Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-19-2002 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING September 19, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Lounds (Both Absent - With Notice); Mr. Akins (Absent Without 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 September 19, 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 Mr. Hearn stated that he has had conversations with various members of the public with regards to several of the issues being heard this evening. 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 of 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. Ms. Young asked that Mr. Hearn disclose exactly which petitions he had discussions about when they are presented. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: AUGUST 15, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Grande moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: AUGUST 29, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Grande stated that there were a couple of minor corrections he would like to address. He advised that the l Mr. Hearn stated that Mr. McCurdy was listed as both present and absent for the meeting and it should be corrected to read that he was present, not absent. deleted because it is a double negative. He also stated that the last paragraph, first line, on page Mr. Grande moved for approval, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 3: FILE NO. CU-02-007 FLORIDA CENTER FOR RECOVERY, INC.: Chairman Matthes stated that he has had members of the public discuss this issue with him. Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services (specifically an inpatient drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation center) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 12.17 acres of property located at 3451 West Midway Road. He also stated that at the August 15, 2002 hearing of this petition, the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussion about the treatment facility and directed staff to outline conditions that would be appropriate for the facility based on their discussions. The following are the conditions being recommended by staff for the proposed conditional use: 1. The proposed facility shall be limited to Drug and Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation only. 2. The number of patients shall be limited to a maximum of 72. 3. A gate shall be constructed at the entrance of the existing wall in order to provide security for the project. 4. There shall be no acceptance of Medicaid patients by the proposed facility. 5. The conditional use granted through this petition is non- transferable. 6. The conditional use permit shall be limited to the area north of the canal, which runs diagonally through the property. Mr. Flores continued that subsequent to the distribution of the staff report, it was determined that Condition #4 should be removed from the listed conditions. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the 5 limiting conditions. th Chairman Matthes stated that this item was continued from the August 15 meeting and had a lot of discussion. He also stated that they had asked the petitioner to give some more detailed information with regards to the proposal. He continued that once the petitioner makes his more detailed presentation they would reopen the public hearing for comments. Mr. Ed Porch stated that he was the representative for the applicant Florida Center for Recovery and lives in Jensen Beach. He advised that this property was being acquired as a subsidiary of another facility, which is located in Long Island. He also stated that letters of recommendation Association as well as other associations and institutions that have had experience with the facility. He continued that during the events of 9- counselors were active, on a volunteer basis, with the survivors and those on the scene at the time. He also stated that this facility will be similar to the Betty Ford Clinic and would be high-end and would probably have P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 5 some high profile clientele from out of state. He advised that there were previously some concerns about security and wanted to reiterate that these are voluntary patients who pay a lot of money to be there. He stated that several aerial photos showing different angles of the facility were provided to detail the size and location of the facility in relation to Midway Road. He continued that the administration building sits back about 400 feet from Midway Road and he also provided illustrations of the landscaping they were proposing to do. He also stated that there would not be any signs on the property either. He advised that there is a large concrete wall that surrounds the dormitories and that area would have a security gate constructed as requested in condition number three of the staff report. He stated that the interior of the building has several security doors that restrict ingress and egress to the outside. He also stated that there are only forty-four in-residence beds available in St. Lucie County for recovery treatment. He continued that no one would really know the facility is there because of the landscaping, no signs, and no increased traffic. He advised that the property is currently owned by the U.S. Government and was previously owned by a non-profit, charitable organization and was not on the tax roll. He stated that the property is being sold for four million dollars. He also stated that the payroll for six hundred thousand dollars a year. He continued that there would be no additional public facilities or utilities impacted. He advised that they met with the Director of Nursing at IRCC and is setting up a program for interns and scholarships. He also stated that this facility is being number of patients is also limited. Mr. Merritt disclosed that he has had a short discussion with Mr. Porch with regards to this petition. He questioned how many beds were found in Martin and Indian River Counties. Mr. Porch stated that there were a total of 139 beds for the entire Treasure Coast, north of West Palm Beach, and only forty-four of those were in St. Lucie County, which are understaffed. