Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-17-2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING July 17, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Hearn, Ms. Morgan, Mr. Trias, Mr. Merritt, and Ms. Hilson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Lounds and Mr. McCurdy (Both with Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner III; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Merritt called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight. The meeting will progress in the following manner: The Chair will call each item. Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has specific questions. The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. Mr. Grande disclosed that he had spoken with representatives from the Ginn Co. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Hearn stated that he owns property within 500 feet of the petition for 250 Emerson Avenue so he would be recusing himself from that petition. Chairman Merritt welcomed new members, Ms. Stephanie Morgan and Ms. Pamela Hammer to the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly explained that there was an application for a Change in Zoning for an Eduardo Leal that was advertised but would not be heard. He stated that it was determined that the Change in Zoning was not necessary. Chairman Merritt made an announcement to be sure that anyone from the public who may have attended regarding that petition was aware that the application was withdrawn and would not be heard. No other announcements or discussion. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2003: 24 should Mr. Hearn stated that Ms. Diana Waite needed to be added to the list of others present at the meeting. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: WILLIAM D. MILLER File No. RZ-03-020: Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Items 2, 3 & 4 were in regard to three separate applications for three adjacent pieces of property. He stated that they were being presented as one petition, but they would require separate votes. William D. Miller, Eugene and Leslie Mr. Flores stated that these were the applications of Duncan, and Cora Lambert for Changes in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family 9 du/acre) Zoning District th for approximately 10 acres of property located on the West side of South 25 Street, approximately 700 feet south of Cortez Boulevard. He continued that the purpose of the requests are to allow the development of the properties for multiple-family uses up to 9 dwelling units per gross acre. He advised that the surrounding zonings areRS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 th du/acre) to the west, north, and east across South 25 Street. He continued that RM-9 Zoning is th also located to the east across South 25 Street, with I (Institutional) and PUD (Planned Unit Development Lake Forest) to the south. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. Pat Murphy, President of Hoyt C. Murphy Realtors, stated that he was there to represent the landowners and the company who is interested in purchasing the parcels. He advised that they feel it is a logical request and good location for a condo or townhouse development. He stated that there are other similar developments in the area, Villages of Lawnwood and Key Colony. He continued that they feel this type of development would be the best use for the property and is within the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use guidelines. Mr. Akins questioned if the property to the south was the Greek Orthodox Church. Mr. Murphy stated that it is not a church; it is an adult living facility. Mr. Akins questioned if they were south of Cortez. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicants would have to submit a PUD (Planned Unit Development) request for their review if the three parcels were rezoned. Mr. Flores stated that they are only review. Mr. Hearn stated that he thought a PUD would be required on these properties because of not having the road frontage. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Ruth Jones, of 2718 S 27th Street, stated that her property is adjacent to the subject parcel. She advised that she also owns a few parcels on Brantley Road. She stated that she bought a double lot so she could have a single-family home there. She also stated that she checked out the area and found that they were all zoned for single-family residences. She advised that she is concerned about 25th Street and the traffic issues. She continued that there are many accidents in P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 5 increase the traffic tremendously. She also stated that she believes most of the homeowners in the area are totally against changing these properties to multi-family. Mr. Glen Carraway, of 2270 Bell Avenue, stated that he owns four lots on 25th street, just north their property with the existing zoning. He continued that he feels the applicants should have based on this request. He also stated that his four lots would be negatively impacted if multi- family homes were to be built on this property. He questioned how Brantley Road would be developed into 25th Street. He also questioned how the proposed development would affect drainage in the area. He stated that he is also concerned about what kind of buffering would be put in between the multi-family area and the existing single-family residences. He continued that with this standard rezoning request they have no assurances over what will happen to the property. He also stated that there is too many permitted uses under the new zoning and would recommend that this application be denied. Mr. Jim Davis, of 2805 Brantley Avenue, stated that his property is between 28th and 29th street. He advised that there are many young families living in the single-family environment in that area. He stated that they are