially classified. He advised that they do allow them into non-residential land use categories and those billboards up and down the interstate are because DOT sees them as non-residential land use categories. Mr. Murphy stated that he would take a look at those issues but for the most part those two particular areas are t have any more. Mr. Lounds stated that there were billboard signs being put up along the Orange Avenue corridor and questioned if they were within the regulations of the City. Mr. Murphy stated that he believed that particular area was under the regulation of the County. Mr. Lounds asked if they were permitted because of the land use and Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Murphy stated that the frontage in those areas is mostly non-residential and that is why they were allowed P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 15 to place those billboard signs. Mr. Lounds stated that he agreed with Ms. Wells and said he thinks that there is an abundance of these signs on all the corridors coming into the County. Mr. Murphy stated that on page 8, paragraph A of the draft ordinance it states that they are removing the ability to put up signs along Okeechobee Road and also parts of Orange Avenue and Kings to be installed. Mr. Merritt questioned why Midway that outdoor advertising signs are already not allowed along Midway Road. Mr. Merritt stated that there are signs along Midway Road. Mr. Murphy explained that the ones that are there are along the access area of I-95 and the Turnpike only. Mr. Grande wanted to confirm that the changes on page 8, paragraph A, actually reduce the number of areas where these types of billboard signs could be located. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that he felt this was a positive step in reducing the number of billboard signs in the County. Mr. Lounds stated that he wanted to remove all of Orange Avenue instead of just the section to the Okeechobee county line as they did on Okeechobee Road. Mr. Murphy stated that he believed those particular areas on Orange Avenue have already been mapped out and bought for approved for. Chairman Matthes questioned that if we deleted the whole section on Orange Avenue that we would then be left with non-conforming uses. Mr. Murphy stated that would be the case. Mr. Lounds questioned if Kings Highway north and south possibly the same way. Mr. Murphy stated those areas are zoned AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) with a small bit of commercial, however they have non-residential land uses. So therefore they would probably Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve with the changes as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 3-2 (with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Matthes voting against) to forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval as amended. P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 16 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be September 19, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 17