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Arlene Goodman stated that she supports this facility but suggested that they make sure that all staff has an NCIC background check as well as an FDC check. She advised that many members of her family were alcoholics and could have benefited from a facility like the one proposed. She also stated that, at the time, her nineteen-year-old son took his own life by using alcohol and drugs at the same time, there were no facilities in the area that could assist him with his problems. She continued that St. Lucie County needs this type of facility and she is all for it. She advised that for the welfare of the patients of the center, the rest of the property should also be fenced in and may help to deter someone from coming onto the property to tempt a patient with any substance. She continued that this is a disease and they need all the help they can get to overcome their addiction. She stated that she was concerned about what would happen if someone were caught trying to bring in or provide substances to the patients in the facility. Mr. Nollie Robinson stated that he was the Director of Criminal Justice and Out-patient Substance Abuse Programs for New Horizons of the Treasure Coast. He stated that he supported the center and at a recent conference it was brought up that the only facilities, comparable to this one, were in West Palm Beach and Daytona Beach. He also stated that he too was a recovering alcoholic and went through a program similar to the one proposed and believes these facilities work. He continued that these applicants have a great reputation in the Long Island area and he would look forward to working with them here on the Treasure Coast. Ms. Dottie Thompson stated that she was an employee of the State of Florida Children & Families division and was responsible for licensing all of the substance abuse programs in District P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 6 15. She continued that she strongly supports this facility as there are not enough beds for those seeking treatment and there are no other facilities like this in our district. She also stated that roughly 50% of those within the district have to go out of district to get residential treatment. She advised that the few small facilities that exist have extremely long waiting lists. She also stated that she does not support fencing in the entire facility because this is a voluntary facility and Mr. John Ferrick stated that he thinks this is a nice facility and is currently a waste of space that needs to be used. He continued that this proposal is much better than some of the other options that were proposed for the facility. He questioned if the Sheriff would be notified if there were any issues involving patients, staff, or visitors that attend their facility. Mr. Jack Fitzharris advised that if anyone were caught bringing in a substance to the treatment facility, they would be reported. He continued that unfortunately it could happen but if they are caught, the patient would be thrown out of the facility and the Sheriff would be notified. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn questioned if the gate that will be constructed would remain closed except during entry and exit of the area. Mr. Fitzharris confirmed it would generally remain closed. Mr. Grande stated 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 Florida Center for Recovery, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services in the I (Institutional) Zoning District, because it will be a benefit to the public and a very positive use of that particular parcel. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. Merritt stated that he has mixed emotions about this petition because of the price of the services and the fact that most of the people in Fort Pierce could not afford to enter this facility. He continued that he could not go along with this because he feels it does not benefit the residents of Fort Pierce. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-1 (Mr. Merritt voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE NO. RZ-02-018 RODNEY HOPKINS: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of Rodney Hopkins for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 2.54 acres of property located at 4891 North U.S. Highway No. 1. He advised that the applicant would like to establish a Congregate Care Facility on the subject property. He continued that the surrounding zoning was CG (Commercial, General) to the north, south, east, and west with I (Institutional) Zoning to the north. He also stated that the general existing use surrounding the property was commercial. 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. Mr. Rodney Hopkins stated that he was the petitioner and that the average life expectancy of the elderly is seventy-six years old. He continued that he was very interested in providing the elderly as close to a home atmosphere as possible. He also stated that there is a large need for this type of facility in the County and he was currently renovating the building to make it look better than it did previously. Mr. Hearn stated that he contacted Staff to ask some questions about the plans. He also stated that the applicant has done a fantastic job in starting to clean up one of the more serious eyesores on north U.S. 1 and is proud to have him in the neighborhood. He continued that he fully supports what the applicant wants to do but does have some concerns about his needing to have the property rezoned before getting his license to operate the facility. He advised that he is also concerned about some of the items that are allowed in the accessory and permitted uses under the I (Institutional) Zoning. He continued that he would feel much more comfortable with the request if he knew that he was already approved to operate this assisted living facility there. He also stated that he was told that they planned to have an Institutional Residential Home, which would be in excess of fourteen people. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was correct and that he was planning on having sixteen people in the home. