Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-21-2002 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING November 21, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Grande, Mr. Akins, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. Trias (Both Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentation on the procedures 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. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: October 17, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. McCurdy moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NO. RZ-02-021 ROBERT AND JEAN TRENARY: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Robert and Jean Trenary for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) to the IH (Industrial, Heavy) Zoning District for 34.33 acres of property located at the Southeast corner of the intersection of Kings Highway (SR 713) and F.P.F.W.M.D. Canal No. 1. He also stated that the surrounding zoning is AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) to the north, southeast, and west with AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) to the east and IL (Industrial, Light) to the south and southwest. He continued that the general existing use surrounding the property is agricultural and some industrial and the Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area is IND (Industrial) and COM (Commercial). Mr. Flores stated that the purpose of the rezoning was to develop the subject property in the future with industrial heavy uses. 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, therefore, recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of approval to Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Hearn questioned if there was a definite purpose for the property in the future or just a general request for Industrial, Heavy Zoning. Mr. Flores stated that he was not aware of any specific use at the present time. Mr. Hearn asked if there was a tremendous difference between Industrial, Light and Industrial, Heavy. Mr. Flores stated that everything that is available in Industrial, Light is also available under Industrial, Heavy and there are a few others that are a bit less restrictive available in Industrial, Heavy. Mr. Hearn asked if Staff had questioned the applicant to see if Industrial, Light would work for their future uses rather than Industrial, Heavy. Mr. Flores stated that he had discussed this with the applicant prior to submission of the application and they said they would accept that but would much rather have the Industrial, Heavy zoning. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt that Industrial, Heavy zoning was too intense to be next to the RU (Residential, Urban) future zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that in review of the difference between Industrial, Light and Industrial, Heavy zoning he found that most of the permitted uses listed in the IH zoning are in addition to all of those listed in the IL zoning. He also stated that most of the biggest differences come in the conditional use areas rather than the permitted use area. He advised that there are a few areas in c, e8, e9, e12 and e17 that are more restrictive in Industrial, Light than in Industrial, Heavy zoning. Mr. McCurdy questioned if the Russakis Industrial Park was zoned Industrial, Light or Industrial, Heavy. Mr. Flores stated that property was zoned Industrial, Light. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Jimmy Brown, Murphy Real Estate, stated that he was there representing the petitioner. He advised that the applicant would like to that end of the county. He also stated that most of the major differences between Industrial, Light and Industrial, Heavy do come in the conditional use area, which can be controlled by the Commissions. He continued that having establishments likes the Wal-Mart Distribution Center would be an asset to the area and having the Industrial, Heavy zoning would allow for that. use for the property, like a distribution center, then they should request the change in zoning, not P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 4 before. He also stated that he was concerned because there are some residential properties adjacent to this property and would have a difficult time justifying how they could change from AG-1 to such an extreme of Industrial, Heavy zoning. Mr. Brown stated that the properties to the north and southwest are already industrial and the residential area is behind the subject property to the backside. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds questioned if the residentially zoned area that is located behind the property is actually residences or just an orange grove. Mr. Flores stated it was orange groves and that the zoning was AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) with the future land use being RU (Residential, Urban). Mr. Lounds questioned if the property would be surrounded by light industrial. Mr. Flores stated that on the west and north sides that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that he would be concerned if there were a development proposed or already existing behind the property, but since there is not, he would not have a problem with a change to Industrial, Light rather than heavy since that is what is surrounding the property. Mr. Jones stated that he thought he remembered recommending denial for property further south along the same road because their discussions felt it would have been more appropriately zoned industrial. Ms. Snay confirmed that was correct and that property was further south, close to Pecos Road. Mr. Akins stated that he remembered when they addressed the parcel that Mr. Jones was discussing. He continued that there seemed to be a fairly large concern, at that time, that the Ki discussed some sector planning studies at that point in time for that area. She continued that the Planning and Zoning Commission advised Staff to go to the Board of County Commissioners and request that the entire Kings Highway corridor be reviewed as part of that study. She advised that a company has been contracted to review that area, as well as others in the county, as part of the Urban Land Use Study. Mr. Hearn stated that he was not happy with the property owner requesting a change in zoning prior to any idea of the intended use. He also stated that he would consider the idea of Industrial, Light rather than Industrial, Heavy, since the adjacent property is zoned and also has a future land use of residential. Mr. Lounds stated that he did not have a problem with changing the zoning to Industrial, Light but could not support a request for Industrial, Heavy without a proposed purpose. He continued that if the developer had a specific reason for the request in the future, he could entertain it at that time. Mr. Grande stated that he too agreed but wanted to add that based on the presentation by the and keep them away from the any, is not appropriate for the area. He advised that he would be hesitant to change a piece of property to such an intensive change, especially since the area is currently a mixed use. P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 5 Mr. Lounds stated that he agreed with Mr. Grande and changes to Industrial, Heavy zoning need to be in a planned park, further west or southwest where there are already those types of heavy industry. Chairman Matthes asked the petitioner to come forward again. He questioned if the applicant would accept a change to the Industrial, Light zoning rather than Industrial, Heavy zoning. Mr. Jimmy Brown stated that he understood what the Commission was saying and that Industrial, Light zoning would be suitable for them at this point in time. He also stated that if they found a need to request Industrial, Heavy zoning for a distribution center or something like that, at a later date, they could always come back and request a change from light to heavy at that point in time. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Brown if they would accept a change to Industrial, Light zoning rather than Industrial, Heavy zoning. Mr. Brown confirmed that was acceptable. Mr. Flores stated that a distribution center would be allowed under the Industrial, Light zoning. including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners DENY the application of Robert and Jean Trenary for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IH (Industrial, Heavy) Zoning District given the surrounding property uses. However, I do believe that the Planning and Zoning Commission should recommend APPROVAL of a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial of IH (Industrial, Heavy) and approval of IL (Industrial, Light). P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 3: FILE NO. RZ-02-024 JAMES AND CAROL THORNTON: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of James and Carol Thornton, for a Change in Zoning from the I (Institutional) Zoning District to the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District for a 9.6 acre tract of land located at 5001 Emerson Avenue. She stated that the Future Land Use Map indicates a RE (Residential Estate) Designation for this property as well as the surrounding properties. She continued that the applicant has indicated a desire to construct a residence with ancillary agricultural uses on the subject property. She also stated that the subject property is surrounded by AG-1 zoning on all four sides. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the Standards of Review set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Grande questioned why the property was currently zoned I (Institutional). Mr. Flores stated there was an educational facility, Maranatha, on the property. Chairman Matthes questioned if the petitioner, or representative was present. Mr. James Thornton stated that he was the petitioner and would like to grow some trees and plants on the property now, which is why they were requesting the change in zoning. Mr. Hearn questioned if the school was closing. Mr. Thornton explained that the school has been closed since 1990. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed 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 James and Carol Thornton, for a Change in Zoning from the I (Institutional) Zoning District to the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District because I think it brings it back into line with what Mr. Thornton and his family have been trying to do and want to do and I think it brings it back into what the rest of the area is Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE NO. RZ-02-025 JOHN TENHOEVE: John Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the petition of Tenhoeve for a change in zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/acre) Zoning District to the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District for a 4.99 acre tract of land located at 1475 Bennett Road. She continued that the Future Land Use Map indicates a RU (Residential Urban) Designation. She also stated that the applicant has indicated a desire to construct a residence with ancillary agricultural uses on the subject property. She advised that the subject property was surrounded by RS-2 zoning on all four sides and bisected by I-95 to the west. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the Standards of Review set forth in the Land Development Code. The proposed petition is not consistent with the purpose of the AG-1 zoning district: which states that the purpose is to provide and protect an environment suitable for productive commercial agricultural, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with productive agricultural surroundings. The surrounding area is primarily single-family in nature and designated a Residential Urban land use and RS-2 zoning. Staff determined that the uses permitted within the AG-1 zoning district would not be compatible with the single-family residences and would result in a negative impact in the area. Staff also determined that the proposed petition was in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Staff would be willing to allow an AR-1 (Agricultural Residential 1 du/acre) zoning district. Ms. Snay continued the purpose of the AR-1 zoning district was to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-family dwellings, together with other uses that may be necessary and compatible with very low-density rural residential with the purpose of the AR-1 zoning district and compatible with the surrounding area. Chairman Matthes q Ms. Snay confirmed that they had discussed it and the petitioner was okay with AR-1 zoning, but would prefer to have the AG-1 zoning instead. Mr. Grande questioned if there was the possibility of the property being eligible for AG exemptions if the zoning is changed. Ms. Young stated that was a decision that would be made by the Property Appraisers Office, but if the change in zoning was approved, it was possible that they might qualify for AG exemptions on that property. Mr. Hearn asked Staff if the possibility of RE-1 zoning was discussed with the applicant. Ms. Snay stated that RE-1 zoning would not allow for all of the horticultural types of uses that the applicant is in need of. Chairman Matthes questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. John Tenhoeve stated that he was the petitioner. He continued that when he saw the ad listed in the paper prior to purchasing the property, it stated that the property was zoned agricultural. He advised that his intent was to use the property for agricultural purposes and discussed this with the realtor that showed them the property. He also stated that they paid $10,000 over the appraised price and found out after they purchased the property that it was not zoned for agricultural uses. He advised that there is an operating palms tree farm directly across the street from his property and have access to their properties from the same street that his property is on. He stated at the corner of the house is a P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 8 horse farm and the roads coming into the property is fifty-eight acres of cow fields. He also stated that most of the other residences in that area, near I-95, are operating similar type businesses to his. Mr. Grande questioned what the applicant was planning to do on the property. Mr. Tenhoeve stated that he was a landscaper. Mr. Grande asked the petitioner to give a brief explanation of what he would like to do on the property that would require an AG-1 zoning rather than AR-1 zoning. Mr. Tenhoeve stated that he has several employees who work for him doing grass cutting, tree trimming, and other basic landscaping jobs. He advised that he has three children and would also like