HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-19-2003
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING
June 19, 2003
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Morgan, Mr. McCurdy, Mr.
Merritt, and Ms. Hilson.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Trias (with Notice)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant
Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Diana Waite,
Development Review Planner; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather
Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 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
Mr. Jones stated that he regretted to announce that he would be resigning from the Planning and
Zoning Commission effective af
letter to each member of board and stated that he appreciated the time he has spent on the board.
Chairman Merritt welcomed new member, Ms. Stephanie Morgan to the Planning and Zoning
Commission / Local Planning Agency.
resignation. He advised that he was disappointed that Mr. Jones was resigning because it takes
away an appointment to the board that they all came to rely on because of his employment in
engineering. He continued that he hoped there was not anything else behind the resignation. He
stated that they are an advisory board and should not be making their recommendations based on
the feelings of the Commissioners. He advised that he is not on this board to be a yes man to
anyone on the commission. He continued that he hoped the Commissioners take their advice as
advice and their opinions as opinions. He also stated that he has faith in most of the
Commissioners because they are fair thinking, far sighted, well educated, and mature people. He
stated that he thinks they run the County very well with the help of Doug Anderson. He advised
that Doug Anderson really has 6 people he works for, the five Commissioners, and the citizens of
St. Lucie County. He continued that he has served on several advisory boards and hopes that
Mr. Grande stated that he has communicated with some of the public regarding questions about
the impact fees.
Chairman Merritt stated that he had a conflict of interest on Agenda Item # 6, Alicio Pina, and
would be stepping down and allowing Mr. McCurdy to Chair for that item.
Chairman Merritt questioned if there were any general public comments not pertaining to any of
the agenda items.
Ms. Pamela Hammer stated that she would like to address the board because this is her first
Planning and Zoning board meeting. She advised that she was concerned about some of the
on the Planning and Zoning board. She also stated that Mr. Coward had asked her to be part of
the board and they had only seen one another two times, when she came out to speak regarding a
sewer issue in her community. She advised that they only have had one phone conversation
about how many meetings there are in a month. She stated that he in no way, shape, or form try
to influence any thoughts she might have, any decisions, or put any kind of ideas in her head.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 2
She also stated that she had asked him his opinion on a couple of issues and his comment to her
was that in the brief time that she has spoken, he feels she has a good head on her shoulders,
exception to the innuendos about high stepping to the Commissioners, because she will not be
high stepping to anyone.
Chairman Merritt stated that rezoning petitions 03-020, 03-021, and 03-022 have been postponed
until the July 17, 2003, meeting. Mr. Murphy explained that the three zoning petitions for Miller,
g and a mail out was done,
but there was an error with the publication. He stated that they are being rescheduled for the July
17 meeting. He also stated that the application for Agenda Item # 5, P&L Property Management
(a/k/a St. Lucie Square Bingo) has been withdrawn by the applicant.
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 nextmonth.
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.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 3
AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES MAY 15, 2003:
Mr. Lounds made a motion to approve as written. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy.
Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0).
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 4
AGENDA ITEM 2: JIT INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC. File No. PA-03-001:
Ms. Diana Waite, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of
JIT Investment Company, LLC.,
for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from COM
(Commercial) to IND (Industrial) for a 46.56-acre parcel of property at the southeast corner of the
intersection of North Kings Highway (SR 713) and Angle Road. She also stated that the existing
future land use designation on this property allows for general commercial uses. She advised that
the petitioner was seeking a change in the future land use designation in order to permit the
development of the property in an industrial manner, instead of a commercial one. She continued
suitable for industrial uses. She advised that the proposed IND (Industrial) Land Use designation
is considered to be compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding the site. She also
stated that if the site is developed for industrial uses, adequate buffering is to be provided
between the site and any potential residential uses that may be located to the east of the project
site.
Ms. Waite stated that roadway capacity and Level of Service analyses indicate that the proposed
change in land use will have minimal effects upon the primary effected segments. She also stated
that an analysis of any future development proposals traffic distribution on segments within a
two-mile radius would be required before any final development order. She continued that
indications are that development of the proposed amendment would have minimal impacts on the
arterial and collector roads within the two-mile radius. Ms. Waite also stated that the applicant
has provided documentation that water and sewer service is available. She advised that prior to
any Final Development Order for the property the applicant must obtain a Certificate of Capacity,
which demonstrates sufficient capacity in these services exists to serve the property.
Ms. Waite stated that based upon the information provided, staff has found the proposed land use
change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in
Comprehensive Plan. She also stated that Staff finds the proposed amendment to be consistent
with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan.
Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation that they authorize transmittal of this amendment to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs for their review.
Mr. Grande questioned if there were any discussions about the use of the land, since no specific
plans have been submitted yet. Ms. Waite stated that the application had stated that it would most
likely be developed for Industrial Light purposes. She continued that this change in land use
would allow all Industrial classifications, heavy or light.
Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant or their representative were present. Mr. Bobby
consistent with all of the state laws and local ordinances. He also stated that the idea of this
project is that it would be light industrial for five to ten acres lots. He continued that they wanted
the change in land use to allow them the flexibility for light or heavy industrial uses dependant
upon the economic demands.
Mr. Lounds questioned why the northwest corner of the parcel was not included in the request.
Mr. Klein stated that the parcel itself is 46.56 acres, but the 3.26 acres that is lessed out is to
remain commercial. He continued that there are actually only 43.30 acres that would be changed
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 5
to industrial, if approved. He advised that they did this to allow for any possible potential of
commercial uses, if the area becomes viable for it.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing.
Mr. Akins questioned what happens with the future development of this property once they take
an action tonight. Mr. Kelly stated that this is a request for an amendment to the comprehensive
plan and if this property is changed to an industrial land use, it would need to come back in the
future to request a rezoning to be consistent with the industrial land use. He continued that the
Planning and Zoning Commission would receive any rezoning request at that time.
Mr. McCurdy stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public
hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St.
Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant
approval to the application of JIT Investment Company, LLC., for a Change in Future
Land Use Designation from COM (Commercial) to IND (Industrial) because it is a very
appropri
industrial along that corridor and I believe that is what we want there.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande.
Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously passed (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded
to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 6
AGENDA ITEM 3: GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC. File No. PA-03-002:
Ms. Diana Waite, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of
Glassman Holdings, LLC.,
for a Change in the Future Land Use Designation for a 47.96-acre
parcel located just north and west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and
Emerson Avenue from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban). She continued that the
existing future land use designation allows for residential use at 2 dwelling units per acre or a
total of 96 dwelling units. She also stated that approval of the proposed change to RU would
allow a maximum of 5 units per acre or 240 total dwelling units.
Ms. Waite advised that the stated purpose of the requested change in future land use was to
Development process. She stated that the applicant has submitted a concurrent application for a
Planned Unit Development that provides for 140 single-family units in a manner that maintains a
.46-acre wetland and also provides for a 2.43-acre passive recreation area. She also stated that a
change in the future land use designation would be required to allow the applicant to seek a
-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) zoning
classification to PUD (Planned Unit Development). She continued that the PUD application
package included a Traffic Impact Report and an Environmental Impact Report, which were
utilized to evaluate the proposed future land use amendment.
Ms. Waite stated that the proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with the
Future Land Use Element. She also stated that the surrounding future land use classifications are
RE (Residential Estate) to the north and west, RU (Residential Urban) to the east, and COM
(Commercial) to the south. She advised that the future land use classification of RU allows
residential densities of up to 5 units per gross acre and some limited commercial uses. She also
stated that the existing Urban Service Boundary (USB) Line is adjacent to the subject site. She
advised that approval of this amendment would extend the USB 1,050 feet to the west of the
subject site. She continued that the amendment meets the policy that allows a one time 1,500-
foot extension of the Urban Service Areas for residential classifications. She also stated that both
the existing RE and the proposed RU Future Land Use designations are residential classifications.
She continued that the subject property is contiguous to RE (Residential Estate) designation to the
north and west. She advised that a portion of the amendment sit
contiguous (across Emerson Avenue) to RU (Residential Urban) designated property. She stated
that this would not extend the USB of any other parcel in the County.
Ms. Waite stated that based upon the information provided, staff has found the proposed land use
Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment not in conflict with the State
Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. She also stated the proposed Future Land Use
Classification would allow slightly higher residential densities to occur within a growing area that
contains the necessary infrastructure and services within close proximity to the amendment site.