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt a PNRD would be the most appropriate request for this type of use, especially since he wants to have his office for his plastering company on the same site. Mr. Hopkins stated that he was currently in the process of submitting a new legal description, which would exclude his personal business office site. Mr. Hearn advised that a PNRD would give the neighborhood the assurance of what is going to be done on the property because a change in zoning opens up several other possibilities. He also stated that he was concerned about the noise from the paint ballpark, which is located next door to this proposed home. Mr. Hopkins stated that the park is only open during the day on Saturday an inch of stucco on the outside and are well insulated with Egyptian plastering, which should buffer a lot of the noise. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would have a problem with Chairman Matthes stated that Staff should explain what the procedural differences would be before the applicant could attempt to comment on that request. Mr. Hopkins stated that he has all the paperwork from Tallahassee for the application but cannot afford to pay for all of the large cost renovations required to meet all of their requirements before knowing if he will be granted approval from the County for the change in zoning. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Hearn stated that he fully supports what the applicant wants to do with the facility because it is an asset to the neighborhood but is concerned with changing the character of the zoning because of what could be done under the I (Institutional) Zoning if he sells the property at a later date. He also stated that he was concerned about the ability to have a drinking place as an accessory use under the Institutional Zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that there are two major differences between the I (Institutional) Zoning and a PNRD request. He continued that one of the issues is timing because there a number of other documents that must be prepared in addition to the application and more information is required. He also stated the second issue that there is an increased fee for a PNRD. He advised that the site Matthes questioned if he would be required to adhere to all of the other usual site plan requirement issues. Mr. Kelly stated that most of the parking, landscape, and other usual requirements would need to be met and would be reviewed through the building department at the time the permits are required. He also stated that they do not have the ability to condition a straight rezoning but through the PNRD request, they gain the ability to place conditions. Mr. Hopkins stated there is already an existing site plan of the property but he has some small items that might need to be changed with regards to paving, parking and other small things. as an accessory use, since that is available under the current CG (Commercial, General) Zoning too. current CG Zoning without a conditional use permit and those items were his main concerns. He also stated that he was going to support this petition and was happy to have Mr. Hopkins as a neighbor. He continued that he would just like to see some additional safeguards that cannot be instituted under a straight rezoning. Mr. Merritt and Chairman Matthes both pointed out that drinking places are listed as an accessory use under both zoning districts. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. ble Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Arlene Goodman stated that in her prior experiences with these types of facilities she found nses and permits approved from the State without getting the approval from the County for the change in zoning. She also stated that she understands their concerns but was very much in favor of this proposed home for the elderly. Ms. Sharon Stonesiper stated that she resides in Port St. Lucie and would like to say that Mr. Hopkins has elderly parents who he cares very much for. She also stated that his plans were to provide a home-like setting, with a common house where they could gather, for these people to live out the rest of their days comfortably and have a quality of life. She asked that the Commission to please support Mr. Hopkins and his project because he has the best intentions and has invested a tremendous amount of time and energy on this project. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 9 Mr. Hearn stated this project is in his neighborhood and he welcomes Mr. Hopkins to the area because he thinks he will do a great job and that his only concern was that there might be a safer way to do this, as far as the community was concerned. Mr. Merritt stated that he was concerned about delaying this project because of the cost to the owner and that he was prepared to vote on this tonight. Mr. Hearn disclosed that this topic was one of the two topics that he has had discussions about. Mr. Hearn stated 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 Rodney Hopkins for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District, because his plans clearly are an asset to the neighborhood and to St. Lucie County. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion. Mr. Grande stated that he would like to add that the petitioner has presented a very good case and feel they should be in the position of being asked to send petitioners back for a second shot, which increases their cos in with requests like this, that the Staff gives them all of the available zoning, which would meet their requirements and the benefits of the PUD or PNRD. He continued that the basic reason there is because if a petitioner, at some point in time, sells the property, after a zoning has been changed and he would feel more comfortable if it was sold with a PNRD zoning and an approved site plan and not a generalized zoning district. 