Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-17-2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING April 17, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Matthes, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Trias and Ms. Carol Hilson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. McCurdy (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Merritt called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Merr meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency 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. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES MARCH 20, 2003 & MARCH 27, 2003: Mr. Grande stated that towards the end of page 23 in the March 20, 2003 minutes it needed to be correc Ms. Hilson stated that her name was spelled incorrectly in both sets of minutes. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve both sets of minutes, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: DICKERSON REALTY OF FLORIDA File No. RZ-03-009: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Dickerson Realty of Florida, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District for property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North 25th Street and Industrial Avenue Two. She continued that the purpose of the requested change was to allow for the construction and operation of a commercial office in association with the existing Dickerson Mining operation occurring on the subject property. She also stated that the subject property is in an area that is designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being compatible with the Commercial Office Zoning District. 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 questioned if the applicant was present. Ms. Wendy Brand stated that she was the representative for the petitioner. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Lounds questioned if this is the area of the old sand pit. Ms. Brand stated that it was an old sand mine that was rehabbed back in 1988. Mr. Lounds also asked if Dickerson owned the entire parcel, or just the portion they are requesting rezoning on. Ms. Brand confirmed that they do own the entire parcel. Mr. Hearn stated that since there was not any mining done on the site currently, would the petitioner be considering mining again in the future on that property. Mr. Kelly stated that he was not aware of any plans to do so. Mr. Hearn questioned if the rezoning would be necessary for the office if they were still actively mining on the property. Mr. Kelly stated that typically a mining unless they had such a large mine that they needed the building as an accessory use. Mr. Hearn questioned if the petitioner had any immediate plans for the site. Ms. Brand stated that once the Comprehensive Plan is changed and if their rezoning is approved, they were intending to make it an industrial park. She also stated that they were going to move their facilities from Martin County to St. Lucie County and construct an office to relocate their current home office. Mr. made that decision yet. Mr. Kelly stated that this parcel is recommended in the updated Comprehensive Plan to be light industrial. Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, 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 Dickerson Realty of Florida, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 4 District because it is consistent with the surrounding area and is being reflected in the future Comprehensive Plan. Motion seconded by Mr. Matthes. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 3: DISCUSSIONS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was to begin the discussions of several issues regarding the Land Development Code. Mr. Kelly advised that the first issue has to do with development in the western portion of the county and if new rules for development should be established. He continued that item came before the Local Planning Agency several months ago and they recommended denial of what was written. He stated that it then moved on to the Board of County Commissioners who began to consider it. He advised that the Board turned it over to an Ad Hoc Committee to review and then scheduled an additional hearing to consider the matter. He continued that the Local Planning them going to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. He advised that the Local Planning Agency should communicate their desires to the Board of County Commissioners in the form of a letter signed by the Chairman, if appropriate. Mr. Lounds stated that he was confused as to why it went to the Board of County Commissioners prior to it being revised and brought back to them. He continued that he felt the intent with regards to that recommending denial of the ordinance was so that Staff would work to make some revisions and then bring it back to the Local Planning Agency prior to getting to the Board. He advised that he would agree to having a letter sent to the Board of County Commissioners communicating their desire to have the issue brought back before the Local Planning Agency for Mr. Akins stated that he agreed that it should come back before the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Matthes questioned whom the Ad Hoc Committee was comprised of. Mr. Kelly stated that the Board of County Commissioners stated that those who were interested should form this committee and work out the issues, but did not make any specific appointments. A member from the public stated that they felt Mr. Jerry James should be the chairman. The Board stated that it would be up to them to determine who would be a part of the committee. Mr. Matthes questioned if anyone who would like to participate on the committee should contact Mr. James. Mr. Kelly confirmed that they could contact Mr. Jerry James. Mr. Trias questioned if there was an alternate proposal being discussed right now. Mr. Kelly stated that there is nothing being proposed or discussed officially by County staff since the Board turned it over to the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Trias stated that he would prefer that Staff prepare something that the Local Planning Agency could discuss and then forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Kelly stated that once they receive some information or suggestions something new while that effort is going on. Mr. Grande stated that he would propose a change to Section 7.02.00 to help solve the clustering concerns expressed by owners of large tracts outside of the Urban Service Boundary. He continued that he felt it would maintain the integrity of the land use planning envisioned by the planners, while allowing for the benefits of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). He stated that he would propose that all properties zoned PUD or proposed for change to PUD retain the Lot Size Requirements and Dimensional Regulations that applied to the applicable zoning immediately preceding the zoning change to PUD. He also stated that he felt this change would ensure that clustered lots in PUDs changed from AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/ 5 acres) zoning P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 6 would still require a minimum lot size of 217,800 square feet, a minimum width of 150 feet with a minimum of 60 feet of road frontage, the applicable front, side, rear, and corner setbacks, and a maximum lot coverage of 10%. He continued that proportionally, the same limitations would apply to all PUD clusters based on the old zoning. Mr. Grande stated that where beneficial, exceptions could be made by simply preceding the zoning change to PUD with a zoning change to an existing zoning classification that would meet the site plan requirements if said site plan was actually in the best interests of all concerned. He continued that this exception process would be similar to the current processes of back-to-back land use and zoning changes and/or back-to-back zoning changes and conditional use applications. He