She continued that the amendments location within 1,500 feet of the existing Urban Service Area
would result in extending the boundary line to the western side of the amendment site.
Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation that they authorize transmittal of this amendment to the Florida Department of
Mr. Hearn stated that he heard mention of a small area of wetlands on the subject property. Ms.
Waite explained that their preliminary plans have avoided the wetlands. Mr. Hearn questioned if
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 7
small areas of wetlands that are isolated are the concern of the County. Ms. Waite explained that
they are typically protected by state and local standards but the threshold is ½ acre. She
continued that the subject parcel has .46 acres of wetlands, but their plan has avoided this area.
Mr. Grande stated that he would like the petitioner to explain why they should move the urban
service boundary for this request when this area is currently being reviewed. He also questioned
why the applicant is requesting a 150% increase in density because he feels this could be
considered sprawl.
Mr. Lounds questioned if the mixed airport area is planned for development of the airport or
runways considerations. Mr. Kelly stated that it is primarily for runway considerations because it
Mr. Murphy explained that the area was reclassified as part of the general comprehensive plan
amendment from MXD Airport to RE (Residential Estate) limiting their uses to about 1 unit per
acre, which is consistent with the density assigned under the MXD Airport designation. Mr.
Jones questioned if the urban service boundary had been expanded in that area. Mr. Murphy
stated that it has not and the density component is 1 unit per acre and would be outside of the
boundary of the urban service area. He continued that typically higher densities are inside the
boundary. Mr. Jones questioned the conflict with DCA and the urban service boundary as it
applies to the western expansion on the urban service area. Mr. Murphy stated that DCA was
looking for some greater development standards for changing and moving the boundary line. He
continued that they want to see a progressive movement of the boundary should one be
warranted, as opposed to a haphazard approach of movement. He advised that he feels this
request would be consistent w
Jones questioned if this request would affect the settlement between the County and DCA. Mr.
Murphy explained that the settlement is still being finalized and is subject to further discussion
and review prior to their formal presentation. He stated that he did not think it was inconsistent
with the direction and instructions they have been given by DCA in dealing with matters like this.
Chairman Merritt questioned if the petitioner or their representative were present. Mr. Lindsay
Walter of Kilday and Associates stated that he represented the petitioner, Glassman Holdings. He
stated that this is the first step in the development process so that they can rezone to a PUD
(Planned Unit Development) to achieve the density they are looking for. He advised that this is a
lengthy process and they will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission again for their
PUD (Planned Unit Development) preliminary approval. He continued that Glassman Holdings
is proposing a single-family development for a project that is approximately 140 single-family
units. He also stated that they need a density of approximately 3 units per acre, which would be
more than the RE (Residential Estate) land use designation. He advised that any environmental
wetlands would be addressed through the appropriate regulatory agencies. He stated that their
preliminary plans are taking into account the existing wetlands on the property and they are also
working with the native upland trees on the property.
Mr. Hearn stated that one of his major concerns with changing the densities is that the
development causes traffic jams when people are trying to come and go through only one or two
entrances. Mr. Walter stated that there would be one access point on Indrio Road and then one
also on Emerson Avenue.
Mr. Grande questioned if this were not approved how would the applicant feel about requesting a
PUD (Planned Unit Development) with only 2 units per acre. Mr. Walter stated that this parcel is
a transition parcel and would be more suitable with the higher density. He continued that his
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 8
client is only interested in doing single-family, not multi-family, and the parcel is more designed
for a single-family layout.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Ms. Susie Caron stated that she and her husband are new residents at 8500 Indrio Road. She
advised that they bought about eight acres a year and a half ago. She continued that their intent
was to have property without having neighbors close by. She stated that they own horses and
prefer living in a more rural area. She stated that they all own acreage with estates in that area
and a Lakewood Park type community with three or four units per acre would not be appropriate
for that corridor. She advised that Lakewood Park is not full and there is a tremendous amount of
housing still available in that area and she thinks we should be careful about doing such a change.
Mr. Frank Stewart stated that he owns the property to the north of Mr. and Mrs. Caron. He stated
that he has the same issues as Ms. Caron. He advised that he is concerned because Indrio Road is
going to become a four-lane road soon and developers are doing higher density developments in
that area. He stated that he h
in the middle of eight acres and then you want to cram all of these houses out around them. He
also stated there are a lot of septic tanks in the ground out there already and all of these talks
about planned water and sewer have been talked about for years, but never happened.
Mr. McCurdy questioned if this development would be allowed to have well and septic. Ms.
Waite explained that it would not be allowed if the density were more than 2 units per acre.
Mr. Hearn stated that in the Comprehensive Plan there is a goal or policy that talks about
predictability and ensuring the people who invest in the community that they have a clear picture
about what is going to happen in their areas in the future.
Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing.
Mr. Grande stated that he would have a difficult time supporting this request because it is
premature with the urban service boundary study that is currently being done.
Mr. Akins stated that he agrees with Mr. Grande and feels this request should be delayed until
after the study is completed. He advised that he would not be able to support this request at this
time.
Mr. McCurdy stated that he does support this request because he feels this is a logical and orderly
progression of the urban service boundary and would help to control urban sprawl. He also stated
that this is a good transition and is a reasonable request.
Mr. Hearn questioned if the developer with this PUD could sell lots and build homes with the
density that exists now and then come back at a later date and request higher densities. Mr. Kelly
stated that technically it could be done by taking the existing densities on the property, going
through a PUD, clustering in one area and then setting aside other areas for future development at
a higher density. Mr. Hearn questioned if they could sell smaller lots and then leave the other lots
vacant. Mr. Kelly stated that he could not think of a practical way to do that.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 9
Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant had done the change to commercial on this parcel. Mr.
Kelly stated that the land use was already commercial, but the zoning was residential and they
changed it to commercial.
Chairman Merritt stated that they need to be fair and that the landowners in the north end should
get the value of their land. He continued that he could support this request.
Mr. Lounds stated that he has mixed emotions because of two issues. He advised that the urban
service boundary is still an issue and that they should send a message to the Board of County
Commissioners that they would like to see the study finished before considering these types of
requests. He also stated that he is concerned about the development in agricultural areas. He
continued that this is a similar density as Spanish Lakes with a corner for commercial
development. He advised that this is a large jump in density and they need to be able to direct
these requests. He stated that he feels there should be more discussion regarding the urban
service boundary line issues first.
Mr. Jones stated that he too had mixed motions. He stated that he feels the urban service
boundary change is fairly minor and sensible. He advised that he felt the timing might be a little
off but that he could support the request.
Mr. Akins stated that they need to have the Board of County Commissioners hear them and that
there are broader issues that need to be addressed. He also stated that he feels the request is
premature with the urban service boundary and Indrio Road issues currently being discussed.
Chairman Merritt stated that the urban service boundary and Indrio Road corridor are being
looked at and that he feels this fits in with what is being proposed in that area.
Mr. Lounds stated that he felt they needed to consider everything and what the Indrio Road
corridor is going to look like in the future.
Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed with Mr. Lounds and that an impact of 1 1/2 times more homes
could be too dramatic on the school systems. He recommended postponing this request for the
present time.
Chairman Merritt questioned when the Indrio Road corridor study would be finished. Mr. Kelly
stated that they are supposed to have a full report by around the end of the year.
Mr. Lounds stated that he would consider the request if it was not facing Indrio Road.
Mr. Grande stated that there are several problems with this request that should be straightened out
or else the net result without the studies will create sprawl.
Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing,
County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the
application of Glassman Holdings, LLC., for a Change in Future Land Use Designation
from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban) because it is inconsistent with the
current surrounding future land uses and it is premature during a period while we are
studying the urb
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 10
Motion seconded by Mr. Jones.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-3 (with Mr. Jones, Mr. McCurdy
and Chairman Merritt voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of denial.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 11
AGENDA ITEM 4: BECKER HOLDING CORPORATION File No. PA-03-003:
Ms. Diana Waite, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of
Becker Holding Corporation,
for a change in future land use designation for a 72-acre parcel
from RS (Residential Suburban) to RU (Residential Urban). She continued that the subject
property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Selvitz and Ralls Road in a
transitioning area of the county. She also stated that the current future land use designation
allows residential uses at 2 dwelling units per acre, or a total of 144 dwelling units. She advised
that approval of the proposed change to RU would allow a maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre
or 360 dwelling units. She continued that the stated purpose of the requested change in future
land use is to develop the property as a multi-family project. She stated that the applicant has
submitted a conceptual site plan that provides for 360 units. She also stated that a change in the
future land use designation is required to allow the applicant to seek a change in zoning from the
-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) zoning classification to the RM-5
(Residential, Multiple-Family 5 du/acre) or PUD (Planning Unit Development) zoning. She
advised that the future land use application package included a Traffic Impact Statement
encompassing a three-mile radius that was utilized to evaluate the proposed Future Land Use
amendment. She also stated that the surrounding zoning is AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1
du/acre) and RS-3 (Residential 3 du/acre) to the east, west, and north, with IX (Industrial,
Extraction) and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) to the south.