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 September 19, 2002 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM 5: FILE NO. CU-02-001 TIMOTHY & DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH: Timothy and Debra Rose Car Ms. Cyndi Snay stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the request of Wash for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility to be known as Rose Car Wash within the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District. She continued that the subject property is located at 5321 Sunshine State Parkway and is surrounded to the north by the Lakewood Park Subdivision and Lakewood Park Methodist Church; to the south by The Bank of America Facility and vacant commercial land; to the west by Lake James and single family residential units of Lakewood Park; and to the east is Holiday Pines then vacant commercial land. She also stated that the proposed facility would front onto the Turnpike Feeder Road. She advised that the applicant indicated that a 15-foot wide landscape buffer and an 8-foot high opaque masonry wall will be constructed around the subject site. She stated that the proposed car wash facility was not expected to negatively impact any of the public facilities within the surrounding area. She also stated that as part of the site plan submittal packages, the applicant submitted a noise study for the proposed area. She continued that this noise study indicates that the proposed car wash facility will meet the requirements of Chapter 1-13.8, the Noise Ordinance, of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances. Ms. Snay stated that the St. Lucie County Land Development Code sets forth the overall purpose of a conditional use permit and the authority for granting of a conditional use permit. According to Section 11.07.01(A) and (B) the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is: Section 11.07.01(A) with the use characteristics of a zoning district, but which require individual review of their location, design, intensity, configuration and public facility impact in order to determine the appropriateness of the use on any particular site in the district and their compatibility with adjacent uses. Conditional uses may require the imposition of additional conditions to make the uses compatible in Section 11.07.01(B) standards, and limitations of this Code, grant conditional uses permits for those uses enumerated in each of the zoning districts in Section 3.01.03 of this Code. Ms. Snay advised that the subject petition was found to be consistent with the standards of review of the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. She also stated that should the Commission choose to recommend approval of the petition, Staff recommends that any such approval include the following special conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Vegetation Removal Permit, the developer of this project shall clearly delineate and protect through appropriate identification and barricades any existing native vegetation located outside the limits of development for the proposed project that is to be preserved in place. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 11 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic nuisance vegetation found on the site shall be removed. 3. The proposed car wash fac to 10:00 p.m. 4. The applicant shall be required to install an 8-foot high opaque wall constructed of concrete and masonry materials or another similar material. This barrier wall may not be constructed of wood or similar material. This wall must be continuous and unbroken. The applicant will be required to install a minimum of 60% of the required perimeter landscaping material on the outside of the wall consistent with the requirements of Section 7.09.04(E) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 5. The approvals granted are contingent upon Rose Car Wash, its successors and assigns, complying with the noise limitations set forth in Chapter 1-13.8 of the St. Lucie County Code and Complied Laws, as may be amended from time to time. In the even that rose Car Wash, its successors or assigns, shall be required to correct the cited violation in the manner required by code. Failure to provide corrective actions as directed by the County or their authorized agent shall result in an order to suspend the operation of the car wash facility until the noise violations are corrected to meet county codes. Mr. Hearn stated that he noticed that Staff had not presented a recommendation one way or the other on this petition. Mr. Kelly advised that they had done a technical review and their technical finding was that this car wash could meet the county codes. He stated there needs to be a consideration for compatibility and that if the Commission finds that it is compatible with the neighborhood it could be approved. He continued that the technical aspects have been met but there is a policy issue that they felt would be better left to the Commission to decide. Mr. Hearn stated that when this was previously presented Staff had recommended denial and questioned what has changed from the original request. Ms. Snay stated that there were some minor changes that needed to be made to the site plan, which have since been modified and now meets all of the technical requirements of the code. Mr. Grande questioned if their decision-making allowed them to deny the application if they feel it has a negative impact on the neighborhood or is inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Young confirmed that incompatibility of the underlying use would be sufficient grounds to recommend denial, if they chose to. Mr. Bruce Barkette stated that he was the attorney representing the applicant Mr. Timothy Rose, who was also present. He advised that Mr. Randy Mosby, the engineer for the project and Mr. Bernard Kinney, the noise consultant were also present to answer any questions. He continued that the project site is on Turnpike Feeder Road, just north of the Bank of America, Habits Bar and Grill, and the Mobile station and is zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood). He stated that this specific request was for a self-service car wash, which is permitted as a conditional use in the CN Zoning District. He continued that when Mr. Grande confirmed that he could turn this down because it was incompatible, there is law governing those issues. He stated that Florida Supreme Court case Irvine vs. Duvall County Planning Commission states that they must have an P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 12 articulated reason that is supported by competent and substantial evidence. He also stated that the statutory criteria for granting such exceptions, the burden is upon the opposing party to demonstrate by competent, substantial evidence, presented at the hearing