Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-20-2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING March 20, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Lounds, and Mr. Akins MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones and Mr. Matthes OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Carol Hilson, SLC School Board; Mr. David P. Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Carol Moler, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting March 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 Chairm 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 March 20, 2003 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2003: Mr. Grande stated that on Page 3, the last paragraph, Mr. Matthes name is misspelled. Mr. McCurdy made a motion for approval with the modification. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Silvia Mendoza, Walk-In Clinic on Prima Vista Boulevard, stated that she is requesting direction to staff from this Board to assist her with a sign problem in her area. She is experiencing a major vandalism problem within the area of her walk-in clinic. Her current sign meets the existing sign code for the CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District. Her existing ground sign has a spotlight, which shines the light up from the ground onto her sign. The problem she is having is that every time she replaces the spotlight it either is stolen or broken by vandals in her neighborhood. Ms. Mendoza stated she is requesting that the Board direct staff to change the sign code to allow internally lit signs within the CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District. Mr. Kelly stated that he had spoken with Ms. Mendoza approximately six weeks ago with Ms. Mendoza requesting permission for an internally illuminated sign. Ms. Mendoza was inquiring about a cabinet sign with internal lighting. At that time, I informed Ms. Mendoza that this type of lighting was not permitted within the CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District and that a variance was not permitted due to the nature of the request. At that time, Ms. Mendoza asked for my input on what could be done. I stated she could address the Local Planning Agency and request your input and guidance. Mr. Merritt asked if there were any questions on this issue. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly the reason for the existing written code requirements for a box lit sign and the sign limitations in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) zoning districts. Mr. Kelly stated that there was a sign committee who researched and rewrote the sign code a number of years ago. At that time, due to the nature of the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) uses being in close proximity to residential neighborhoods the committee determined that low light that does not encroach into the residential areas was more acceptable. Mr. Lounds asked what was being asked of this Board. information would merit a review of the sign code and then the Board would be directing staff to begin researching and preparing a Land Development Code text change to allow for alternative lighting within the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) Zoning Districts. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 3 Mr. McCurdy asked Ms. Mendoza if her clinic was open after dark. Ms. Mendoza responded that it was not open after dark. She went on to explain that the problem is that the spotlights are located on the ground and accessible by the vandals and therefore can be easily broken or stolen. She further stated that her entire site is not lit at night. There is an existing light in the back of the property. Mr. Hearn recommended that Staff research the issue and bring it back to the Commission or have the Comprehensive Planning Study Group discuss the issue and make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Lounds asked who the Comprehensive Plan Study Group is. Mr. Hearn responded that it is a group of volunteers that meet once a month to review the Comprehensive Plan and make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anyone can be part of the Study Group. Mr. Grande stated that the problem is not restricted to this Board, there appears to be a law enforcement problem, with the property damage that has been occurring the County Sheriff should be involved. This is a public safety and protection of personal property issue with repeated vandalism. Is there a recommended change that the petitioner is requesting or that staff wants the Board to consider? Mr. Kelly stated that staff is looking for direction from the Board on the issue. The current policy is that the type of sign the petitioner is requesting is not permitted within the neighborhood. The area is unique. But is it right to change every sign in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) or CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District? Mr. Grande stated that he is hesitant to rewrite the entire sign code based upon this issue. He Mr. Hearn stated that it may not have to be a change across the Board. This type of change should be looked at on a case-by-case basis rather than by the zoning district. Mr. Akins asked if the sign is not internally lit, how is it being lit, from the ground by spotlights? Ms. Mendoza responded that the sign was lit by spotlights on the ground. The vandals are hitting the spotlights in a manner which breaks off the bulb at the neck and leaves the metal piece in the light socket. Mr. Akins asked if there was not another type of light or container that could be used to protect the spot light, such as Plexiglas, etc. Ms. Mendoza stated that she currently is using the best that she could find on the market. Mr. Merritt asked if Florida Power & Light (FP&L) had been approached regarding floodlights on the sign. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 4 Ms. Mendoza stated that she currently has one floodlight on the sign. FP & L will be installing a floodlight on a light pole but it is not in the area in which the existing sign is located. Mr. McCurdy asked if additional poles or pole lights being installed or a regular light pole being installed would be a problem. Mr. McCurdy stated that even though he sympathized with Ms. Mendoza a change to the sign code is not the method to correct the situation. He feels that there is an engineering and policing problem that is occurring. Mr. Lounds stated that this is an issue that needs to be reviewed on a night where there is a light load. He further stated that he would encourage Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly if he knew the logic behind the sign ordinance not allowing box lighting. Mr. Kelly stated that it was due to the zoning districts being interior to neighborhoods and they were attempting to protect the residential areas from the encroachment of excess lighting in the area. Mr. Grande asked if there was any study on whether or not the vandalism would be less with the internally lit box lighting or is it an engineering and policing problem. Ms. Mendoza stated that according to the sign expert she was dealing with there is only one type of sign that could not be broken. The lights would have to be higher so that they were not accessible. Ms. Mendoza submitted a copy of her existing sign and the proposed sign. The cost would be in excess of $10,000.00. Mr. Akins stated that he felt that a Plexiglas cover that goes over the spotlight would be a lot less than what you are looking at for an out of pocket expense. He felt that this is much more appropriate than amending the Land Development Code to add extra lighting in a lot of neighborhoods. People will not want the extra lighting affecting their neighborhood. Mr. Akins asked Mr. Kelly where exactly the property being discussed was located. Mr. Kelly stated that is the next property behind the Bank at the SW corner of US 1 and Prima Vista. Along US 1 in the CG (Commercial General) zoning district the type of lighting requested is permitted. It is not a Comprehensive Plan amendment it would be a Land Development Code issue on sign criteria. It is not the intent of staff to open up to permitted uses in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) zoning districts. Mr. Hearn stated that upon listening to the public closer look and determine if a relief to the code would be able to be obtained without changing the Land Development Code Variance procedure or Conditional Use (case by case basis). Changing the zoning designation for a sign is ludicrous. Chairman Merritt ended the discussion P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Hearn made a motion to bring the issue back for further discussion. Mr. McCurdy seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed (6-0). Mr. Kelly was directed to notify Ms. Mendoza when the discussion would occur. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 2: ANGELHEART ACRES: FILE NO: CU-02-009 Mr. David Kelly, stated that Agenda Item 2 is the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a community residential home in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-family 4 du/acre) Zoning District for the project to be known as Angelheart Acres. This item was continued prior meeting. For your information, this petition is an existing foster home that came in for a Conditional Use Permit to expand beyond what the already had. The county did not know about the facility prior to their petition being filed. Upon research and information from the neighborhood it has been determined that there is another such facility, also not permitted through the county, located within 1,000 feet of this facility. withdraw and further direct staff to turn the petition over to the Code Enforcement Division for further action. Code Enforcement will be required to determine which facility was located on Caprona first. to notify the Code Enforcement Division with regards to this facility. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously (6-0 vote). At this time the Planning and Zoning Commission convened the public hearing and reconvened as the Local Planning Agency. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 3: ROBERT C. FENDER PA-02-005 Mr. Hank Flores, stated that Agenda Items 3 and 4 are the applications of Robert C. Fender for a Change in Future Land Use from the RU (Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial) Future Land Use Designation to the COM (Commercial) Future Land Use Designation and a change in zoning from the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial General) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District for property located at the southwest corner of th the intersection of South 25 Street and Midway Road, a 1.2 acre property located on the th Southwest corner of the intersection of South 25 Street and Midway Road Approval of this petition is required to allow the applicant to seek a change in zoning for the subject property from the CG (Commercial, General) and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. The stated purpose of the requested change in future land use is to develop the property for commercial general uses. The current future land use designation allows for commercial general uses at the corner of the subject property and limited commercial uses on the remainder of the subject property In reviewing this application for a proposed amendment staff has found the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan In reviewing this application for a change in the future land use classification, staff recognizes that through prior changes in zoning and future land use classifications, the adjacent neighborhood, to the south of the subject property has been buffered from the full effects of the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District by a portion of the entire subject property being zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood). The proposed Future Land Use Classification change and concurrent request for a change in zoning to CG would allow the