Ms. Waite stated that th
restrict any development from within the floodplain pursuant to the St. Lucie County Land
use density on this site will likely have some degree of impact upon the floodplain of Ten Mile
Creek. She continued that an estimated 35 acres of the 72-acre amendment site is within the 100-
year floodplain. She advised that the conceptual site plan for the development site indicates that a
portion of the floodplain would not be impacted by direct site development; however, this area
would include storm water management facilities within the floodplain area. She also stated that
that although much of the floodplain on this site was previously filled for agricultural activities,
lower elevations continue to store water during heavy rains. She continued that there is also a
remnant oxbow from the natural course of Ten Mile Creek in the western 1/3 of the petitioned
parcel that was cutoff from the main channel when the river was dredged and straightened for
Ms. Waite stated that surrounding land uses are RS (Residential Suburban) to the west and
southeast, with RU (Residential Urban) located to the south, north, and northeast. She advised
that farther to the south/southwest of the petitioned property is a large area of industrially
classified lands that house a number of industrial activities from material processing to
distribution of goods. She also stated that the requested future land use classification of RU
allows residential densities of up to 5 units per gross acre and some limited commercial uses. She
continued that approval of the proposed amendment could result in residential development
densities slightly higher than the residential areas to the north, across Ten Mile Creek. She stated
that higher density residential units could be considered a good transition from the adjacent
industrial uses and the residential uses to the north. She also stated that the primary concern the
County currently has is in regard to this petition is the increase of potential impacts that may be
generated from this site into the floodplain area of Ten Mile Creek.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 12
-
ximum density as allowed by
the Comprehensive Plan. She advised that the analysis indicated that an additional 210 single-
family dwelling units would not reduce the level of service on Selvitz Road. She also stated that
if developed for multi-family purposes, the trip generation would be reduced from that of the
single-family demand.
Mr. Jones questioned where the flood plain was. The petitioner passed out a map showing the
al if they only
used those areas outside of the flood plain and if they met all setbacks for shorelines. Ms. Waite
stated they were concerned about environmental issues but if the development was outside of the
flood plain and preservation areas it should be okay.
Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant was made aware of the environmental issues prior to the
meeting. Chairman Merritt asked the applicant or their representative to come forward. Mr.
Mark Matthes from Lucido and Associates stated that he was the representative for the applicant
Becker Holdings and that they only had some brief conversations with Ms. Waite regarding
environmental issues. He also stated that their original meetings with Staff were focused on
different information that what is within the staff report. He continued that they revised their
plans based on the information contained in the staff report. He stated that they are committed to
removing all storm water facilities from the oxbow area of the creek and do whatever is necessary
to return the oxbow to its natural condition. He advised that they feel they can provide a multi-
family development on the site within the upland portion that would meet their needs for 360
units and will provide the value and benefit to the regional waterways. He also stated that aside
from the environmental issue the staff report is very encouraging because of the high-density
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He continued that they are also willing to work with Staff
regarding their comments about roadways. He stated that there is a three hundred foot setback to
Ten Mile Creek, which is easily accommodated, however with the reintroduction of the oxbow,
the three hundred foot setback from the relocated oxbow creates a severe limitation to the use of
the property. He also stated that the general portion of the site is quite elevated compared to Ten
Mile Creek. He continued that they feel they can utilize the higher elevations of the site, restore
the oxbow, and re-
recommendation of limiting the land use amendment to only the upland portions because that
would limit the portion of development potential to only 260 lots. He stated that there is no
federal or state funding for reconnection of this oxbow and they feel they could be partners with
the County but they need the extra units to bring forth those resources.
Mr. Jones questioned how many acres of the subject property they were going to be developing.
Mr. Matthes stated it would be about 36 to 38 acres.
Mr. McCurdy questioned if the homes would be for sale or rental. Mr. Matthes stated they were
not sure yet because they did not have a developer assigned yet. He advised that they are looking
at the typical size one, two, and three bedroom units.
Mr. Lounds questioned if their conceptual plan was for two or three story buildings that would
have 16-20 units each. Mr. Matthes stated that is what is conceptually being planned right now.
He advised that the actual plan that will be submitted may have less or more based upon the
application of development conditions, but they are asking for the land use change to allow that
many just in case.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 13
Mr. Grande questioned why they did not apply for their PUD at the same time, especially since
they are requesting an increase of five times the allowed density. Mr. Matthes stated that it is a 2
1/2 increase, not a five. He continued that it is too costly to submit the PUD unless they know
that the future land use change would be granted, especially without a developer on board yet.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Ms. Maryann Angelis, 4064 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that she was speaking on behalf of a
hundred of the residents within the area of the subject property. She also stated that the property
that the neighbors have seen manatees and other wildlife in the Creek. She continued that when
she bought her home in Oak Hammock, she planned to live there for life with her family. She
stated that they own businesses and work in the County and feel having this project will increase
the crime in their area. She also stated that the driving on Selvitz Road would be greatly
impacted by adding 360 units worth of traffic in the area.
Mr. George Brown, 4910 Ralls Road, stated he owns four acres on the north side of Ten Mile
Creek and nine acres on the south side. He stated that he has known the Becker family for a long
time but is very concerned about the flooding in this area. He advised that when they develop the
site, all of the pavement and other areas would collect water that has to go somewhere. He
continued that if you obstruct the water from dissipating over the flat area the people on the other
side of Ten Mile Creek would end up getting flooded. He stated that this would cause an increase
in the volume of water and cause erosion. He also stated that he has seen manatee in that area
too. He continued that he is very concerned about what they are going to do about all the water
run off from the asphalt and roof drainage. He advised that pulling out on Selvitz Road is okay if
you are turning right, but turning left is very difficult, and would be impossible with this much
more traffic being generated.
Mr. Danny Weiss, 3965 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that traffic backs up from the corner of
Selvitz and Edwards Road across the canal, across the bridge, and sometimes up to Ralls Road.
He advised that by adding about 600 cars, three per household, would not be safe. He questioned
how multi-family unit developments reduce the trip generation in comparison to single-family.
Mr. Murphy explained that in traffic modeling, forecasting, and traffic trip generation rates, a
single-family on a national average generates more trips than multi-family. Mr. Weiss stated that
c transportation in the area. He
advised that the bridge would need to be rebuilt with this amount of increase in traffic and the
road cannot handle it either. He stated that he is very concerned about all of these new homes
ending up under water with the way the area floods each year.
Mr. John Ferrick read a letter submitted by Patricia A. Ferrick on behalf of the North Fork
property that borders Ten Mile Creek, that flows directly into the North Fork of the St. Lucie
River. The impact would be well over 1,000 people on this property. How will it impact our
schools? We understand work is currently being done to restore Oxbows in the North Fork; this
property has an Oxbow on site. We also question the traffic impact statement; does it include
projected daily trips for the Wal-Mart Distribution Center? Does it include trips generated with
the opening of Selvitz Road, providing a direct connection into Port St. Lucie, and the
accompanied additional traffic from recent zoning changes in the PSL corridor? We question the
additional trip generations on the roadways in the surrounding area. There are no grocery stores,
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 14
drugstores, or doctor offices in this corridor. We question the noise from the adjacent industrial
uses in this area. How will this impact a multi-family setting? Will this change encourage other
property owners along the Ten Mile Creek area and the North Fork to request this same change?
Will it set a precedent for more multi-family development along the pristine waterways to the
south and thereby degrade the water quality that flows into the aquatic preserve south of the
Midway Road Bridge? The North Fork Property Owners feel that these questions need to be
Mr. Marty Limberis, 3252 River Drive, stated that this would be the view from his backyard. He
advised that the property is very low on the backside. He questioned if they would have a septic
system on this property because there is no city water or sewer in the area.