and made a part of the record, that the special exception, or conditional use requested by the petitioner, did not meet the as emphasized that the mere objections of neighbors is not competent and substantial evidence. He advised that if there is an articulated noise ordinance in the code and this application satisfies that ng it down because of the noise, because the standard has been met. He stated that unless the opposing parties come forward with another noise consultant that shows that they have not met that standard. He continued that if the concern was with traffic and they have a traffic study that shows they have met that standard, it cannot be used as a reason to turn down the application and disregard the expert testimony. He also stated that once they come forward with competent and substantial evidence, which demonstrates that they have met the standards; they are entitled to be approved, as per the laws of the State of Florida and St. Lucie County. He stated that the Staff report has done a good job of presenting the standards that they were required to meet and they have been determined to be consistent in all applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. He continued to point out each of the items listed in the Staff report, which showed they met the four listed items from the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the Land Development Code. He also stated that they have also met the standards required for development/site plan review as well. He stated that they were not aware of the standards when they submitted their site plan previously, which is why they were not met at that point in time. He continued that they felt they were going to be a good neighbor and that the car wash meets all of the technical requirements. Mr. Randy Mosby, Mosby and Associates, showed an aerial photograph to outline the project and where it sits relative to the adjacent properties. He stated that the project site is bordered on the south and southeast by the Turnpike Feeder Road, the north by Eden Road, and to the northwest by Pandora Avenue. He continued that the Lakewood Park Methodist Church is located to the northeast and is 450 feet away from their site location. He also stated that the wall they will be constructing is located along the northeast, north, and a portion of the northwest perimeter, with the only opening being on Turnpike Feeder Road and to the commercial site to the southwest. He advised that they are 400 feet from the first home in Holiday Pines, which is to the south- southeast. He then stated that it is 400 feet to the first house in Lakewood Park, which is to the north-northwest of the project. He continued that the permits have been approved by DOT and that all of the engineering design is contained within the perimeters of the eight-foot wall and both sides of that wall will be landscaped. Mr. Trias questioned if the applicant could address specifically how this proposal is consistent with the code and that it should be approved as a conditional use. He advised that the description of what is being proposed he already understands but he would like to see how that information understand what Mr. Trias was looking for because the Staff report goes into how the project specifically meets all of the requirements for the conditional use and site plan. He advised that the purpose statement for the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) Zoning District reads in part, nvironment suitable for limited retail trade and service activities covering a relatively small area and that is intended to serve the limited retail trade and service activities. He also stated that the parcel size is 0.74 acres, which would qualify as covering a relatively small area and that the car wash is intended to serve the P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 13 population living in the surrounding neighborhoods. He continued that having the eight-foot articulated wall and landscaping on the outside of the wall, has mitigated the compatibility. Mr. Bernard Kinney, 9767 Erica Court, Boca Raton stated that he was the president of Bernard Kinney and Associates, which is an environmental noise consultant firm. He presented a copy of the noise study report and his resume for review by the Commission. He stated that he has over twelve years experience in environmental acoustics, is an appointed member of the Florida Department of Transportation Noise Task team, and has done many environmental noise studies. He continued that the St. Lucie County noise ordinance has two main elements that must be satisfied. He stated the first element is the maximum permissible noise levels and the second is that it is not permitted to go three decibels over the existing ambient noise. He advised that in both cases, the proposed Tim Rose Car Wash facility met that criterion and that the wall that will be constructed will be an even better buffer to any respective noise. He continued that his analysis did not include having mitigation from a wall, so that would help the results of the study even further. He advised that he went out to the proposed facility, over a three-day period, and conducted a series of noise measurements, utilizing noise descriptors provided by the noise ordinance, over a minimum fifteen-minute measurement period to find the current existing noise levels. He stated that the Turnpike Feeder Road dominated most of the noise that was within the area due to the heavy truck traffic. He continued that he then went to another car wash facility, Cartoons Car Wash in Fort Pierce, because he anticipated that site would have a greater volume of traffic since it is on U.S. 1, allowing for a worst case impact to present. He also stated that he took measurements in front of the self-service bays, the automated car wash, and then backed up ninety feet to account for the property line and took more measurements. He continued that with these results they met the code and in many cases fell far below the maximum levels permitted by the ordinance. Mr. Merritt questioned how many loud boom boxes came through the car wash during the fifteen- minute increments that were measured. Mr. Kinney stated there were not a whole lot, but there were a few noted and at the ninety