continuation of a CN buffer, though the size of the buffer width would be reduced. Based upon the information provided, staff has found that the proposed future land use change is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a , recommendation of approvalspecifically the followingspecifically the following: The future land use classifications surrounding the subject property are RS (Residential Suburban) to the southeast and RU (Residential Urban) to the south and east. The northeast and th northwest corners of the intersection of South 25 Street and Midway Road are designated with a future land use classification of COM (Commercial). The existing future land use classification of RU allows residential densities of up to 5 units per gross acre and some limited commercial uses and COM allows all commercial zoning districts, including CG (Commercial, General). Staff is recommending that these petitions be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Dave Fender came forward. Mr. Dave Fender 4206 Sunrise stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation. He further stated that his mother owns the property. In his opinion the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District will give a better opportunity for development on this site. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Hearn stated that he is confused with the area of the Commercial General before the road widening. th Mr. Fender stated he lost a portion of the property due to the widening of 25 Street and to easements. Memorandum that the property owner reacquired the land. ` Mr. Fender stated that the subject property is located at a major 4-lane intersection that is a dead th intersection. The medians constructed at 25 Street and Midway Road killed the intersection and made the site hard to market and develop. Mr. Hearn stated that there is residentially zoned property to the east that he is worried about. If the commercial general is allowed at this site what is the impact on the homes in the area. He further stated that it appears that the size of the land buffers may not be sufficient for the residential area, absent specifics about the project, what is proposed, hours of operation, etc. Mr. Fender stated that the buffer area is 30 foot in width and contains a number of trees. He further stated that this a major intersection with commercial uses on all four corners. The medians caused the necessity for the widened developed property. Mr. McCurdy asked if the existing buffer area would shield the existing residential area. Mr. Merritt asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being none, the Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Pat Ferrick handed out a letter in response to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to the Rezoning petitions. Ms. Ferrick stated that she is representing the North Fork Property Owners Association. She stated that the North Fork Property Owners finds that rezoning 02-022 and PA- 02-005 is in conflict with Section 1.02.00, Purpose and Intent: In order to preserve, protect and improve public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, and general welfare; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources; preserve and enhance the value of land and the character and stability of residential areas, etc. Ms. Ferrick further stated that the proposed rezoning would be creating a negative impact on the property values of the abutting properties to the south namely Twelve Oaks. It will deteriorate the quality of life for the residents, and seriously deteriorate the tax based in this area. The proposed zoning change and plan amendment would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The purpose of the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for limited retail trade and service activities covering a relatively small area and that is intended to serve the population living in surrounding neighborhoods. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 9 The CG (Commercial General) zoning district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for a wide variety of commercial uses intended to serve a population over a large market area. The size of this property and the ingress and egress is not compatible with the above zoning district. The proposed amendment to COM land uses is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. The footage of this property on Midway Road is approximately 410.11 and 281.44 feet on South th 25 incompatible with the residential nature of abutting properties. th The roadway 25 Street and Midway Road, has enough General Commercial zoning. Both the zoning change and the land use amendment will adversely impact the quality of life in the immediate surrounding area. Due to noise pollution, light pollution, etc., the quality of life for the adjoining residents will be severely and adversely impacted. If you look at the General Commercial uses you will note gas stations and next to gas stations you will note the sic code 5541 gasoline stations combined with all other activities, such as grocery stores, convenience stores or carwashes, are classified according to the primary activity. There is not a plan that necessitates this change the application states that the reason for the rezoning is to recapture land that was lost due to the expansion of St. James. The property owner was amply compensated for the small portion of the property that was taken. If you look at the aerial that is provided in your packet you can see how the encroachment of Commercial General will adversely impact the property owners to the south. You will note that the SE corner is Commercial Neighborhood. The large tract of land on the NW corner is commercial providing more than enough commercial usage in this corridor. This indeed would be a spot commercial and we all know the deleterious effect that spot commercial zoning has all over the county. Here today gone tomorrow and a drain on the economy and the tax base. The petition is also inconsistent with Florida Statue 187.201(16) enhance