Mr. Doug McAdie, 4301 Edwards Road, stated that he has lived on his property for twenty-two
years and his parents and grandparents lived there prior to him. He stated that the south side of
the river floods as far as the eye could see. He advised that he is concerned about them getting
the change in land use and then selling the property to someone else, which could end up with a
totally different plan for the property than what they are suggesting. He stated that he agrees that
they really should have submitted a PUD (Planned Unit Development) with this to assure them
that they are going to actually do what they are proposing to do. He also stated that he saw a
panther walk through his property, and there are only seventy in the state.
Mr. Bill Braun, 3920 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that his property is to the east of the upper
portion of the subject property. He continued that flooding is very bad in that area and the river is
extremely sensitive and should not be overloaded.
Mr. Ron Burton, 3224 River Drive, stated that there is supposed to be a bridge to walk on in the
area, which is currently crime free. He advised that adding this to the area would increase the
crime and destroy property values. He stated that the entire area is under water during the rainy
season.
Mr. Bob Forsman, 4010 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that his problem is that he is concerned that
all of these changes from what the public originally wanted is changing the way the county is
-family housing in that
area. He stated that he trained environmental engineers and the mathematics behind water run off
is very sophisticated. He advised that the ability to slow down the run off through Ten Mile
Creek is handled through the oxbows. He continued that when you have upland, that is a major
restriction of the water run off into the drainage ways. He stated that if the land can absorb it, it
helps slow it down the actual run off even more.
Mr. Jim Pulliam, 3311 Selvitz Road, stated that he feels developers should restore and ensure
establishment of natural vegetation prior to actual project construction. He advised that the grove
has not been used in several years and that wildlife is already reestablishing itself due to access of
surrounding natural areas. He stated that the higher density would effectively increase one mile
population from approximately 850 residents of single family owned homes and 40 duplexes to
1,770 for 350 multi-family units, or 1,500 if there are 260 units. He also stated that he feels urban
sprawl is encouraged by this plan because there is no family support in the area, like gas stations,
grocery stores, or doctors. He continued that by increasing family density adjacent to an
industrial park would encourage all retail activities to proliferate in an area that is primarily
single-family homes. He stated that this project is within the urban service boundary but not
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 15
flood plain, and flood way could become a playground for approximately 200-300 children in the
proposed project area. He advised that this project would increase road use and that being so
close to a work area could increase the amount of trips because it would encourage someone
being dropped off and the other household member using the car all day. He stated that he feels
by approving development in this area the county would be endangering residents because of the
two chemical fertilizer plants blast area and the deadly ammonia gas. He also stated that they
were concerned about everyone being charged a sewer fee by FPUA since this development
would need sewer lines brought in. He advised that they feel this site does not protect, conserve,
or enhance the natural resources of the area. He stated that the County should assume liability for
allowing development of a high-density development that would put 700 1,000 people at risk
because of the adjacent industrial park. He also stated that placing the project on a single entry
and exit road would create an extremely dangerous intersection, especially in extreme emergency
evaluations. He continued that the adverse effects will impact the natural protected shoreline,
flood plain, and upland habitat of Ten Mile Creek and would probably jeopardize future funding
of environmental restoration money to St. Lucie County.
Ms. Diane Pulliam, 3311 Selvitz Road, stated that there have been many accidents on the road,
which is directly in front of their house, where people have gotten killed. She questioned what
ok into
the FPUA sewer lines. Chairman Merritt stated that if water and sewer lines are put in and they
run next to their property they would be asked to hook into them within one year. Ms. Pulliam
stated that she believed that would be quite costly. She also stated that there is already going to
be an increase in traffic in the area because of the new Wal-Mart. She advised that there is an S-
any services nearby either to handle the increased population.
Mr. Al Rosenberg stated that he and his wife reside at 3201 Live Oak Lane, in the Live Oak
Estates Subdivision. He advised that last year they tried to go home on Edwards Road and were
stopped and asked to leave because the wind was blowing poisons fumes over the area of their
home. He also stated that there are many problems with cars approaching the intersections at a
high rate of speed. He continued that many driveways come out onto Edwards Road and that
makes it difficult for the homeowners and also very dangerous for drivers. He stated that DOT
should lower the speed limit on Edwards Road because the 45-mile an hour speed limit has
caused many deaths in that area. He advised that by creating a more intensive use on this subject
parcel would be dangerous because of the heavy industry in the area. He continued that he feels
the Comprehensive Plan is a wonderful thing and the public input is very important. He advised
that more intensive, dissimilar uses should not be side by side. He stated that having heavy
industry surrounding a residential area, with only a ten-foot vegetative barrier, dooms it to failure.
Mr. Lounds questioned when he moved to his current residence. Mr. Rosenberg stated that he
moved in December 1995.
Ms. Stella Geraghty, 4001 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that their area is a more high-end
development and feels putting a lower income, denser; housing development close by would not
be appropriate. She stated that they are all used to the industrial area because most of the noise is
during the day, but this development would cause too much traffic. She continued that the traffic
already backs up quite a bit when the railroad is closed and this would only make it worse. She
stated t
want to stay in that area if this development is approved. She also stated that right now there is
evelopment would change that.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 16
Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing.
questions. He stated that drainage, traffic, crime, utilities, and multi-family seem to be the
biggest issues raised. He advised that crime he cannot address, but they are not planning on
having criminals move into their homes. He continued that most of the comments regarding
drainage were about the floodway and damaging it. He stated that he and his client do not
planning on blocking the floodway and Staff has even stated that they cannot block the floodway.
He also stated that putting a lake in the floodway would not block it any way and that they feel
putting a storm water system in a floodway would increase the storage capacity because of the
soil being removed. He advised that they are not going to drain into the floodway because they
are required to drain into an on-site system to treat water quality before it discharges into the
positive legal outfall. He continued that they have a right to drain into Ten Mile Creek, but that
drainage must be controlled and will be controlled by all the rules and regulations of the
SFWMD. He stated that they already have a twelve-inch water main next to their site and they
will pay the full cost of bringing sewer to the site. He also stated that no one has the money to
restore this oxbow, re-vegetate the shoreline, reforest the three hundred foot setback, but the
developer is willing to partner up and restore that. He advised that they could help restore and
maintain the wildlife, they are only asking for something that will allow them to pay for that
restoration and use the land in a reasonable and compatible fashion. He continued that the
smallest buffer, conceptually, is a fifty-foot buffer along one side, the buffer and reforestation
along Ten Mile Creek would be over three hundred feet in some places. He stated that traffic is
eing caused by them. He also
stated that one way to solve that problem is to allow developers to pay for the impact they cause.
He advised that they believe this development will pay far beyond its fair share in impact fees
because they would need to provide intersection improvements at Edwards Road, Selvitz & Ralls
Road, and possibly other improvements.
Mr. Lounds stated that he feels this development is misplaced due to so much industrial in that
area.
Mr. Grande stated that he would not be able to support this without a PUD (Planned Unit
Development).
Ms. Hilson stated that there are too many environmental issues with this property.
Mr. Jones stated that he did not feel this project was right for this location.
Mr. Lounds stated that -
is right for this project.
property a long time ago. He also stated that he feels this is the wrong project in the wrong place.
Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing,
including staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie
County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the
application of Becker Holdings Corporation, for a Change in Future Land Use Designation
from RS (Residential Suburban) to RU (Residential Urban) because of all of the stated
concerns that we heard here tonight and I applaud the public for coming out and expressing
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 17
their concerns. I too feel this is a very, very, sensitive piece of property. I can see some very
upscale homes being built on certain portions of large tracts of this particular piece of land
if it is not purchased by the County for preservation purposes.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion.
Mr. Jones stated that it was brought up earlier that they might want to suggest that the County
purchase this property and that he feels the comment regarding upscale homes conflicts with that.
Mr. Grande stated that he believed that Mr. Lounds suggestion would appear in the minutes for
the Commissioners to read and act upon if they wish. He also stated that an alternative would be
that once this voted on, you may choose to make a separate motion with that recommendation and
have that separate motion voted on. Mr. Hearn stated that as the maker of the motion, his
intention was not to develop this land in any way or remove it from the suggestion that it be
purchased for preservation purposes. He continued that he fully supports that but in view of the
fact that may not happen his recommendation is that it be used in a much more sensitive way for
development purposes, if necessary. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with Mr. Grande that the
Commissioners can review the minutes and make their own recommendations based on the Local
mit the Becker family from coming back with a different plan that might be
presentable and compatible with the residents, as well as the LPA and Board of County
Commissioners.