feet, they were still within the levels required within the ordinance. Mr. Hearn stated that the vacuums would be located at the back of the property, closest to the area zoned for residential use. He advised that he lives on North U.S. 1 and there is a Shell station across the highway from him that has vacuum cleaners available and he can hear the annoying noises from them while they are running. He questioned if the study indicated if any vacuums were running while they were taking measurements. Mr. Kinney stated that the vacuums were running all day long while they were there at the Cartoons Car Wash. Mr. Hearn stated that his concern is with the noises that will come from the car wash that would be annoying to the residents surrounding the area. He advised that he does not agree with Staff that this project different items that should be considered because they all contribute to the overall ambient but things that may be annoying still may fall within the required levels of the noise ordinance. He continued that the Turnpike Feeder Road contributes highly to the ambient noise out there and the data shows that in some cases it is far greater than the noise levels registered from the Cartoons Car Wash and U.S. 1 levels. He continued that he thinks that the Turnpike Feeder Road would dominate a large portion of the ambient background noise, even when the car wash facility is in place. Mr. Hearn stated that adding more noise to the noise that already exists there would not be a good thing. Mr. Kinney advised that it is a logarithmic function and is on a base ten scale, so adding P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 14 the car wash would not really increase the decibels over what is already existing from the heavy trucks that currently travel that road. He continued that in some cases the levels at the Cartoons Car Wash were lower than the levels that currently exist along the Turnpike Feeder Road. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bill Adams stated he resides in Holiday Pines and that the Board of County Commissioners denied this petition unanimously previously. He continued that one of the past issues they had was with noise and it is still an issue now. He also stated that there is a Church right next door and a residential district across from, beside, and in back of the proposed site. He advised that he believes this will affect their property values and will also meditation garden. He stated that he understands there is already noise from the highway, but that adding this facility will only contribute to that noise. He questioned why the applicant is insistent on putting this facility in that location with a Church and residential areas so close by when there is property for sale south of this area that is more commercial. He also stated that there is already a car wash existing down the street and a truck wash facility a little further down the Feeder Road. He continued that he feels that the northern end of the county gets stuck with all of these controversial projects. He advised that he feels there are some things that are more important than the legality of the project. He also stated that they are concerned about the lights shining into the Holiday Pines area and how this project will affect the new development that is coming into the area. He continued that they are also concerned about the facility being unattended and could become a gathering place, which would incur more police issues. Mr. Grande questioned if this application is the same proposal that was previously denied by the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Snay confirmed that it was the same proposal that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of previously and the Board of County Commissioners had recommended denial of. She stated that the applicant chose to resubmit their request and there is no time restriction in the code with regards to conditional use requests. Mr. Kelly advised that there were some minor changes to the original site plan, but it essentially was the same. Mr. Adams stated that he collected one hundred and fifty signatures from Holiday Pines residents that were against this petition. He presented a copy of the signatures to the secretary for the record. Ms. Adelaide Brown stated that she resides in Spanish Lakes Country Club and is a member of the Lakewood Park Methodist Church. She continued that she has lived in Spanish Lakes for twenty years and that when they bought the property they were happy to find the Church. She also stated that they have the memorial gardens, which are in front of the church and is meant for prayer and meditation and needs to remain a quite atmosphere. She advised that she does not want to see a car wash next to the church. Mr. Sam Brown stated he was the spouse of Ms. Adelaide Brown and wanted to go over the Staff report. He questioned if there would be public facilities at the car wash since the Staff report states it would not create any significant additional demands. Ms. Snay stated that all facilities would be found on the site until such time that water and sewer is brought forth and available. Mr. Brown asked what would happen if their on-site septic tank were to overflow. Chairman Matthes stated that he believed they would handle it the same way anyone with a standard septic system would by meeting the Health Department codes. Mr. Brown stated that in the third paragraph, under number 1, on page 5, it shows that incompatible visual effects may be expected P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 15 on the residential properties located to the north-northeast of the facility. He questioned why this what the economic impacts on the area Chairman Matthes stated that he could not find a sign plan and wanted to know what the maximum height restriction would be for the sign. Mr. Kelly stated that the sign would be a maximum of ten feet to the top of the sign. Chairman Matthes confirmed that the sign would be allowed to be two feet higher than the top of the eight-foot wall as per code. Ms. Lil Collier advised that she lives at 7171 Brookline Avenue in Lakewood Park and is also an active member of the Church. She stated that she has had experiences with noise and how loud it can be when you are in