the quality of life, etc. Ms. Ferrick further stated that there is a problem with ingress and egress for this site. A property can only have a right-in / right out movement if there is not 600 feet from the intersection. Ms. Clair Jackson, Rainbow Drive, stated that she is opposed to the proposed request for change in land use and change in zoning as there are no plans available and she has no idea what the petitioners are hoping to develop on this corner. The CG (Commercial, General) zoning designation is objectionable to the neighborhood. The CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The property to the north has been vacant since all of the trees were removed by Paul Rhodes. The gas station located on the southeast corner is unoccupied. None of the other commercial general sites back up to neighborhoods. The existing pattern is for these small stations to open and close and leave an eyesore that eventually impacts the property values. Please deny both of these petitions. th Mr. John Ferrick, located on South 25 Street stated that he is representing the White City Improvement District and they are opposed to the requested petition, as it abuts the Twelve Oaks residential subdivision. In the opinion of the White City Improvement District the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District is more compatible with the surrounding area. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Tom Kine, Residing on Twig Lane stated that he is not opposed to the Fenders recapturing th the land taken from the widening of 25 Street and Midway Road, but he is opposed to the proposed change in land use and rezoning of the property. If you take a better look at the surrounding area you will find an existing gas station that stands empty and a lot of businesses that are not open. There is not a need for additional CG (Commercial General) zoning in this area. Mr. Fender stated that what is hearing tonight is a worry about a gas station being constructed on this site. He stated that even under the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District a gas station/convenience store could be constructed on the site under the Conditional Use Permit process. He further stated that the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District would be more marketable and allow for a wider variety of uses. Mr. Akins asked for clarification on the proposed use for this property. Mr. Fender stated that he was unsure of what would be built on the site; he is looking at this options and currently paying taxes on the site. Mr. Fender further stated that he has been granted a full access cut from FDOT for his site. Mr. Fender stated that he felt that the medians should be taken out at this location as they have hurt the development potential of the corners. At this time, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande made the following motion: 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 deny the application of Robert C. Fender, for a change in land use from the RU (Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial) to COM (Commercial) because the change reduces the buffer more than 50% and will cause a negative impact the existing residential areas. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion and stated that he seconded due to the compatibility chart indicating that CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) uses are compatible with the existing land use designation but the uses within the CG (Commercial General) zoning district are not compatible with the existing land uses. Mr. Lounds stated that he understands the concerns with Grey Twig, as this is a dead-end road. But the issues with Midway Road he did not understand. Midway Road may not currently be a major intersection, but it will be a major intersection in the future. He has concerns about the ingress/egress for this site in relation to the existing medians on Midway Road. The CG (Commercial General) zoning district will create a higher amount of traffic in the area. The CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district lends itself to a less traffic flow. Mr. Merritt stated he did not see the additional footage problem of the owner. There is a 30 foot buffer and the land use change and rezoning is not going to take it away. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Hearn stated that it is not the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission to make the property more valuable for sale. The reality is that this property is located within an existing residential area. He is not in favor of rezoning every intersection as CG (Commercial General) especially when the neighbors have come out in opposition to the petition. Mr. Merritt asked staff if gas stations were conditional uses within the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District. Hank Flores stated that it is a permitted use therefore no conditional use permit would be required. Any development would require an 8-foot barrier (concrete or wall or fence) with landscaping including a tree every 30 feet. Mr. Merritt asked if a site plan would be required. Hank Flores responded that yes a site plan would be required. Motion was called to deny the petition. On roll call the motion passed by a 4-2 vote. At this time, the Local Planning Agency adjourned and the Planning and Zoning Commission reconvened. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 12 AGENDA ITEM 4: ROBERT C. FENDER RZ-02-022 Mr. Kelly stated that this agenda item paralleled the previous agenda item and the board must take a separate action on the item as a formality. Robert C. Fender Mr. Hank Flores stated that Agenda Item 4 is the application of , for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for property located on the Southwest th corner of the intersection of South 25 Street and Midway Road The stated purpose of the request is to allow the property to be developed for commercial general 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. Chairman Merritt asked if there were any questions for staff, being none he opened the public hearing. Ms. Pat Ferrick, North Fork Property Owners Association stated her previous comments went along with this petition. Mr. Grande made the following motion: 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 deny the application of Robert C. Fender, for a change in zoning from the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial General) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District because the at this point the petition would be inconsistent with the land use. The motion was seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 4-2. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM 5: RANJAMA PATEL CIRCLE C LIQUORS CU-03-002: Ms. Cyndi Snay Agenda Item 5 is the petition of Ranjama Patel to a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a retail liquor store for the offsite consumption of distilled and undistilled alcohol within the Prima Vista Crossings to be known as Circle C Liquors. The proposed building will be next to the existing Publix Shopping Center in the Prima Vista Crossings. Circle C Liquors is currently operating on the west side of US Highway One, immediately across the street from Prima Vista Crossing, in the Port St. Lucie Shopping Center. The subject property is zoned CG (Commercial General) and the retail liquor stores for the offsite consumption of distilled and undistilled alcohol is permitted as a Conditional Use. The subject petition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Codes. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded with a recommendation of approval Mr. Hearn asked staff if the Conditional Use Permit was for the entire shopping center. Ms. Snay responded that it is only being requested for Bay 121-C of the shopping center. Mr. Hearn asked if another liquor store could go into the shopping center or was there a distance criteria between them. Ms. Snay responded that there is not a distance criteria between liquor stores. The only distance criteria is for schools, parks, religious facilities within 1,000 feet. If another liquor store wished to operate within the shopping center, they would be required to come back before both this Board and the Board of County Commissioners requesting a conditional use permit for whatever Bay they were looking at. Mr. Hearn stated he was worried that the zoning maps depict the entire shopping center. Ms. Snay pointed out that there is a layout of the shopping center in the packet which clearly identifies where Bay 121-C is located and that is the only bay being reviewed for this type of use at this time. Chairman Merritt asked if there was anyone present to represent the petitioner. No one answered. He asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds motioned that since the petitioner was not at the meeting then the Board should not be heard at this time. Mr. Hearn made the motion to continue this item to the March 28, 2003, Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. On roll call the motion passed (6-0 vote). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 6: K & M CONCRETE FILE NO. CU-03-001: Agenda Item 6 is the petition of K & M Properties of FL for a Major Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a Concrete Batch Plant and operation of a Concrete Mixed in the IH (Industrial Heavy) Zoning District for property located at 4170 and 4190 Selvitz Road. The purpose of the Industrial Heavy zoning district is to provide an environment suitable for heavy manufacturing and other activities that any impose undesirable noise, vibration, odor, dust or other offensive effects on the surrounding area. The applicant is proposing a manufacturing use which is consistent with this purpose. The manufacturing of stone, clay and concrete products is permitted within the IH (Industrial Heavy) zoning district as a conditional use. t Code and not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and operation of a concrete mixer subject to the following Condition: required to install an 8-foot high opaque fence or wall constructed of concrete or masonry materials or other similar material along the southern boundary line. The applicant shall install a minimum of 60% of the required perimeter landscaping material on the outside of the wall, consistent with Chairman Merritt asked if there was anyone present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates came forward as agent of record for the petitioner. Mr. Boggs indicated that his client has a problem with the condition outlined in the staff report. He stated that the proposed 6-foot fence along the property line is sufficient to buffer the adjacent property to the south. He stated that the section sited by staff is for non-residential uses being next to single-family residential units. He currently has a petition in for a change in zoning and preliminary Planned Non-Residential Development (PNRD) for a Christian Campus. This site is unique in that it has a NSLWCD Canal No. 101 which is approximately 300 feet in width which includes a special buffer of pines, palmettos and slash pines, running the entire length of the site, this with the existing trees and proposed landscaping would buffer the property to the south. There would be no adverse relationship if the site only has a 6-foot fence. The closest building to this property line would be 165 feet. His client is requesting that the site plan be approved with only the 6-foot fence and a tree every 30 feet. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Boggs if he was associated with the church site. Mr. Boggs stated that he is the agent of record and Mr. Terry Redden is the pastor for the facility and they have indicated to him that the 6-foot fence would be okay with them. Mr. Boggs further indicated that the church property owner is proposing to rezone their tract of land from AR-1 (Agricultural Residential) to PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development). Mr. Merritt asked if staff had heard from any of the surrounding property owners. Ms. Snay stated she had not heard from any of the surrounding property owners. Ms. Snay further indicated that there is a site plan under review by the Development Review Committee but P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 15 at this time, the property has not been rezoned nor has the site plan been determined to meet the technical requirements of the Land Development Code or consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Redden had been in touch with him regarding this site plan. Mr. Redden requested general information regarding the proposed project. Mr. Kelly stated that he described the requested petition including the staff condition on the 8-foot fence or masonry wall. Mr. Redden was satisfied with the petition after finding out about the buffering requirements and eight-foot fence. Mr. Redden further indicated that he would not attend the meeting in opposition an issue that needs to be worked out by the applicant and the adjacent property owner. Mr. Boggs requested that staff clarify why this code section would apply to this petition. Ms. Snay responded that the adjacent property has an existing Residential Suburban (RS) land use designation and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning Classification. The code has been determined to be applied to properties with a non-residential use being applied to a residential use not just a residential structure. Mr. Merritt stated that the proposed project will be an improvement over what is existing there today. Mr. Hearn agreed with Mr. Merritt. Further, he asked Mr. Boggs to explain what native vegetation was located along the southern property line. Mr. Boggs showed a graphic of the site. Mr. Hearn asked if the vegetation is actually on the site right now or proposed to be on the site in the future. Mr. Boggs responded that the vegetation exists on the site right now. Mr. Boggs further stated that they are proposing a 6-foot fence with trees. Mr. Hearn asked if the fence would be wooden. Mr. Boggs stated that the 8- Mr. Hearn asked staff to clarify why the 8-foot high fence was being required. Mr. Kelly stated the 8-foot high fence is based on the Residential land use to the south. Mr. Kelly also stated that he can confirm that the statements made by Mr. Boggs regarding a proposed Preliminary PNRD plan for New Life Christian had been submitt Review Committee. Mr. Kelly stated that as Mr. Boggs is in contact with both the petitioner and the southern property owner that he could work out a compromise between the two entities. The Land Development Code does give the Board of County Commissioners the authority to waive the buffering requirements between residential and nonresidential uses, if the adjacent property owner submits a letter of support for the waiver. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 16 Mr. Grande asked if they could pass the petition wit and allow Mr. Boggs to work with the southern property owner and the petitioner to come up with a solution to remove the condition. Mr. Kelly stated that the Land Development Code allows the Board of County Commissioners to release the requirements of Section 7.09.04(E) with a written letter from the southern property owner supporting the reduction in the height of the wall. Mr. McCurdy asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being none, the Chairman opened the public hearing. After seeing no one, Mr. McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds asked what was presently on the property. Mr. Merritt stated a junkyard. Mr. Lounds further asked for clarification on whether or not the ap rezoning for this property. Ms. Snay responded that no rezoning was necessary, the petitioned use was allowed after Conditional Use review and approval. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Boggs if his client would be okay with this Board recommending approval with the proposed contingency that the Board of County Commissioners can remove the condition before they pass it, if the issue can be solved between the two property owners. Mr. Boggs stated he could support this type of approval. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with this only if the decision is that the fence be lowered to 6 feet and the vegetation was still provided. wanted to give the property owners the opportunity to discuss the issue and work out a satisfactory solution to the problem. His only concern was that the property owner to the south, based upon discussions with staff, had no problem with the project if the 8-foot fence was provided as recommended by staff. The condition would give Mr. Boggs time to meet with both entities and finalize a solution. Mr. Hearn asked if New Life Christian would have any residential uses at all. Mr. Boggs stated that there is an adult living facility proposed for the southern component of the site. Mr. Hearn stated that this Board should approve the condition as recommended by staff and allow the Board of County Commissioners to make a change if they want to. It would be different if New Life Christian was approved and already there, then he could support the 6 foot fence but at -foot fence. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 17 Mr. Merritt stated he was struggling with the issue, about what the Board could legally do. Do they have the right to approve the 6-foot fence instead of the 8-foot fence? Ms. Young stated that the Board if they want to approve the petition it should include the condition for the 8-foot high fence. The Board may recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to compromise with the condition. Mr. Grande made the following motion: 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 approve the application of K & M Concrete of FL, LLC, for a conditional use permit to construct a Concrete Batch Plant and allow the operation of a concrete mixer in the IH (Industrial Heavy) Zoning District with the one limiting condition recommended by Staff and request the Board of County Commissioners to review the condition and make a ruling based upon a joint decision