Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-20-2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING February 20, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Matthes, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Merritt, and Mr. Trias. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Akins (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David P. Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Carol Moler, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Merritt 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 Merritt gave a brief presentation on the procedures and wha meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight. The meeting will progress in the following manner: The Chair will call each item. Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has specific questions. The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only 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 February 20, 2003 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2003: Mr. Grande made a motion for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). AGENDA ITEM 2: ERNEST F. AND EILEEN B. VAUGHN FILE. NO. RZ-03-003: Mr. Hank Flores, stated that Agenda item 2 is an application of Ernest and Eileen Vaughan for a Change in Zoning from RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family 5 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate 2 du/acre) Zoning District for property located at 13775 South Indian River Drive. He advised the stated purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the construction of a guest home on the subject property. He stated staff has reviewed the 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 Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff recommends you forward the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Ms. Eileen Vaughn stated she lives at 13775 South Indian River Drive, Jensen Beach. She stated she wants to put in a garage and a little apartment above for our family. She stated when she bought the property it was RM-10 and now the zoning is RM-5. She stated all she wants to do is go to RE-2. Chairman Merritt opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande stated looking at the map, is the lot behind this property land locked or inaccessible. Mr. Flores stated he believes those lots are part of the mobile home park. Mr. Grande stated this is going from RM-5 to RE-2. He asked if there is a problem with building a garage or the garage with the guest quarters or a guesthouse in RM-5. Mr. Flores stated according to the Land Development Code, this would be perceived to be two separate families and each house would have to meet lot size dimensional requirements for the RS-4 Zoning for Multiple Family Zoning, and this would not meet those standards. Mr. Grande stated then the change is necessary. Mr. Flores replied yes it is. Mr. David Kelly stated in order to follow up on the question about the other lots behind, he stated if you notice the lot lines are dash lines that connect the mobile home park to the lots behind it. He stated that would indicate that they are common ownerships. Mr. Mattes 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 Eileen and Ernest Vaughn, for a change in Zoning from the P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 3 RM-5 (Residential, Multi-Family 5 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate) Zoning District, because the down zoning along Indian River Drive is better for that community. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). Chairman Merritt advised Ms. Vaughn that her petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commission with a recommendation of approval. AGENDA ITEM 3: ROBERT FENDER FILE NO. PA-02-005: ve is present and he asked if the hearing would still continue. Chairman Merritt asked if there was anyone present to represent the petitioner. No one answered. He asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds stated he has questions for the petitioner about his request and with him not being here, it would be hard to do that. He stated he would rather not take action on this without the petitioner to be here to at least offer or defend his views or share his feelings. Mr. Grande stated he agreed with that, but he had one question for staff. He stated the last time this petition came forward there was a question as to whether an arrangement had been made between the owner and the County. He asked was this researched and what was the answer. Mr. David had an acre of commercial zoning and that through takings and other things he lost some of that area. Mr. Kelly stated Mr. Fender did lose some area and the County through a rezoning replaced it. He stated Mr. Fender did get back to the original amount, but he never had an acre. Mr. Kelly stated there is a drawing available that shows the sequence of events. Mr. Flores stated that every member of the Board received a copy of that drawing showing the acreages. He stated Mr. Fender had .50 or .56 acres before the original taking and there was .3637 acres after the taking. He stated with the rezoning it increased the Commercial General to .5369 acres. He explained that Mr. Fender is now requesting to increase that to 1.2 acres of Commercial General. Mr. Grande thanked staff. He stated he would concur with Mr. Lounds that he would be hesitant to go ahead without the presence of the petitioner. Mr. Hearn asked staff if the subject rezoning has restored the amount of acreage the petitioner had originally and now they are asking for more. He asked did he understand that correctly. Mr. Hearn asked was there any promise when there land was used for the roads that this would be done. He asked was there any agreement. P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 4 when the land was used for a road there clearly was a subsequent rezoning that did replace that land. He stated this is over and above that. He stated whether that was an agreement at the time of the taking or something that happened subsequently it did happen. He stated staff has this was an agreement. He stated there was never an agreement to go above and beyond. Mr. Hearn stated he thinks there are some people in the audience who have come here for this petition. He stated if it was the pleasure of the Board to allow them to speak come back next month. Chairman Merritt asked Ms. Young, what could we do in terms of the audience. Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney, stated if you would like to continue the public hearing you still need to open it. She stated what is normally done is you advise the people who are here that this may be continued to perhaps next month and that they are certainly welcome to speak tonight if they like, but it might be better if they come back next month in order to hear comments from the petitioner and the dialogue with the Board. She stated they are allowed to speak if they wish if you continue it. She stated you do have to open the public hearing and then continue it to a date certain. Mr. Kelly stated there are actually two petitions for this. He stated there is a Plan Amendment and Rezoning and each would have to be opened and continued. Mr. Kelly advised the Chairman that before you open the Plan Amendment Hearing, if that is your choice, you would have to announce that you are sitting as the local planning agency rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing for the Local Planning Agency. Ms. Patricia Ferrick spoke to the Board on behalf of the North Fork Property Owners. She had one request since this would be the second postponement if you would do a renotification to the property owners instead of just saying so this evening. She stated there are some people here tonight who may be back next time, but there are s make it due to illness in the family and may not be here this evening. She asked if they could do another renotification instead of just saying that this is continued. She stated if the petitioner should decide not to go forward because he already has what he stated at the last meeting that he was interested in recouping, which is what he had lost through the taking of the property for St. th James or South 25 Street. Ms. Ferrick explained that Ms. Jackson, who is out of town and will be back for the next meeting. Mr. Kelly stated the obligation for the Board is to continue this and the assumption is that those who were interested were here and would hear it. He stated staff would be happy to resend the notices, notification of those people within 500 feet that you notified the first time. Mr. Kelly stated staff would do that. P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Alan Griffith, who lives at Grey Twig Lane, stated he has a petition signed by 18 of our 23 He stated we are in an area that is heavily traveled and if you have every been there in the morning or evening hours it is almost impossible to get in and out of there that are there on the corner. He asked if he could present this to someone. Mr. Griffith stated we are not opposed to the zoning. He stated we are just opposed to certain Mr. Kelly read the petition: omeowners on Grey Twig Lane wish to express our objection to the proposed zoning change for the southwest corner of the intersection th of 25 Street and Midway Road. This change from Commercial Neighborhood to Commercial General would cause greater traffic congestion at what is already a very busy intersection. Entering and exiting into any new facility would be extremely difficult and we believe that any additional commercial construction at this intersection would have a negative effect on our property v would put that in the record. Mr. Matthes made a motion to continue the petition. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Ms. Young stated you need to continue it to a date certain. Mr. Kelly stated the date should be March 20, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. Hearn asked staff for clarification. He asked are we obligated to continue this when the petitioner is not here. Mr. Kelly stated he was not aware of an obligation. He stated this has been the past practice of the Board. Mr. Hearn stated he has heard discussion from some of the County Commission Board members that they really feel like the petitioner has an obligation to be present if they want to be present. He stated he wanted to know if this Board was obliged to continue it. Mr. Kelly stated he was not aware of an obligation to continue. Mr. Lounds stated that the comments that were placed tonight at the public hearing would be part Chairman Merritt replied yes they will. be any number of reasons for the applicant not to show up. He stated he would not want to end it. Upon the roll call, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 6 Chairman Merritt closed the Planning Agency and reconvened the Planning & Zoning Board. AGENDA ITEM 4: ROBERT FENDER FILE NO. RZ-02-022 Chairman Merritt stated this is a petition for Robert Fender for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Chairman Merritt stated we have just heard all of the comments. He asked is there anything we need to do further. Mr. Kelly stated you need to open the public hearing so you can continue the petition. He stated Chairman Merritt opened the Public Hearing as the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Grande stated before we make a motion, he wanted to ask a question of staff. He stated since we have discovered that the applicant has been made whole as far as the amount of commercial property, would it be a good idea to check with the applicant to see if they have just assumed that this was going an acre to begin with. He stated the petitioner wanted to continue with the applied for Land Use and Zoning Change. Mr. Lounds asked would it be wrong to ask staff to bring back, assuming that this is coming back next month, to ask for some more information that would probably alleviate some of the th questions I would have concerning the expansion of Midway and 25 impact on this whole intersection. He asked if this is possible for staff to bring. Mr. Kelly replied it certainly is. He asked if there were specific questions. Mr. Lounds stated this is going to be a major intersection. He stated there is going to be major roadway developments at that intersection in all directions. He stated he would like to know if the County has an idea of what this is going to do to the land use on those corners so we can further, in his mind, determine whether the petitioner is going to have to ask for more land later Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Lounds was asking if there would be left turn motions into this parcel. Mr. Lounds replied left and right. Mr. Kelly stated there are always right turns. He stated that left turns coming into the parcel from th Midway westbound and 25 northbound are very, very unlikely. He stated there will be medians in place. He