also stated that with this process those site plans, or potential cluster designs that would drastically change the anticipated character of area development would either be prevented or they would require special attention and exception handling. Mr. Matthes stated that he mostly agreed, except that he had a problem for property that is outside of the Urban Service Boundary because they cannot have smaller than 2 1/2 acre lots because of on-site water and septic. He also stated that he would like the 35% open space to be able to be private and public ownership in order to be able to develop. Mr. Grande stated that the confusion is with drainage areas and he feels there is no reason why stated that he believes an open retention is. Mr. Akins stated that he felt they needed to have some official discussion and make sure to tell the Board of County Commissioners that they want to see all the information again before they make any decisions on the issue. Mr. Trias questioned what problem is trying to be solved? Mr. Kelly explained that 10 years ago the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and found to be non-compliant because DCA felt the western portion of the county was not adequately protected from sprawl. They requested that language be added to the Comprehensive Plan to bring it into compliance, which in turn made it inconsistent from the wording in the Land Development Code. Mr. Kelly continued that the word Comprehensive Plan is not defined anywhere. Mr. Trias stated that he thinks the common requirement should just be dropped. Mr. Jones stated that he felt the Land Development Code should just be changed to limit the requirements to only those areas within the primary urban service district. Mr. Merritt stated that the Comprehensive Plan uses the word clustering and that is a major conflict, as written. He also indicated that the Comprehensive Plan has a conflict that imposes PU-unit the 10-unit language because it was only part of the data and analysis Merritt stated that his attorney advised him that the zoning ordinance would take precedent over is held in the Community Development Department. Mr. Hearn stated that he thinks they need to make it clear to the Board of County Commissioners that they want to make a thorough review of the information provided by the Ad Hoc Committee prior to the Board of County Commissioners making any decisions. He continued that he P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 7 believed their intent when they voted on the ordinance previously was to have Staff reconstruct the ordinance and re-present it to the Local Planning Agency for their review, prior to it being sent to the Board of County Commissioners for decision. Mr. Hearn made a motion to have a letter drafted to the Board of County Commissioners on behalf of the Local Planning Agency, signed by the Chairman, requesting that the Ad Hoc Committee present their information to the Local Planning Agency for their review and study prior to being presented to the Board of County Commissioners for action. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a vote, the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 8-0). Note: The letter was drafted, signed by the Chairman, and sent to the Board of County Commissioners on April 18, 2003. A copy is attached to these minutes. Mr. Kelly stated that another issue that was presented by Mr. Grande in his email was a clarification to Section 11.09.03 Vested Rights, which he will review to bring to them at a later date. He also stated that Mr. Grande pointed out a typo and a bad reference within the Land Development Code that would be corrected. Mr. Grande stated that that the tables in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code relating to density have differences. He continued that when these things happen he feels an effort needs to be made to research the error immediately and bring it forward to have it corrected right away. Mr. Kelly explained that Scriveners errors are easier to correct, but any interpretation issues need to be fully discussed and approved through the process prior to any changes. Mr. Grande stated that he felt any inconsistencies that are observed should automatically initiate the the county. Mr. Kelly advised that there have been some issues regarding air curtain incinerators and that may need some discussion. Mr. Lounds questioned what the problems with this issue were? Mr. Kelly explained that currently they require a rezoning to U (Utilities) and then a conditional use permit to allow the use of the air curtain incinerator. He stated that they were considering taking a position where a conditional use permit alone would be done instead of both. Mr. Hearn stated that he feels there are some other issues that need to be addressed. He continued that he feels the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) process needs to be considered advised that he and the surrounding property owners would feel more secure if they submitted under a PNRD and have a specific site plan for their project. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees and thinks that doing it the way they have been causes problems years down the road. Mr. Grande stated that these issues are becoming more common. He continued that with the Sarkar petition they had recommended approval unanimously but the Board of County Commissioners denied the application because they wanted to see a PNRD request instead. He advised that he would like for Staff to make sure that the applicants have all the information for the option of submitting a PNRD rather than a basic rezoning request before bringing it to them. P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Merritt stated that they are an advisory board only and if they start changing the code they will end up with more headaches than they will cure. Mr. Grande stated that he was not implying making changes to the code, just to make sure that Staff offers all of the options to the applicants. Mr. Hearn stated that with the rezoning process the way it is currently, adjoining property owners go through a very nervous and strenuous time in figuring out how to best approach the applicant when there is no concrete plan that they have to abide by. He continued that with the PNRD and PUD processes the neighborhoods would have more assurance of what a particular applicant can and cannot do with the property. Mr. Trias stated that he felt this was a complex issue and that outside advice and a study should be considered with regards to these issues. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed with Mr. Trias and that sometimes the LPA (Local Planning Agency) overcomplicates the issues sometimes. Mr. used more often. Mr. Grande stated that the Local Planning Agency uses a 1/4 of their meetings to review Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan issues. Mr. Merritt questioned if the Comprehensive Plan had to be reviewed every two years and if there was a regular review period for the Land Development Code. Mr. Kelly explained that it has a five-year review period. He continued that he agreed that it might be helpful to have a regular Mr. Akins questioned what the status was of the consultants and the urban service boundary in the Kings Highway area. Mr. Kelly explained that the consultants were holding a Consensus Building Workshop on the 29th of April with regards to the Urban Service Boundary Study. He also stated that they would like to have several members of the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency attend that workshop. He advised that it would be from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the IRCC Conference Center in St. Lucie West. P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 9 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be June 19, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: _____________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary P & Z Meeting April 17, 2003 Page 10