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 denial.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 18
AGENDA ITEM 5: P&L PROPERTY MGMT (A/K/A ST. LUCIE SQUARE BINGO)
File No. CU-03-007:
Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant had requested to withdraw their application so Agenda Item
# 5 would not need to be heard.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 19
AGENDA ITEM 6: ALICIO PINA File No. RZ-03-023:
Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application of
Alicio Pina
for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District to
the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District for 27.28 acres of property
located on the North side of Indrio Road, approximately 2,000 feet east of Emerson Avenue. He
continued that the surrounding zoning was RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) to the
east and northeast, AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) to the north, south, and west, and I
(Institutional) is located to the west, south, and further east.
Mr. Flores stated that the purpose of the rezoning was to develop the property for a single-family
development. He continued that the subject property has a future land use classification of
Residential Urban, which may allow the RS-4 Zoning District and the uses associated with this
designation. He also stated that the subject property is bounded by the Lakewood Park residential
subdivision to the east and northeast, which has a zoning district designation of RS-4 and is
within the urban service boundary of St. Lucie County. He advised that adequate water and
sewer services are available to the area. He also stated that several developments have been
proposed for the Indrio Road corridor that has densities up to 5 dwelling units per gross acre. He
continued that the proposed density is compatible with these existing and proposed 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
recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
Chairman McCurdy questioned if the petitioner or their representative were present. Mr. David
Knight of Knight, McGuire and Associates, stated that he is the engineer representing the owner
Mr. Slonam and the applicant Mr. Pina. He advised that the site seems to be in the path of growth
within the urban service boundaries and rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive land use
plan. He continued that currently the property is agriculturally inactive and the grove is expired
and no longer economically viable.
Mr. Grande stated that this is an area of about 27 acres, which would mean slightly in excess of a
hundred units. Mr. Knight stated their development plan shows just fewer than eighty units. Mr.
Grande questioned why they were requesting an RS-4 zoning instead of a PUD (Planned Unit
really have any environmentally significant portions of it or any special considerations for the
layout or design. Mr. Grande questioned if their concept would be to divide it up grid-like as
opposed to clustering and a standard residential subdivision. Mr. Knight confirmed that it would
be more or less a standard residential subdivision with lake front properties, nice entry features,
and a clubhouse.
Mr. Lounds questioned if the piece to the north of property was landlocked.
Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing.
Mr. Frank Stewart stated that piece is his property and that it is landlocked. He continued that
they went to the variance board to allow an entryway access via the canal.
Mr. Robert Caron stated that he owns the 8 acres next door to the subject property at 8500 Indrio
Road. He advised that he has several issues regarding who would pay for fire, police, and
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 20
schools in the areas that would be impacted. He also questioned if he would be responsible for
paying for a third of the cost for the cost of water and sewer services. Mr. Murphy stated that the
property to the north is under review for a PUD submission and as a part of that development, the
developers are working with the county utility department to bring water and sewer lines to the
site north of Mr. St
property and that he believes the laws are that if their existing septic tanks failed, they would then
be required to hook up. He also stated that there might be some laws regarding the water lines as
well. He advised that the only other way that they would be compelled to hook up would be if he
requested that services be brought to his land and would be subject to hook up and line extension
charges. He also stated that these questions would be better to be answered by the legal
department and the utilities department. Mr. Caron stated that he is concerned because someone
wants to extend Lakewood Park into his side yard. He also stated that he is very concerned about
traffic, school, police, and drainage issues. He advised that he feels that corridor is being
piecemealed and we need to be very careful about that. He continued that he bought that property
because of the way the surrounding properties were zoned and now everyone around him are
requesting changes to allow more densities. He stated that he feels the properties are already
zoned for reasonable uses and increasing the density on this parcel will increase the value of one
of the surrounding property owners.
they each have their own areas of concern. She advised that there is a very large issue because
they are on the approach of runway 14 for the Fort Pierce Airport. She continued that she and her
husband are both pilots and lived in Vero Beach for twenty-five years. She also stated that right
now Vero Beach is in big trouble because they allowed developments like this in that area who
are upset and saying they cannot enjoy their property because they cannot hear because of the
approach line of the airplanes. She advised that this is going to become a problem in St. Lucie
County because of all of the changes requested in the approach area. She continued that there is a
multi-million dollar study going on in Vero Beach and the residents want the airport moved even
though the airport was there prior to them developing in the area.
Ms. Nadine Horowitz-Stewart stated that she and her husband Frank Stewart own 14 acres with
an upscale home north of the subject property. She advised that they are mostly concerned about
their property values being decreased by these requests. She continued that they are not trying to
stop progress but they are very concerned about all of these density change requests decreasing
the value of their home.
Chairman McCurdyclosed the public hearing.
Mr. Hearn stated that on page three, number three of the staff report it references several areas
and their densities. He continued that in his mind this explanation is irrelevant to the proposed
application. He advised that from what he understands from the people of the Indrio Road area,
ncrease densities. He also
stated that these people bought these properties and checked out the zoning and future land use,
and felt comfortable with their investment based on what was going to happen in the future. He
continued that there should be some respect for the people who have bought land and built their
atmosphere and would not want someone to put 4 or 5 dwelling units per acre next door to where
he lives. He continued that he appreciates what the public is saying and that he cannot support
this particular application for that reason.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 21
Mr. Lounds questioned if the applicant felt it would be economical to put residential dwellings on
the property that are upscale and large enough to get a return on their investment if there were
only one or two units per acre instead of four. Mr. Knight stated that he would not be able to
answer that question at this time without doing an economic analysis of that as well as a
residential marketing study to see if would be marketable for this property.
Mr. Grande questioned if Mr. Lounds felt this was consistent with the future of this portion of the
Indrio Corridor based on his work with the study groups. Mr. Lounds stated that the problem he
has with the Indrio Corridor is that you have residential that is one dwelling on multiple acreage.
He continued that many areas of the western county are moving into that direction. He advised
that there is a school to the east of it, congestion on Ft. Pierce Boulevard that comes out from
Lakewood Park, which are four dwelling units per acre. He stated that if you put more traffic on
Indrio Road without consideration that sometime in the future Indrio Road might become a four-
lane road. He also stated that if there were upscale dwellings with one to two units per acre, the
more dense areas would be faced with traffic controls in that area. He advised that at this piece
he would rather see one to two units per acre of upscale homes rather than four units per acre. He
corridor and he would be more comfortable with one or two per acre of upscale homes in this area
that borders the urban service area. He also stated that he is not anti-development but is
concerned about the revenue to St. Lucie County with four units per acre.
Mr. Akins stated that this property is very close to the other property that they considered this
evening and that they should be consistent in their direction for that area. He continued that the
other application was premature and that he felt this application is also premature until the whole
picture is reviewed in that area. He advised that he would not be able to support this application
at this time. Mr. McCurdy stated that one of the issues with the other application was extending
the urban service boundary and this application is already within the urban service boundary. Mr.
Akins stated that he does agree with that point.
Mr. Jones stated that the part that troubled him the most on the previous application was
requesting to extend the urban service boundary. He advised that this property has an RU
(Residential Urban) land use, which is 5 units per acre. He continued that the people who buy in
those land use areas should anticipate that type of development happening there. He stated that
they should respect the property rights of the owners of this property as well as those surrounding
it. He also stated that he would prefer to see more studies done in this area to see what the future
growth of the area will be. He continued that he would support this petition.
Mr. McCurdy stated that he agrees with what Mr. Jones said. He advised that this is an area that
how the Board can deny an appropriate use, which staff has recommended for approval. He also
stated that he believes there may be some problem because he personally believes Indrio Road
will become a four lane commercial corridor eventually. He stated that they have the land use
there that is appropriate and denying that could lead to litigation.
Mr. Hearn stated that the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) zoning that is on the property was there
when the owner purchased it. He advised that he is not convinced that they have an obligation to
change the zoning to get the maximum allowed number of units under the future land use. He
future land use designations. He stated that he has to respect the opinions and desires of a
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 22
against this petition.