proximity of it. She explained that when she was in a pizza parlor, in a strip mall, someone had continuous loud music playing in their car and she could hear the thumping and vibrations from the vehicle in the parlor. She advised that their Church is located along a road that is a feeder road, but the noise passes quickly as the cars and trucks go by. She questioned the 3.5553 acres that is shown on the property owners listing for Lakewood Park located within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Ms. Collier stated that the Church sits on five acres and wondered why the difference. Chairman Matthes pointed out that the second column does of acres that falls within the 500 feet. She stated that she just wanted to make the point that most the memorial gardens. She also stated that she uses the garden and memorializes her loved ones there and is concerned about the noise for extended periods of time affecting that area. She submitted a copy to the secretary for the record of 385 signatures that were also against the proposed car wash facility. Chairman Matthes stated that the reason that it shows the area within the five hundred feet on the with the noise study and where they tested the levels. Ms. Collier stated that she understands that and simply wanted to point out the distance measurement. She also stated that she did not believe the Church ever received the notification letter and response form with regards to this petition. Ms. Snay advised that they were sent out the letter and maps originally back in August and that there would be additional letters, maps and conditional use response forms sent to everyone on that list prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting. She also stated that since the August meeting was continued to a date certain, no additional letters were sent. She continued that any correspondence that has been received, at any time, in the Planning Department, by anyone with regards to this petition it would be included in the packets to the Board of County Commissioners for their review. Mr. Hearn questioned if their packets included any correspondence that was received from the public. Mr. Kelly stated that the response forms that are sent out prior to the County Commission meeting, but after the Planning and Zoning meeting, so the copies of the response forms would not be included in their packets. He also stated that the code states that if written protest (on the Conditional Response Forms) by owners of fifty (50) percent or more of the area within five hundred (500) feet of the property affected if received the conditional use permit can not be approved except by the favorable vote of four-fifths (4/5) of all of the Board of County Commissioners. He advised that any written correspondence that is received prior to their packets being mailed is included. He also stated that usually if it is received after their packets are mailed, but in enough time prior to the actual meeting, copies are made and given to the P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 16 Planning and Zoning Commission the night of the meeting. Mr. Hearn questioned if that is done on a per acre basis or just strictly on property owners. Mr. Kelly advised it is done on a per acre basis. Ms. Dorothy Davis stated that she was a resident of Spanish Lakes Country Club Village and has a petition signed by 107 of their residents against this petition. She submitted the petitions to the secretary for the record. She also questioned what dates the noise study was done. Chairman Matthes stated the dates of the study were 7/20/02 through 7/23/02. Ms. Davis stated that they wash when there is already one just down the road. Ms. Lori Lepere stated that she resides at 6500 Eden Road and that her property is within five hundred feet and directly behind the proposed facility. She advised that she has a ten-year-old daughter who rides her bicycle on their street, which is behind this site and is also worried about the lights shining into their home in the evening. She also stated that she is worried about it being open until 10:00 at night and just wanted to make sure they were aware that she was not for this car wash. Ms. Judy Kloid stated that her husband is the pastor of Lakewood Park Methodist Church and they reside directly behind the Church. She continued that they are in the process of designing a small prayer chapel that will face the memorial gardens and is afraid that will no longer be a quiet, serene place, if the car wash is approved. She also stated that they have a country type neighborhood that they would like to keep that way. Mr. Cliff Norris stated that he was the managing partner of a three-partner ownership of property that was within 500 feet of the proposed facility on the southwest side and his office was located at 4731 A-1-A in Vero Beach. He questioned if the wall is completely u-shaped and the only opening from Turnpike Feeder Road. Mr. Randy Mosby advised that the wall was open to the commercial side to the southwest and also on Feeder Road. He continued that the all areas that border residential areas and the church are entirely closed by the wall. Mr. Norris confirmed that the wall would not be on the side of the property that faces their property. Mr. Mosby stated that there would not be any wall between the two pieces of commercial land. Mr. Norris questioned if the wall would be exposed block or stucco. Mr. Mosby explained it would be an articulated stucco wall with landscaping on both sides. Mr. Norris asked if the landscaping would be major objections except that they would ask that the wall be completely constructed with the only opening on the Turnpike Feeder Road. He also stated that they would like to see the irrigation mandated to be continually irrigated so that it is fresh and new and has an attractive appearance. Mr. Bob Bangert stated that he has lived in Holiday Pines in St. Lucie County since 1979 and there have been several eyesores over the years along the roads that lead to his home. He explained that he is concerned about what would happen to this property if they go out of business. He also stated that it would be another ugly eyesore if that happened and should be considered. Mr. Gordon Case stated he lives at 5411 Eagle Drive in