stated staff will confirm all of that, but if that is the question, we can have a diagram and show you all of that next time. P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 7 Mr. Lounds stated this would help him in his decisions and to question further ask the petitioners for what he is going to do with the property. He st anyone else. Mr. Lounds made a motion to continue this petition until March 20, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Upon the roll call, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION Mr. Hearn stated several months ago I raised the issue of an agenda item that would give us an opportunity to discuss if we wanted to provide an option other than a straight rezoning for projects and requests that come before the Planning Commission. He asked for this to be on the agenda as soon as we could in the future and possibly at a meeting when there is not a heavy schedule. Mr. Hearn stated he would like to have this Board have an in depth discussion about whether to have an option that would give this Board and the Board of County Commissioners an opportunity to provide some relief for a person who wanted to do something on their property rather than a straight rezoning, where we had no control over what went in once the rezoning was done. He stated he wanted to officially make this a request. Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Hearn anticipate staff preparing anything for such a discussion or is this purely discussion by the Board. Mr. Hearn replied if staff were so inclined to prepare something, he would welcome that. He indicated he was sure this is not a unique idea that has never happened in any other community. He stated he thinks this has a place in our community. He stated rezonings come before us for people who want to do something on their property and the neighborhood is really concerned about what else could possible go in there. He stated he would like to have a method to provide, similar to a PUD that we use for other larger parcels of land to give us some control over what happens in our community without taking the drastic step of a rezoning that we have no control over. Mr. Kelly stated this leaves him not fully understanding where you are going and he did not want to get into the debate tonight, but clearly a PNRD does that for commercial and PUD does that residential. parcels. Mr. Kelly replied yes, but in the several cases and he was thinking of two, which were both PUDs, where someone wanted to do a PUD on a smaller parcel. He stated they went to the Board P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 8 of Adjustment first to get a variance and then brought a PUD to the Planning and Zoning Commission on a smaller parcel. He stated this has occurred in the past. Mr. Kelly stated we do have a mechanism that would get a smaller parcel in here as a PUD or PNRD. Mr. Hearn asked if they have to pay two separate fees to do this. Mr. Kelly replied yes they do. He stated this has happened twice. He stated one of them was on Mr. Hearn stated he would still prefer to have a special discussion on this subject to see how this process works in our county and then we can make a decision if we want to move forward. Mr. Kelly stated staff would get this on an agenda for the Board. Mr. McCurdy stated he was curious as to what happened at the Board of County Commission meeting. He stated he spoke briefly to Mr. Flores about the suggestions or recommendations we had last month for the PUD and the clustering west of Ft. Pierce in the agricultural areas. He asked did the Board of County Commission acted on our advice to reject that. Mr. Kelly stated this item was continued to March 4, 2003. Mr. McCurdy asked if they directed staff to explore any alternatives to that particular amendment that was presented to us. Mr. Kelly replied that he is not aware of such a directive. Mr. Grande asked to speak of the prior topic. He stated frequently in the past when we have suggested a PUD as an alternative, applicants and staff members have rightfully pointed out that the PUD process in addition to being difficult is also more expensive. He stated he would hope that we would look at an alternative as has been suggested that would not burden a single family or small lot owner with additional expense. Mr. Kelly replied yes that makes sense. He stated he d-family lot owner would get into this field, but this is will be part of the discussion we will have to have. He stated, maybe we need to have a discussion to determine where we need to go next. Chairman Merritt asked staff if they would explain to the Board the difference between goals and objectives and the designated zoning categories according to the Comp Plan. He stated he was still confused over why we have a zoning and the goals and objectives override the zoning issues. Mr. Kelly stated the Comprehensive Plan is mandated by the state and consists of two sections, the data and analysis, and the policy. The data and analysis are all the facts you use to get to the policy of the county. He stated the policy of the county is in two pieces, the map package, primarily the Future Land Use Map, and the goals, objectives and policies. He stated he thinks you are comparing the Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map and asking why are they different. He asked is this your concern. P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 9 Chairman Merritt stated in the discussion with you where he was asking dealing with the issue west of town of why the goals and objectives would take precedent over the zoning that was allowed on the particular properties there. Mr. Kelly stated he understands the question better now. He stated in the specific case in 1990 when the County was going through the Comprehensive Plan, the Department of Community that we were doing enough to protect the western portion of the County from sprawl. He stated through the process of getting the Comprehensive Plan in compliance, DCA suggested a couple of policies that went into the Plan and are those that you are now commenting on seem to be in conflict with the zoning. He stated the policies for subdivisions greater than 4 units require a PUD, 80% open space, and clustering. He asked if those are the ones you are referring to. Chairman Merritt replied yes sir. He stated this leads to the next question, which is can the County legally do this. He asked can they legally designate one unit per 5 acres and then tell -acre subdivision that the goals and objectives take precedent. Mr. Kelly stated by state law the Comprehensive Plan does take precedent. He stated we are obligated to make sure our Zoning Code is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. He stated to the extent that there are inconsistencies, the Comprehensive Plan probably is the ruling document. Mr. Kelly stated there are other instances in which case a parcel may be zoned for a particular thing that is not possible to achieve. He stated it may be all wetlands or it may have other problems. Chairman Merritt stated this is making it clearer, but what he is seeing now is that our zoning laws are in conflict and they need to be updated to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Is that correct. Mr. Kelly replied yes. He stated the intent of what came before you that you rejected very soundly was an effort to try to put the zoning in place consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the other option is to try to change the Comprehensive Plan, but knowing the history of it and knowing that it was i back to have the DCA just take that language out. He stated what we could do at the County level would be to make the zoning consistent. He stated if there is a need to do something with the Comprehensive Plan, it is a bigger process and a longer process and we anticipate some resistance in Tallahassee. something. Mr. Kelly agreed. Chairman Merritt stated there is an item from Mr. Hearn regarding Roadway Capacity Expansion Studies. Chairman Merritt stated it was addressed to Mr. Hearn. P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Flores stated you are referring to letters from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council each member was to get one of these from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Mr. Kelly stated there is one more announcement. Mr. Flores stated that Mr. Murphy would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider having a special meeting on March 27, 2003 to consider the rezoning for the Wal-Mart Regional Distribution Center. Chairman Merritt stated he thought if this was only one matter that the P&Z could accommodate that. Mr. Flores stated the regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting is March 20 and this would be a week later. Mr. Grande asked if he understood that the regular meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2003 and you are suggesting a special meeting on March 27, 2003. Mr. Flores stated that actually the County is the applicant and there is a mandated 30-day period of notice requirement before any County initiated changes in zoning. He stated in order to meet that 30-day time requirement, March 27, 2003 was the earliest time. Mr. Kelly suggested that since this is not probably a long item that this might be a time for Mr. Mr. Hearn was going to suggest postponing the March 20, 2003 meeting for a week and having it all at the same time. Chairman Merritt stated it has already been advertised. Mr. Kelly meeting. Chairman Merritt asked what exactly are we going to do with the Wal-Mart issue. Mr. Kelly replied he believes all we are going to do is change the zoning on the parcel. Mr. Flores stated this will be for a change in zoning from AG-1 to Industrial Heavy. Chairman Merritt asked what is the pleasure of the Board. those hearings that were just continued are readvertized. P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Matthes asked what kind of agenda are we looking at for March 20, 2003. Chairman Merritt stated he has a problem with the fact we told the people it would be continued to March 20, 2003 and now they are gone. Mr. Hearn stated it was suggested tonight that the property owners within 500 feet be renotified so this may be do-able with that scenario. it would be appropriate to reopen both hearings. Ms. Young added yes, you would have to reopen both hearings and then continue each of them until March 27, 2003 if that is your prerogative. Chairman Merritt asked staff if Mr. Fender notified you that he would not be here to night. Mr. Grande stated that the only thing left is the sense of staff as to if we were to do this, would Wal- Mart, plus the scheduled discussion requested by Mr. Hearn. He asked do we have a sense of Mr. Kelly stated there are three new ones, the two Fenders would make five, Wal-Mart would make six and the discussion would be seven items. Mr. Flores added that Ms. Snay has a couple of items. Mr. Kelly stated it would be possible to put it all together for that night and maybe it would not have the discussion next month. Mr. Jones asked how can we open a meeting we have already closed and continue to do it at another time certain. Mr. Jones replied no, we closed those hearings. He asked how could we reopen something we publicly closed. Ms. Young stated obviously this is not the preferable way to handle this, but you probably could. She stated what Mr. Kelly is saying, she was wondering if you should just go ahead and have the meeting on March 20, 2003 and then the other one on March 27, 2003. Chairman Merritt stated this has been a contentious issue with the City of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie and there are liable to be 100 people with that hearing. He stated we might want to continue that hearing at one time. Mr. Kelly stated you mean for the Wal-Mart property. He stated he thinks the Board has all the facts now, so he asked what is your pleasure. P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Matthes stated his pleasure is separate meetings. There was consensus among the member to have separate meetings. Mr. Kelly stated then there will be a regular meeting on March 20, 2003 and the meeting on March 27, 2003 will be for Wal- Mr. Hea Mr. Hearn asked if staff would be prepared for that night if there is time. Mr. Kelly responded absolutely. Mr. Lounds asked a question on the invitation to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. He asked what is the purpose of this invitation on March 26, 2003 the night before the other meeting. Mr. Flores stated he believes this is going to be a presentation by the Renaissance Planning Group of the Regional Land Use Study. Mr. Trias stated this is an educational meeting. Next scheduled meeting will be March 20, 2003. A special meeting will be held on March 27, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Carol Moler, Secretary Ed Merritt, Chairman P & Z Meeting February 20, 2003 Page 13