Mr. Grande stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn and that the word entitlement frightens him. He
stated that he is opposed to the concept that a landowner has an entitlement to every single
potential zoning that is valid within the future land use. He continued that if that were the case,
there would not be a need for zonings and would not have the Planning and Zoning Commission
or the Board of County Commissioners making these decisions on a one by one basis. He
advised that the switch from one allowable zoning to a second allowable zoning within a future
land use designation is open for discussion and can be ultimately approved or denied. He also
entitlement to a zoning change within a future land use, it is discretionary.
Mr. McCurdy stated that he understands that but that the land use was given to the property as a
tool to control growth in an orderly fashion. He continued that while this may be premature, he
believes this area will be developed in the future at higher densities. He also stated that the
market would determine what the appropriate density is, whether it is one unit per acre or the
higher densities. He advised that there are some decisions that have been made, this is on a main
corridor, within the urban service boundary, and it is in the path of growth.
that they have made in South Florida. He advised that if we keep increasing densities we are
going to end up making the same mistakes that they have. He stated that they should take a close
look at what they are recommending. He also stated that he personally believes that there are
enough people in the country that would pay big money to live on property that has a little more
acreage to it, than four or five units per acre or higher. He advised that people in South Florida
think an 80X120 lot is large compared to what they get down there.
densities on properties they are not going to have enough property to put people on. He
continued that they are not requesting an increase to the maximum allowable use on this property,
which would be five units per acre and they are only asking for four. He stated that the future
land use indicates that this would be an appropriate use for this property, but the question is the
timing of it. He advised that he feels the timing now is appropriate.
Mr. Akins stated that he stands corrected as to the consistency of the two positions in the urban
service boundary. He advised that they when they are looking in this area they are dealing with
perspective. He continued that they have to balance all of that with the needs of the community
and that is going to make their jobs even more difficult in the future. He also stated that they
should look at the bigger picture and try to avoid the problems in southern Florida. He suggested
that he could agree with the future land use being five units per acre. He advised that he
understands Mr
they bought it.
Mr. Grande stated that this is not an easy issue to discuss. He advised that he disagrees with the
concept that they are coming so we need to accommodate them by allowing higher densities or
move further west. He stated that he thinks that Martin County has set a fairly good example in
terms of not needing higher densities or development further west. He continued that if Martin
County holds to their standards, the people would come to St. Lucie County. He advised that if
we keep our standards where we planned them to start we would grow the way we planned to
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 23
grow. He stated that they have absolutely no commitment to get denser than they had originally
planned to be or handle more people than they choose to handle. He stated that he would not be
able to support this application.
Mr. McCurdy stated that he is aware of three different twenty-acre subdivisions in Martin County
that are about five miles east of Lake Okeechobee out on 714 and that is classic urban sprawl. He
trying to avoid with higher densities within the urban service areas.
Mr. Lounds stated that he di
four units per acre in that area. He advised that Lakewood Park is a great place but it would be
hard to put one house per acre in that area with its current level of development. He stated that he
thinks that two houses per acre of upscale development would be more appropriate in this area.
He advised that this project would be more appropriate in the Lakewood Park area or out near
Emerson.
Mr. Hearn stated that upscale is better for the community because it pays more of the tax bill and
it keeps overcrowding of schools down. He advised that their obligation should be with the
taxpayers and property owners of this community to not provide an avenue for development to
for itself, the Comprehensive Plan states that too, and he feels they should vote on these issues
based on that. He continued that the surrounding communities should support the development,
he applicant the benefit of the doubt of what
he is looking to be put in there. Mr. Hearn stated that if they had a PUD before them, they would
know, but the applicant does not have any specific plans submitted yet.
Ms. Hilson stated that she feels they have the opportunity in the northern county to do something
different than GDC did years ago. She continued that the north county is underdeveloped in
comparison to the south county. She also stated that this is an opportunity to do this right and
agrees that they need to be extremely careful how they handle this. She stated that the reason
this will determine when and what people come in. She advised that it should be smart growth,
not quick growth.
Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony present 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 Alicio Pina, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1
du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District
because at this particular time we have to respect the concerns of the adjoining property
in their neighborhood. There are a lot of undeveloped lots in Lakewood Park that are
appropriate for four dwelling units per acre and the intense traffic that would be created if
we continue to make higher densities available on Indrio Road.
Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 24
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-2 (with Mr. Jones and Mr.
McCurdy voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of denial.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 25
AGENDA ITEM 7: DALE T. MOSHER File No. RZ-03-024:
Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of
Dale T. Mosher
for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre)
Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District for 9.67 acres
of property located at 4200 Edwards Road. He also stated that the surrounding zoning isRS-3
(Residential, Single-Family 3 du/acre) to the north, south, east, and west and further west, and a
small area is AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) zoning to the south of the subject site.
Mr. Flores stated that the petitioner, Dale T. Mosher, has requested this change in zoning from the
RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural,
Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District on property located at 4200 Edwards Road in order to
develop the property for greenhouses as an accessory to a single-family residence. He continued
that the subject property is located in an area, which is generally used for mixed residential and
agricultural uses. He also stated that even though the property is located within the urban service
boundary and the Comprehensive Plan discourages the location of productive agricultural uses in
the urban service boundary, several properties in the area have been rezoned to the AR-1 Zoning
District, which is primarily a residential zoning district designation. He advised that these
rezonings have been consistent with the overall existing development pattern of the area.
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. Grande stated that based on the lists of conditional uses in AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1
du/acre), if this were to be granted, does the greenhouse require a conditional use under
landscaping and horticultural services. Mr. Flores stated that the applicant is requesting
greenhouses and an accessory to a single family detached dwelling.
Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Dale T. Mosher stated that he was
the applicant and that he would like to have his quiet property but would like to be able to utilize
it for an income. He advised that the property has been used for nurseries in the past and has not
been built on since that time.
Mr. McCurdy questioned if there was a home on the property currently. Mr. Mosher stated there
was not. Mr. McCurdy asked if he intended on establishing a home there and Mr. Mosher stated
that was correct. Mr. McCurdy questioned if it was going to be a container nursery or
greenhouses. Mr. Mosher stated that it would be a container nursery and also planted directly
into the ground.
Chairman Merritt questioned if he would have any greenhouses. Mr. Mosher stated that he was
not proposing to do that at this time.
Mr. Lounds questioned if the old greenhouse that used to be on that property was still there. Mr.
Mosher stated it was no longer there. Mr. Lounds questioned if he was planning on
reestablishing that greenhouse that was previously there. Mr. Mosher stated that they were not
planning on it and would have them in the ground or in pots. Mr. Lounds questioned if he was
requesting the rezoning in case he wants greenhouses later. Mr. Mosher stated that he needed the
rezoning in order to put the pots on the property.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 26
Mr. Hearn questioned if farm animals could be put on the property if the rezoning is granted. Mr.
Flores stated that in AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) zoning you could have animals
as an accessory use to a single-family dwelling. Mr. Hearn stated that they have no positive
Chairman Merritt stated that across the street from this property just to the west, several years ago
was a greenhouse that created a lot of problems for the county. He continued that the greenhouse
backed up to residences and every time the owner turned the fan on, he blew all of his
insecticides into those residences. He advised that there were a lot of health problems for those
people because of th
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing.
Mr. Grande stated that he was confused because the staff report stated that the applicant wanted
to develop the property for greenhouses as an accessory use to a single-family residence. He
stated that the petitioner presented a plan that was specifically not greenhouses and would be
living on site with the nursery. Mr. Flores stated that it was a misunderstanding because of the
previous greenhouse. Mr. Mosher stated that what he presented is what he intends to do with the
property.
Mr. Hearn stated that he wants the applicant to be able to do this there but he is concerned about
the other possibilities that are allowed under the proposed zoning. He continued that he felt if the
Board of County Commissioners denied this petition he would like to see a request for a PUD on
that property where can he do what he is proposing.
Mr. Akins questioned why the
stated that it is still necessary to rezone it because the use of a commercial nursery.