concerned that this type of multi-family environment could become duplexes, triplexes, and Section 8. He also stated that they are worried about the increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area. He advised that an increase in pedestrian traffic could also cause an increase in crime in the area. Mr. George Burenga, of 2819 Surrey Woods, stated that he is concerned about not knowing what they are going to build on the property because there is no plan. He also stated that he would like to see a plan before the zoning change is approved. He continued that there are many people who County Commissioners Meeting. He advised that his wife already has to wait to make a left onto 25th street to go south to work, sometimes over ten minutes. He stated that this type of development would greatly increase the traffic in that area. He also stated that there are many accidents at the Cortez intersection and they feel a traffic light would be needed. He continued that there is a pond where they live and their pond has been substantially lower since the senior center was put in. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Grande stated that this property is 9.8 acres and he thought if it were ten acres it would be required to have a PUD to develop as multi-family. Mr. Kelly stated that was not correct and there was no minimum acreage requirements to have a PUD. Ms. Hilson questioned what the price range of the multi-family homes was anticipated to be. Mr. Pat Murphy stated that they would probably be between $120,000 to $150,000 townhouse or condo project with garages. He continued that this project would be more equivalent with the larger units at the Villages of Lawnwood. Chairman Merritt questioned why the applicants requested a straight rezoning instead of PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Pat Murphy stated that developers were looking to contract the property. He continued that there were some valid, logical points made to request they submit a PUD. He also stated that they want the neighbors to be happy with the plan. He advised that P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 6 they feel the project to be an asset to the neighborhood. He continued that the land use plan anticipates that it will be multi-family and that is what they are looking for. Mr. Akins questioned if the applicants would be opposed to resubmitting a PUD (Planned Unit Development) request rather than a straight zoning change. Mr. Pat Murphy stated that he has not spoken to the applicants about this, but if that were what the Planning and Zoning Commission wants, then he would make them aware of that. Ms. Hammer questioned what the cost of services per single-family unit in the unincorporated portion of the County is. Mr. Kelly stated that these issues are reviewed each time they go through the impact fee process. He advised that several of the impact fees have been reviewed recently but a couple were established a few years ago and they update on about a five-year schedule. Ms. Hammer requested that in the future they receive a breakdown of what the cost for an average home for the County to provide the services to that home. She continued that she would like to see that anything they are approving is paying for itself. Mr. Kelly stated that they would take care of that in the future. Chairman Merritt stated that in the past the breaking point was $120,000 per unit. Ms. Hammer stated that was what she was looking for. She also stated that she is concerned about the surrounding residents rights. She advised that these residents have lived in the area for a very long time with the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) zoning. She continued that she is concerned about more than doubling the density as well as doubling the number of children being put into the schools. future with a straight rezoning he could not support the request. He continued that he would have preferred to see a plan and have the neighbors feel more at ease before doing a straight rezoning. Mr. Hearn 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 deny the application of William D. Miller, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District because I feel very uncomfortable, as I think the neighborhood does, not knowing what the plans are for the property and I would recommend that they at that time. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-2 (Mr. Grande and Mr. Trias voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 3: EUGENE AND LESLIE DUNCAN. File No. RZ-03-021: Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Items 2, 3 & 4 were in regard to three separate applications for three adjacent pieces of property. He stated that they were being presented as one petition, but they would require separate votes. T P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 4: CORA B. LAMBERT File No. RZ-03-022: Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Items 2, 3 & 4 were in regard to three separate applications for three adjacent pieces of property. He stated that they were being presented as one petition, but they would require separate votes. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM 5: 250 EMERSON AVENUE, LLC. (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent) File No. RZ-03-012 / PUD-03-009: Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item 5 was the application of 250 Emerson Avenue, LLC (Houston Cuozzo, Agent) for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the Residential Project to be known as Emerson Estates PUD for property located on the east side of Emerson Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north of Indrio Road. He continued that the surrounding zoning of AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) is located to the north, south, and west. He also stated that H (Historic) is located south at the northeast corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue, RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) is located to the east and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning is located to the south at the northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue. Mr. Flores stated that the applicant is proposing a residential development of 541 Single-Family Units and 179 Multiple-Family Units for a total of 720 units with a proposed density of 2.99 dwelling units per acre. He also stated that the Land Development Code requires that 35% of a proposed PUD must consist of open space and that this proposed PUD maintains 38% (91.03 acres) of the project area in total open space. He advised that an oak hammock preserve area consists of 2.33 acres, sabal palm preserve areas comprise 4.5 acres, wetlands and wetland buffers account for 5.54 acres, lakes account for 31.0 acres (12.9%), the recreation area contains 3.98 acres, and the remainder of the open space is provided through lake buffer areas and perimeter landscaping. He continued that the balance of the project of 150 acres consists of those areas designated for residential development. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan are compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. This petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Flores advised that conditions could be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration as a part of final approval. Mr. Bobby Klein stated that he represented the petitioner 250 Emerson LLC, which is the developer. He also stated that it is a 240-acre PUD (Planned Unit Development) with a density of three units per acre, with a maximum density allowed of five units per acre. He continued that this development only utilizes 60% density and they have a plan that provides for a variety of housing types. He advised that they have worked closely with the Environmental Services Division in an effort to preserve the appropriate areas of the property. He stated he would like Mr. Ken Natoli to present the details of the plan. Mr. Ken Natoli, Houston Cuozzo Group, stated that they have five different housing types in their plan to accommodate diversity of the potential owners. He continued that they have tried to treat all of the units with the same level of amenities. He advised that they have 91 acres of open space, which includes an oak hammock preserve, sabal palm preserve, and substantial buffers along Emerson Avenue. He also stated that they have an internal sidewalk network for everyone to get around the project and access the recreation areas. He continued that they would also be a bus turnoff so school buses can exit off of Emerson Avenue without holding up traffic. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Klein stated that they have put a lot of time and effort into this plan. He advised that staff has found that the proposed zoning designation and site plan are compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. He also stated that staff has determined the application to be consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. He continued that they would respectfully request that they recommend approval of this project. Mr. Grande stated that Mr. Klein stressed the point that this development would be at 3 units per acre, fewer than the five allowable units. He advised that if this request were not approved, under the current zoning of AG-1, this property has a maximum of one unit per acre. He continued that he believes they are asking them to approve this plan and increase the density. Mr. Klein advised that he is referencing the under lying zoning but he believes there are some other zonings there as well. He also stated that he understan it could be developed. Chairman Merritt questioned what the under lying land use on the property was. Mr. Klein stated that the future land use is RU (Residential, Urban), which allows up to five units per acre. Ms. Hilson stated she would like to have a figure for the prices of the townhouses and the homes they are projecting. Mr. Klein advised that the home prices would range from $125,000 to $250,000. He continued that he believed the town homes would be at the lower end and the single-family units, as you get to larger lots, would be at the higher end. Ms. Hammer questioned if they could address the issues raised by correspondence regarding the discharge of the storm water. Mr. Richard Cabrera with CCL Consultants stated that the issues were with regards to drainage in Lakewood Park. He continued that apparently with the Portofino Shores development they are experiencing some adverse impacts. He stated that one of the first things they did was make inquiries with the SFWMD and FPFWCD. He advised that the property is designed to drain so that all of lakes will come down to the lake in the southeast corner and their discharge point would be into the FPFWCD Canal No. 5. He also stated that the control structure is being located by the FPFWCD because they are unsure where it is at this time. He continued that there would be no impacts to Lakewood Park. Mr. Akins questioned if this was the same property that was before them last month. Mr. Klein explained this is not the same property and that property was to the south of this subject property. Mr. Kelly explained that the previous request for Alicio Pina. He continued that there have been several applications in the same general area but are different sites. Ms. Hammer questioned if the maintenance of the single-family homes would be individually maintained with their own sprinkler systems, or would it be a community system. Mr. Cabrera stated that they have not really decided that yet, but there will be irrigation for all lots. Ms. Hammer stated that she is concerned and that residents be encouraged to use drip irrigation when that is feasible. She also stated that there have been some advances with using recharge water for irrigation. She continued that they should look at all of the environmental issues that could project and prepare for the future. Mr. Trias questioned if the project only has one way in and out, and if staff, the fire district, and any other individuals have found this layout acceptable. Mr. Natoli stated that it has been addressed and in the northwest corner they have a secondary emergency access point. He continued that the fire department had them increase the size of their cul-de-sacs. He advised that P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 11 engineering has also reviewed the plan and this is why they have a secondary means of ingress and egress access. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Susie Caron, 8500 Indrio Road, stated that it is a beautiful development, but it is misplaced. She stated that they have a ranchette on seven acres with horses, chickens, cows, and roosters that crow at five in the morning. She also stated that there are beautiful buffers on Emerson, but there are none between their properties and this proposed development. She continued that she advised that it is consistent with Lakewood Park, but not with their property and the farming properties of their neighbors. She also questioned what the time frame, start to finish, would be on this development. She stated that her major issue is roads especially since there are not any plans to expand Indrio Road anytime in the near future. She also stated that Indrio Road is single lane highway and an evacuation route that already has serious problems with that road. She advised that 720 more students in Lakewood Park Elementary School would not be possible. She stated that she would like to see the road studies, which show this is not going to cause a problem because there are a tremendous amount of vacant lots available throughout Lakewood Park. Mr. Frank Stewart stated that he has one home in the middle of fourteen acres. He continued that he would see about fifty houses only ten feet from his home if this plan is approved. He also stated that he did his homework when he moved into the neighborhood because everything around his property is AG- mind. He questioned if any board members stood to make a profit over these developments. He stated that he has lost faith in the county. He also stated that one house per acre he can live with and would still allow for a developer to produce and upscale community with only one house on an acre lot. He continued that if this were to happen there would not be traffic, crime, or school issues and the value of his land would not diminish. He questioned if this PUD would be sewer and water, or septic and well. He advised that he believes the ten-acre site, which was previously owned by his father, may be contaminated and should be looked at. He continued that the area already floods when it is the rainy season and he is also concerned about all of the discharge into the canal. Ms. Hammer questioned how Mr. Stewart got into his property. Mr. Stewart stated that he has a culvert off East Seminole Road and Miramar. Ms. Hammer questioned what happens to the pond on his property during storms. Mr. Stewart stated that it is topped out all of the time and floods when the rains are heavy. Chairman Merritt questioned if any of the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission had a monetary interest in this project. Each of the members stated they did not. Mr. Grande stated take it as an insult. Mr. Gordon Case, Holiday Pines, questioned if this subject property was using the water when figuring the average of home density per acre. He advised that he believes the homes would be closer than the average 3 houses per build able acre. He stated that he has lived in Holiday Pines for eighteen years. He also stated that they have their own water and sewer district and is concerned that this project will be tapping into their systems. He advised that he believes all of these developers will be feeding from the Holiday Pines water and sewer districts. He continued that their system was not built as a north St. Lucie County sewer and water district. He stated it P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 12 was built for the containment of one five hundred home subdivision. He advised that he is also concerned about salt-water intrusion into their water district. Mr. Dominick Scotto, 8600 Indrio Road, stated that this is the third piece of property around them that has come up for development. He stated that he is concerned about the impact from the increased traffic on Kings Highway. He also stated that they live on about 3 ½ acres and has a lot of trees. He advised that he is concerned about the density of the proposed project. He continued that the townhouses, the highest density, are on the south end of the property, next to those who live in the lowest density. He advised that he is concerned about his property values as well. Mr. Jay Macomber, 8680 Indrio Road, stated that he agrees with Mr. Scotto. He advised that his property is right on the corner of this project where the highest density is going to go. He continued that his backyard would have a view of a much higher density than three units per acre. He advised that he moved out of town so that he would have room around his home. He stated that he has exotic birds that make a lot of noise, but he enjoys his country lifestyle immensely. He advised that he is not against the building of a development because that is their right, but the fact that it is a high-eem fair. Mr. Robert Caron, 8500 Indrio Road, stated that he believes that there should be a complete overview of the impact of a proposed development and the surrounding areas. He advised that he feels this would cause many problems with emergency evacuations; sewer, water, and many other issues should be addressed. He continued that