to have some horses on the property too. He stated that he bought this property because of the visibility from I-95 and also because the surrounding properties were farms or woods. He continued that there are several other parcels next to his that are going up for sale that he was also considering buying for the same purposes. Mr. Hearn asked Staff what the petitioner wants to do on the property that could not be accommodated with AR-1 zoning. Ms. Snay stated that landscaping and horticultural services are allowed in AR-1 zoning, but only as a conditional use. She also stated that horses are allowed, but under the AR-1 zoning does not allow them to be housed within 100 feet of any property lines. Mr. Lounds questioned if the petitioner would be selling landscape material off the property. Mr. Tenhoeve stated he would not be doing that and would not have any customers coming to his property since his personal home is there. Mr. Lounds asked if there were any other parcels surrounding that property that were still zoned AG-1. Ms. Snay confirmed that there are two parcels in the area that are still zoned AG-1. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Kathleen Miller, stated that she was there representing her neighbors, the twenty-seven homeowners in that area, as well as her own family. She advised that the petitioner was operating play from house to house without danger. She continued that several local families have lived there for twen strangers running in and out all day seeing their children. She advised that many seniors live in workers. She continued that there are other places in the empty areas of Fort Pierce for this type of business. She stated that She also stated that they should have checked on the zoning of the property more carefully before they actually made the purchase. She continued that the petitioner is putting campers in their backyard, parking trucks filled with chemicals in the yard, and also have vicious dogs that chase the children in the neighborhood. She advised that they run six to eight trucks in and out of the property all day and that at least five of them are operating and coming to the property at the same time that the school children are waiting for their buses at the bus stops. She also stated that a bucket of yard chemicals was dropped off by one of their trucks right at the bus stop one morning and they are also ignoring the stop signs. She finished by stating that they were not in favor of the requested change and asked that the request be denied. Snay stated that her piece does not show on our maps because it is to the north. Ms. Miller stated that she is south of Peterson Road and on the other side of Bennett. P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 9 Mr. Grande questioned if Ms. Miller was stating that the Baker operation was currently operational on that property. Ms. Miller confirmed that was correct and stated it was being operated as of that morning. Ms. Shirley Meyer stated that she has lived in that area for the past twenty-two years. She continued that her parents and some aunts and uncles have lived out in that area for the past thirty years. She advised that they were rezoned residential and about ten years ago the Knights of Columbus wanted to have the property next to her rezoned and they were turned down because there are so many residences in the area. She stated that she would like to see this request denied. Mr. Dean Peyton stated that he lives on Peterson Road and feels bad for the situation that the applicant is in. He stated that he respects the applicants right to do what he wants with his property except that what he wants to do is a total contradiction for what is being done in the area. He continued that he has worked in the same industry and has handled the chemicals that he is using. He advised that working with, handling, and storing those types of chemicals without ever spilling them is not possible. He stated that he gets his drinking water from the ground and is concerned about the chemicals that are being spilled getting into the water table. He also stated that he is concerned about the children in the neighborhood being affected by the chemical spills and that this is not the place for this type of business. Mr. Hearn asked if kennels were a permitted use in the AG-1 zoning district. Ms. Snay confirmed that was correct and they were also allowed as a conditional use under the AR-1 zoning district with certain restrictions. Mr. Anthony Conant stated that his residence is within 500 feet of the subject property and that commercial vehicles tearing up the roads. He continued that he was concerned about appraisal values of the homes in the area as well. He also stated that the access is limited to Bennett Road from the other two existing agricultural properties because the main access is off of Jenkins Road. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande asked if Baker Pest Control was legal and conforming in the existing RS-2 zoning district. Ms. Snay stated it was not. Mr. Grande stated this operation was currently operating outside of what is allowed under the current zoning. Ms. Snay advised that if there were an actual operation there, yes it would be in violation. Mr. Lounds stated that he is familiar with that area and that it is a quiet area despite the fact that I- 95 backs up to it. He advised that if this property were located on Jenkins Road, where it is more fact that there is apparently a business being operated illegally on the property and is not consistent with what is there now. He also stated that he is in the chemical business and is familiar with the proper ways to handle them that are not affecting residential areas. He advised that he agrees that this is not an appropriate change for the property and it needs to remain residential. He stated that if a business is being run off that property illegally, it needs to be looked into. Chairman Matthes stated that he believes that the business operation is something that the appropriate departments within the county should look into since this is just a request for a change in zoning. P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 10 including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of John Tenhoeve, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/acre) Zoning District to the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District because of the surrounding use and the quiet neighborhood use of that particular appropriate for a pest control or other type of business along Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Tenhoeve requested to make a statement. Chairman Matthes questioned the members and they all agreed they would allow it. Mr. Tenhoeve stated that he previously operated his pest control business on the property when they first moved in. He advised that part of his business is no longer conducted on the property because he has rented a facility on Orange Avenue where they operate that. He continued that the only business that is conducted on that property is his grass cutting business. H Lawn Care by the county, which states he may operate that business out of his home. P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 11 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be December 19, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting November 21, 2002 Page 12