Mr. Lounds 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 Dale T. Mosher, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3
(Residential, Single-Family 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural,
Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District so that the young man can put an agricultural
facility there. I think it would help limit some of the problems in that area. It is a very
quiet area and I think it would be consistent with what he wants to do with his piece of
property.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against)
and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 27
AGENDA ITEM 8: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES File No. Ord-03-023:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 8 was Draft
Ordinance 03-
Schedules, effective October 1, 2003. He continued that education facilities impact fees, a/k/a
school impact fees, across the State have been subject of much discussion and many are
experiencing or are proposed to be increased, some rather dramatically. He continued that it is
important to note that the amount that an impact fee may be raised is directly dependent upon the
level of State and local revenues that are earmarked for capital construction. He advised that one
reason for the rapid rate of increase in impact fees across the State is that while the State has
reduced its funding commitment for new school capital cost, and the basic cost to provide a
school and the necessary student work stations, has increased substantially, many local
communities have not, or cannot, adjust their local taxing structures to meet the costs of the
community. He continued that the projected costs of providing public educational facilities per
student are in St. Lucie County estimated to be $14,000 per student station. He also stated that
broken down through the formulas provided, the consultants have determined that St. Lucie
County will be short approximately $2,380, per single family home, in meeting our facility
obligations to address new community growth.
Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-023 to the Board
of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Marty Sanders stated that he is the facilities director for the St. Lucie County School Board.
He advised that they have been working with Staff and Dr. Nicholas providing the information to
update the impact fee analysis. He stated that the analysis is re-computing the costs based upon
the most recent expenditures by the School Board for new construction of facilities and purchase
of property. He also stated that they have been working with Treasure Coast Builders
Association (TCBA) and other community groups to make sure the fees are fair and reasonable.
He continued that the School Board had a special capital workshop to discuss the impact fee
ordinance. He advised that they received the full support of the TCBA for the full
implementation of the increase in the educational impact fee. He stated that the School Board
approved two conditions to the educational impact fee. He continued that the first condition
would be to implement it
and the second would be to provide a phasing to allow notice to the builders. He stated that the
first 50% would be implemented on January 1, 2004 instead of October 1, 2003 because there are
several smaller builders that have contracts already in process who may not be able to get their
building permits by October 1. He also stated that the second half of the increase would be
implemented on October 1, 2004, which would work well for the builders too. He advised that
the educational impact fee that was calculated by Dr. Nicholas back in April of 2000 was only
$157 less than the current proposed amount. He stated that the fee was not increased in 2000 and
one of the reasons was because of a legislative moratorium impact fee increase for educational
-year facilities
work plan that has a shortfall of $190,000,000. He advised that at the current rate of construction
their facilities needs from both a rehabilitation standpoint and new construction. He stated that
they believe that working with the builders in the community by phasing the fees in and seeking
alternative funding sources would meet all of their facility needs.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 28
Mr. Don Santos, Treasure Coast Builders Association, stated that $6,000,000 in impact fees
construction of schools. He stated that it costs
$45,000,000 for a senior high school, $20,000,000 for a middle school, and about $12,000,000
for an elementary school. He advised that impact fees by themselves would not get the
community where it needs to be. He continued that the builders are willing to pay their fair share
but want it phased in for practical reasons. He also stated that they want to be able to go to
community and ask for sales tax increases, and general obligation bonds. He advised that
implementation on October 1, 2003 for any of these impact fees is going to cause a major
would become effective a few days later, there would be customers with signed contracts who all
of a sudden need to come up with the additional $1800 to cover the impact fee increase. He
continued that they agree with the recommendation of the School Board to phase in the fee
increase.
Ms. Pamela Hammer, Charleston Way, The Reserve stated that she has a different position from
the builders and School Board. She advised that this increase should have been proposed a long
time ago. She stated that if they hold off on implementing this fee there would be many more
homes
homeowners in the Reserve and Tradition can afford those homes, they could afford the increased
impact fee. She also stated that the shortfall would end up being paid by everyone else in the
She advised that there is no excuse for not getting this money now because we are far behind
other communities.
Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing.
in of the costs as the School Board recommended. Mr. Murphy stated that he was not given any
instructions regarding a date schedule and their recommendation is for the October 1, 2003 date.
Mr. Lounds questioned if the educational impact fees were only accessed on single-family
dwellings. Mr. Murphy stated that the fee is on any residential use. Mr. Lounds questioned if the
fee affects commercial buildings. Mr. Murphy stated that it does not include commercial because
the basic methodology does not measure service demand on commercial development. He
advised that a commercial business does not generate a student or the need for student station, but
a house will. He continued that a commercial business would only generate a need for fire, EMS,
and law enforcement services. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels that commercial businesses could
do their part to help lessen the impacts on the community by paying an educational impact fee
impacting schools by adding additional students.
Mr. Grande stated that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because there is a clear
delineation between where the money should be obtained for the impact of new development as
well as ongoing maintenance of the existing facilities. He advised that impact fees are designed
to pay for the new capital construction and that makes sense. He continued that he agrees with
Ordinance 03-023 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 29
approval, effective October 1, 2003 because it is absolutely consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and it is in the best interest of the students and citizens of the county.
Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn, with discussion.
Mr. Hearn stated that he believes that if the new developments, which are causing the impact on
time for the people who are creating the expense to pay the bill.
Mr. Lounds stated that his logic about asking about this fee being accessed to commercial
development goes back to the tremendous amount of people who open businesses within this
also stated that he agrees with Mr.
Mr. Grande stated that the owner of the home paid their share when it was built so those who rent
had their fees paid by the owner. He also stated that when one renter moves out and another
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 / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 30
AGENDA ITEM 9: FIRE / EMS IMPACT FEES File No. ORD-03-024:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 9 was Draft
Ordinance 03-
Protection Impact Fee is above the State average for single family residential and near the State
average for other land uses. He advised that note might be taken of the fact that many Florida
jurisdictions impose a Public Safety impact fee that includes fire, rescue or EMS and police. He
continued that the comparison data listed in the summary report are only for fire or fire/rescue
impact fees. He also stated that revised facility costs were provided by the Fire District and based
consultants have revised the Fire/EMS Protection
Impact Fee as shown in Draft Ordinance 03-024.
Noting the above, and based upon the consultants report on the proposed adjustment to the
cal Planning Agency
forward Draft Ordinance 03-024 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation
of approval.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Captain Nate Spera from the St. Lucie County Fire District stated that the fee basically funds their
capital improvement plan. Mr. Lounds questioned if the fee is accessed based on zone. Captain
Spera stated that these are not accessed by zone they are countywide. Chairman Merritt
questioned if they are being impacted because of the CRA issues. Captain Spera stated that
segregate out a portion of fire taxes and use that for a purpose other than fire and rescue services
the remainder of the community is supporting those services. He continued that they received
approval yesterday from the Fire Board to apply for an exemption from the Port St. Lucie CRA,
which should go into effect July 1, 2003.
Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing.
Ordinance 03-024 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval because it is as required by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the best
interests of the citizens of the county.
Motion seconded by Mr. Jones.
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 / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 31
AGENDA ITEM 10: LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES File No. ORD-03-025:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 10 was Draft
Ordinance 03-025, which would propose to create a Countywide Law Enforcement Impact Fee,
effective October 1, 2003. He continued that the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department provides
countywide law enforcement, court security, and correctional security throughout St. Lucie
County pursuant to the authority granted under the Florida Constitution. He also stated that the
imposition of a countywide impact fee for law enforcement services would assist the Sheriff in
meeting its countywide obligations to provide effective law enforcement services.
Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-025 to the Board
of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Don Santos from the Treasure Coast Builders Association stated that he is a homebuilder in
St. Lucie County. He stated that there are three things that have to go with this, the first being
fairness for the existing residents as well as the new residents coming in. He continued that it
should have a rational nexus where the amount you pay should have a service associated with it
that you can benefit from. He also stated that the third item is the methodology. He stated that he
felt this ordinance has some serious problems. He continued that this is a countywide impact fee
that is going to be paid to the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department. He advised that this is
impact fee is based on service calls, an amount per call, and how many people are in a residence.
He stated that the problem with this is that he thinks that the service calls for the Sheriffs
department are predominately in the unincorporated areas. He continued that although they do
provide services within the municipalities, it is probably at a limited amount relative to their
overall service calls that they are highlighting in the report. He stated that the City of Port St.
rational nexus to say that a citizen in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County, the Sheriff is
going to provide 100% of the law enforcement. He also stated that those in the City of Port St.