made by the property owner and the southern property owner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon the roll call, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM 7: RODNEY HOPKINS FILE NO. RZ-03-006: Mr. Hank Flores stated that Agenda Items 7 & 8 are two separate petitions but for clarity will be discussed together but a separate motion must be made for each of the items. The applicant Rodney Hopkins is requesting a change in zoning from the I (Institutional) Zoning District to the Rodney Hopkins CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. The applicant, , has applied for the rezoning in order to go forward with a request for a conditional use in order to operate a time- share from the subject property. Hotel/Motels (time-shares) are allowed as conditional uses in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed time-share operation is to be housed in a now vacant, previously operating hotel facility. 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. Merritt asked if there were any questions for staff, hearing none Mr. Merritt asked if the petitioner would come to the podium. Mr. Rodney Hopkins, 4891 N. US Highway 1, stated that reason for the previous change that occurred a month or so ago was to help the elderly in St. Lucie County. Since the time of the previous rezoning there have been four or five isolated deaths last year in assisted living care facilities all over the state. Because of poor care on the deaths the insurance rates have risen to the point where the facility would not be an affordable operation. My intent was to make this facility affordable to the elderly to live there, for example a facility with 11 tenants previously paid an insurance rate of $9,000.00, today she is paying $25,000.00. There was no way to keep down the rising cost of an assisted living facility. When I bought this piece of property I was looking at it in two ways, the assisted living facility was my first choice; the second choice was as a timeshare/Hotel/Motel. What I am trying to do with the timeshare, most timeshares are pretty expensive on the most part, what I am attempting to target the individuals that make between $75,000 and $150,000 a year. The facility will have a club house and pool on the site, plus the fact that St. Lucie County has a number of sites around for the patrons to see. It would be more affordable for tourists to utilize and enjoy the county. Mr. Merritt asked if the Board had any questions for the petitioner. Mr. Merritt opened the public hearing on this item Mr. Hopkins stated that in this County we do not have a timeshare facility. Mr. Merritt closed the public hearing and brought the petition back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Hearn stated he wants staff to know he supports the project, but he questioned staff that when the Board gets the Conditional Use Permit for this request and the petitioner is asking for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for hotel/motel would that conditional use permit allow the applicant to operate a hotel or motel in lieu of the timeshare. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 19 Mr. Kelly affirmed that this was correct. Mr. Lounds made the following motion: 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 approve the application of Rodney Hopkins, for a change in zoning from I (Institutional) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District because it would improve the value of this piece of property and enhance the end result of what Mr. Hopkins is trying to do and will help the economy of St. Lucie Count by adding to the Tourist base. . Mr. Akins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the petition passed unanimously (6-0 vote). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 20 AGENDA ITEM 8: RODNEY HOPKINS CU-03-003: Mr. Hopkins gave a brief explanation on a timeshare. A timeshare has 52 week in which each room is sold for a week at a time. They could only be rented out if the week is vacant or still on the market. The bottom line to accommodate a hotel/motel with a timeshare, the hotel/motel action only occurs when a week has not been sold. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Hopkins if he would have a problem with the Board approving the Conditional Use Permit for only the timeshare use and not permitting the hotel/motel operation. Mr. Hopkins stated he would have a problem with this condition. If in the future he sold his property he would not be permitted the hotel/motel use. Mr. Hearn stated that they would have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Hearn if what he was recommending is that Mr. Hopkins could not rent out his unit, during a week that he did not have a sale for that week. Mr. Hearn stated that is not what he was intending. He further states that Mr. Hopkins appears to be want to operate a timeshare operation and I am asking if he has a problem with us limiting his use to the timeshare operation only. It would not be a straight hotel/motel Conditional Use Permit that stays with the property forever. I would support either concept, but if Mr. Hopkins is comfortable with a timeshare. Mr. Hopkins stated he is comfortable with the timeshare/hotel/motel concept because I have spent thousands of dollars on this property and have turned a disaster into something special. I would rather have the opportunity for the hotel/motel and timeshare. Mr. Hearn made the following motion 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 approve the application of Rodney Hopkins, for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Hotel/Motel (Time-Share) in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District because it is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood and it will be a tremendous economic benefit to the community and Mr. Hopkins has done a fantastic job in rehabilitating the property. Mr. McCurdy seconded the Motion. Upon roll call the petition passed unanimously (7-0 vote). AGENDA ITEM 9: CHITTO & MARIA SARKAR FILE NO. RZ-03-005 P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 21 Mr. Hank Flores stated that Agenda Item 9 is the petition of Chitto and Maria Sarkar for a Change in Zoning from the CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for property located on the Southwest corner of the intersection of Prima Vista Boulevard and amended their request from the change in zoning from CG (Commercial General) to the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood). The stated purpose of the rezoning is to develop the property for a restaurant. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt asked if the petitioner was present then requested that he come forward. Mr. Chitto Sarkar stated that the reason they were requesting the rezoning was to purchase the property in order to develop the property as a restaurant. He stated that in his opinion a restaurant is very appropriate for the area. The property next door is currently utilized for a gas station and the other side has a convenience store. Mr. Lounds asked what the hours of operation for this facility. Mr. Sarkar indicated that the hours of operation would be 10am to 10pm. Mr. Sarkar stated that the gas station across the street is a 24-hour facility. Mr. Hearn asked staff to clarify whether or not Lot 1 and 2 were CO (Commercial Office). His understanding was that the petitioner was only asking a change in zoning for Lot 1 to CN (Commercial Neighborhood). Having that type of zoning to the south of the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) would eliminate the requirement to have the fence between the two properties. Mr. Flores stated that it would depend on the interpretation nonresidential to residential uses; there is a residential use on Lot 2. Mr. Merritt asked if Lot 2 was a residential use. t it is CO (Commercial, Office). Mr. Kelly stated that the property is zoned CO (Commercial, Office) but if you look at the aerial, there is a home on Lot 2. Mr. Lounds asked for clarification on whether a home is allowed in the CO (Commercial, Office) zoning. Mr. Kelly clarified that the property is zoned CO (Commercial Office) there is a nonconforming home on Lot 2. The property is nonconforming because of the zoning; however, staff has determined that where there is homes in commercial zoning if something were to happen, we are not fully treating them as the nonconforming, we have made some allowances. There is a home there, it could potentially be there for a number of years, and it is a residential use. Therefore, the requirement for an 8-foot wall/fence would be enforced on this site. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 22 Mr. Merritt asked staff if the lot would meet the required square footage for CO (Commercial, Office) if something happened to the house. Mr. Kelly stated he was not sure if it would, that would make it nonconforming in another manner if something were to happen to the house. It still is a nonconforming lot. The situation here is that we do have two commercial properties under separate tax ID numbers and Mr. Sarkar has an interest in one of them and not the other. Mr. Flores stated that Lot 2 would not meet the minimum 10,000 square foot criteria for CO (Commercial Office). In fact, I believe the property has been zoned such since about 1990. Mr. Merritt asked if we were creating a future problem. Mr. Flores stated, not necessarily, that a person could take the house and convert it to a commercial use as long as the use is permitted within the CO (Commercial Office) Mr. Hearn asked staff to clarify whether he understood the comments from staff, if the zoning is changed there would be a requirement for an 8-foot fence/wall between the two properties. Mr. Flores responded in the affirmative. Mr. Grande stated that he felt the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Zoning) Zoning across the street is preferable for this particular lot, but I think it would be an onerous requirement on the petitioner at this point in time. If the change to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) is approved then I really see no problem with the intended use as a restaurant. I would state that I would not consider a Conditional Use Permit in the future for either a car wash or a gasoline service station on this site. Mr. Merritt asked if the board had any further comments or questions for the petitioner. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. No person requested the opportunity to address the Board, so the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. McCurdy made the following motion: 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 Chitto and Maria Sarkar, for a change in zoning from the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District to the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District, because it is a good fit in the area and is a busy commercial corner and is going to continue to be and the use proposed should fit well with the site. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously (6-0 vote). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 23 P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 24 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION No business was discussed. The public hearing was adjourned. Mr. Kelly informed the Board that there was a scheduled meeting on March 27, 2003 of this Board to consider the rezoning petition for Wal-Mart and the petition of Ranjama Patel continued this evening. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly to discuss how the proposed lawsuit will effect the zoning request. Mr. Kelly stated the rezoning request is still in and is a valid request and the County can certainly continue to process the zoning. The lawsuit and what may come from that is a separate action and I think it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to be moving ahead on all other us to stop or back off on that issue. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Carol Moler, Secretary Ed Merritt, Chairman P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 25