Holiday Pines and that the wall they have all been discussing does not go between the proposed property and Holiday Pines. He also stated that he does believe that the wall will help deflect some of the noise from the car wash but is really concerned with the hours of operation. He continued that having the car wash open until 10:30 p.m. would attract a lot of te to go. He stated that he was also concerned because there will not be any staff on-site to police P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 17 this type of activity and will be bad news for the neighborhood. He also stated that he feels having a car wash next to a church is not appropriate. Ms. Patricia Bodey stated she lives at 7101 Cabana Lane in Lakewood Park and is very against this car wash. She advised that there are much better locations along Kings Highway from Indrio Road to Orange Avenue and further south. Mr. John Ferrick advised that he is not a resident within the area but understands the neighbors concerns about the level of noise that may be generated from the car wash and its customers. He stated that he lives a ¼ mile from any paved road and on many nights he can hear the thumping and vibrating from car radios. He continued that if he were a member of this church and had to deal with hearing those noises from the car wash, he too would be upset. He stated that he feels that this is a poor location since it is next to a church. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Randy Mosby stated that when this site plan was presented previously it was incomplete because they did not have a noise study or all the details needed and after it was denied they reviewed all of the information with Staff. He continued that they redesigned and readdressed all of the concerns prior to resubmittal to fulfill all of the issues and ordinances of St. Lucie County. He explained that they were before them before and were denied by the County Commission but worked hard with Staff to address all of the concerns and feel that the new information they submitted with the site plan and noise study should have addressed all of those previous concerns. Mr. Trias questioned if the only physical change to the site plan from the previous request was making the wall 8-feet tall. Mr. Mosby stated that the major change was the landscaping and the wall for buffering around this facility. Ms. Snay explained that the primary changes from the original site plan were modifications to the landscaping, retaining walls around the preserve areas, sighting the light fixtures to ensure the on-site saturation, with no off-site saturation allowed, bringing the wall up to eight feet and landscaping going on both sides of the wall. She continued that the building layout and footprint did not change. Mr. Bruce Barkette stated that he wanted to point out that most of the opposing testimony is based on fears of the unknown and a fear of boom boxes. Mr. Bernard Kinney stated that the questions regarding boom boxes were good but that reflection is different depending on the type, construction, and age of the buildings. He continued that if the Church is a concrete block constructed facility, he finds it hard to believe that with a distance of over 400 feet that they would be able to hear the boom boxes in an adverse manner. He stated that he did not find a lot of adverse noise impacts from boom boxes at the Cartoons Car Wash. He continued that he did not feel that the wall would cause a deflection of the sound back across the highway. Chairman Matthes questioned if the wall was considered when the noise study was conducted on the site. Mr. Kinney stated that he was not aware of the wall at the time the study was done and that a wall being there would only help the results by buffering and that will make the noise levels less. He also stated that it would be virtually impossible to cause any deflective problems with noise across the Turnpike Feeder Road. Mr. Grande questioned if the level of noise generated by this facility would be acceptable to the residences behind it, even before considering the wall that is proposed. Mr. Kinney confirmed P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 18 that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that he felt Mr. Kinney was saying since there is already a lot of noise in the area because of the Turnpike Feeder Road, it was okay to add a whole bunch more noise. Mr. Kinney stated that is not what he was saying. He explained that the noise levels that would be generated by the car wash are lower than the noise levels already experienced along the Turnpike Feeder Road. He continued that the louder noise would almost drown out the noise from the lower levels. Mr. Grande stated that he felt by adding that noise to the already existing noise, it would be louder. Mr. Kinney stated that is not the case. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Case had questioned if the facility would me manned or unmanned and that the facility would not be attended. Mr. Jones questioned what time of day the noise study was conducted. Mr. Kinney stated that they conducted tests throughout the day, usually from midday to late afternoon. Mr. Jones questioned if there were any readings done at night. Mr. Kinney stated that some of their latest readings were at around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. He also stated that the noise ordinance considers 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. daytime and this study was done to meet the daytime ordinance requirements. Mr. Jones questioned if the applicant would have to be before them if they had chosen to build a pizza parlor on the site. Ms. Snay stated they would not have seen this application if that were the case because that is a permitted use within the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. Mr. Merritt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Timothy Rose, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District because it has a direct adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed with a vote of 5-1 (Mr. Jones voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 19 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be October 17, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 20