Lucie would most likely not receive 100%. He continued that the report says that all of the
money is going to go to the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department. He advised that he feels there
is a real problem with that and that many other municipalities base it on certain specific criteria
and not so generally. He stated that nothing other than service calls are considered in this report
with the fairness and rational nexus of connecting it to the other two municipalities.
Mr. Akins stated that they should also consider that the Sheriffs Department is not just road
personnel covering other areas of the county. He continued that there are concurrent jurisdictions
in which the Sheriffs Department does help; they are also 100% in charge of court security;
other law enforcement agencies. He advised that he believes
there is some rational relationship to basing this on the Sheriffs Department. He also stated that
any impact fees in a municipality could be handled through municipal permitting collections.
Mr. Grande stated that he thought the law enforcement impact fees were for capital expense of
law enforcement. He continued that the fees would not pay for the security at the jail, but they
pay for the building or expansion of the jail itself. He also st
salaries of guards for court security, but pay for building a new courthouse. He advised that he
feels most of those capital costs are countywide costs and that those capital facilities are shared
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 32
among the cities, so this fee structure is imminently fair as long as none of these funds go to pay
salaries within any of the departments.
Mr. Murphy stated that impact fees may be used for capital needs and cannot be used for
operating needs. He also stated that the fees address the capital needs and the methodologies
used have been used elsewhere successfully. He also stated that they are cognizant of the
questions that Mr. Santos raised about the nexus and they believe that it does satisfy that. He
continued that they would review the information further prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting to make sure.
Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing.
Ordinance 03-025 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval because it is in the best interest of the citizens of the county.
Motion seconded by Mr. Jones.
unincorporated area, once you pass Jenkins Road, become very few as compared to east of
Jenkins Road or east of I-95. He continued that the Sheriff is charged with backing up the city
and taking calls in the incorporated areas of both cities. He advised that the County already has
an impact fee on corrections. Mr. Murphy confirmed that for capital building, a portion of it does
go to corrections.
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 / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 33
AGENDA ITEM 11: FIREWORKS (FIRE PROTECTION) File No. ORD-03-020:
Ms. Heather Young, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 11 was proposed
Ordinance 03-020, which would amend Chapter 1-7.9 (Fire Protection) by creating Article II
(Fireworks) of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Complied Laws. She also stated
that the St. Lucie Fire District is responsible for fire prevention and protection within St. Lucie
County. She continued that the Fire District, on February 19, 2003, adopted Resolution No. 408-
03 requesting that the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County to adopt an ordinance
establishing standards and regulations concerning the sale and use of consumer fireworks. She
advised that under the terms of Draft Ordinance 03-020, the County would regulate the sale of
consumer fireworks to commercial or industrially zoned lands and only from a permanent
commercial building. She also stated that there is a full definition of what is classified as a
firework and what is not within the ordinance. She advised that Mr. Fred Vaughan was present as
a representative of the Fire District to answer any additional questions. Ms. Young stated that
this item would be heard at the Board of County Commissioners July 1, 2003 meeting but would
not be effective, if adopted, until July 5, 2003, after the holiday.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Fred Vaughan stated that he was the Fire Marshall for St. Lucie County.
Mr. Hearn questioned why it took so long to get this ordinance. Mr. Vaughan stated that he has
been working on this ordinance for a long time. Mr. Lounds questioned if the intent of this
ordinance was to stop all tent sales in St. Lucie County or do they have a fear of a tent fire
because of the fireworks. Mr. Vaughan stated that the fireworks ordinance, as it stands, does not
eliminate sale of the State approved legal fireworks. He continued that they are trying, from fire
prevention / protection stand points to limit these items being near homes, businesses, gas
stations, etc. He also stated that there are items that can be purchased today that could cause
problems concerning public safety. He advised that the large amount of these types of products
that can be sold in a tent ultimately could cause a very severe problem. He stated that the City of
Fort Pierce approached him several years ago to assist in drafting this type of ordinance for them,
in which they were successful. He continued that subsequent to that, the City of Port St. Lucie
asked him to assist them in doing the same thing.
Mr. Vaughan stated that the Fire Board asked him to present this to the Board of County
Commissioners so they would have something fairly uniform throughout the entire county. Mr.
Lounds questioned if the fire hazards within a commercial building would be less than in a tent.
Mr. Vaughan stated that anywhere fireworks are sold it is dangerous. He advised that if it were
within a building, it would burn up, not across a road. He continued that when a fireworks fire
starts in a tent, they could fall down and therefore shoot the items across roads into schools,
businesses, putting the general public at higher risk. Mr. Lounds stated that he spoke with the
Fire Marshall in Tallahassee and he stated that within the last five years there have been eleven
structure or tent fires of which nine were at events, fairs, and shows. He continued that cooking,
not fireworks started all of these fires. He questioned if the intent of this ordinance was to stop
tent sales of anything in St. Lucie County it needs to be addressed. Mr. Vaughan stated that they
are not trying to limit all tent sales only to control firework sales in tents because if these items
catch fire they can leave the premises and cause risk to the public.
Mr. Grande stated that any buildings would need to have a sprinkler system. Mr. Vaughan
confirmed that the ordinance was written to include that. Mr. Grande stated that it being in a
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 34
building that contains a sprinkler system is a very important factor. Chairman Merritt stated that
he had a problem with the ordinance because he would rather see all fireworks banned in St.
Lucie County rather than limit them to a building. He continued that he received a letter from the
American Pyrotechnics Association that states the only deaths in the last twenty-five years were
within a building that had a sprinkler system that was disconnected. He also stated that there was
an accident last week where a trailer turned over and caught on fire but the fire department could
not put it out because the fuses were waterproofed. He advised that by the time the heat and
ordinance does enough by just outlawing tent sales of fireworks because it confines people within
a building.
Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing.
03-020 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion.
Mr. Jones stated that he agreed with Mr. Lounds and Chairman Merritt, but understands the Fire
he was not sure that he would be able
to support this ordinance.
Mr. Lounds questioned if the County could ban fireworks within the county, or would it cause
problems with State law. Ms. Young stated that she believed there were some places within the
State where fireworks are completely prohibited. She continued that she would do some further
review on that question. Mr. Lounds stated that if he would be able to vote for this if they would
request that the County ban all fireworks sales within St. Lucie County because it would end the
problem. Mr. Vaughan stated that he would be more than willing to approach any board to try to
outlaw firework sales within St. Lucie County and has been trying for that for many years. He
also stated that there are loopholes in Florida Statutes with regards to these laws and that is why
they were trying to create this ordinance. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels anyone who lives in St.
Lucie County who wants to buy fireworks should have to go to another county or state to buy
them.
Mr. Akins questioned if the intent was to not have fireworks at all in St. Lucie County or to limit
them to being sold within commercial buildings. Mr. Grande stated that his intent with seconding
the motion was to express his faith in the fire departments recommendation. He continued that he
is not an expert in this area but believes that the fire departments recommendation is relating to
believe they were restricting purchases, only where the items could be sold safely. He advised
that his personal feeling is that the fire department is the best group to make a recommendation
with regards to these matters and why he seconded the motion.
Mr. Va
approved. He continued that having many of these items in a tent is a fire hazard because they
can tip over and shoot into stores, family residences, and other highly populated areas. He also
stated that he does not necessarily like these items being sold within a building, but at least if
something happened it would be confined and would not travel such large distances. He advised
that he is just trying to protect the citizens of the County from these types of activities.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 35
Mr. McCurdy questioned if there have been any incidents within St. Lucie County of items
catching fire and tipping over and shooting into public places. Mr. Vaughan stated that he was
not aware of it happening to date.
Chairman Merritt stated that the American Pyrotechnics Association could only find one incident
of injuries in twenty-five years worth of review. He continued that the fire was intentionally set
inside a building and killed seven people in Ohio. Mr. Lounds questioned if their information did
not show any injuries as a result of fireworks. Chairman Merritt stated that they were unable to
find any tent sale fires, but there were about 8,000 people a year injured by fireworks. Mr.
Lounds stated that he would like to send a message that if fireworks are going to be restricted
then they should consider banning them altogether in St. Lucie County. He also stated that there
are a few businesses within the County that should probably be grandfathered in, but this should
limit there being any more of those types of businesses.
Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 4 4 (with Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds,
Ms. Morgan & Chairman Merritt voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners for their review.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 36
OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION:
Next scheduled meeting will be July 17, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
_____________________________
Dawn Gilmore, Secretary
P & Z / LPA Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 37