there is a lot of land further east that could be hey bought into; he lives on 7 ½ acres and would like to see everyone build like that. Mr. Sam Waters, 5151 Emerson Avenue, stated that he is right across the street from this project. He stated that it is going to be overly populated in that area for drainage. He also stated that he is concerned because there are many types of endangered birds that come to his property. He advised that he spends many hours building ponds so these birds can come in and if this development is approved, he will loose that. He continued that he also agrees with all of the issues that the other residents have discussed. He stated that he has been on his property longer than everyone else there, thirty years, and has developed his property into a bird sanctuary. He advised that having a trailer park across the street from his property would not help his cause at all. Ms. Nadine Horowitz-Stewart stated that their property is south and east of the proposed project. She advised that they have fourteen of the original twenty-four acres that was owned by their family. She stated that they worked for two years to get the area cleaned up and in 1993 built their dream home on it. She also stated that since it was zoned one unit per acre they thought they would be safe. She advised that they left everything naturally in the area and because of that development is approved her view will change from trees to a bunch of homes. She advised that over the past three weeks the developers have been cleaning up the lower ten acres of their property and she has seen large gas tanks taken out of the ground. She also stated that she has seen them dig out tires, concrete, and many car parts out of the dirt there. She believes the area should be tested for contamination. She advised that traffic is a major issue already, especially at the elementary school, and this would just make it worse. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 13 Ms. Susie Caron stated that she was asked to speak on behalf of Jimmy and Nick Russakis. She St. Lucie County. She advised that they were not able to attend the meeting but asked her to inform the board that they are completely and totally against these developments. She continued that Nick advised her that if this development were approved he would be moving to his ranch in Okeechobee and selling all of his property in St. Lucie County. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Bobby Klein stated he appreciates the feedback from the community and they understand why they are emotional about this issue. He advised that the law requires that they must meet all of the requirements for development in St. Lucie County. He continued that once final approval is received they anticipate a build out of over five years. He stated that with this application they submitted a traffic study, which was examined by the Road and Bridge Manager, and found to be consistent with the requirements with adequate capacity on the roads for this project. He also stated that this property is within the urban service line and can be serviced by public utilities and intended for development. He continued that this property is not sprawl and is essentially infill. He advised that he understands that these people have enjoyed a period of time where they have had homes on large pieces of property and he also understands their concerns. He stated that they 1990 as being five units per acre. He continued that this is the future and the future is now. He advised that they have absolutely no involvement with Mr. Pina or that property. He also stated that a concurrency analysis was done by staff and found consistent with the comprehensive plan. He advised that this property would be served by full utilities, water and sewer, and would not served by Holiday Pines facilities. He stated that there is an expansion of the St. Lucie County Utilities for the north county that will serve this development. He also stated that there is nothing on the property that is controlling drainage. He advised that the regulations require that this property manage its own drainage and it does. He continued that this project would not receive its final approval until it has all of the appropriate permits from St. Lucie County, the drainage district, and water district. He stated that his client also owned the 153 acres that is due north of the subject property and sold it to St. Lucie County for a park rather than develop it with the three units per acres. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of 250 Emerson Avenue, LLC (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent), for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to be known as Emerson Estates the surrounding current land uses and would create too great a strain on that particular part of the county. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 2-4 (with Mr. Akins, Ms. Morgan, Mr. Trias, and Mr. Merritt voting against). P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Akins 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 approve the application of 250 Emerson Avenue, LLC (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent), for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to be known as Emerson Estates PUD because I believe it is consistent with the future use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. I believe it is also the type of PUD project that we have been asking to be brought forth in that area. Even though I have should deny this project. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Chairman Merritt questioned if they could make a suggestion, as part of the motion, that the stated that he would certainly sug that he would definitely like the developer to consider some type of mirror image of the development as currently proposed. Mr. Akins stated that he would not have a problem with amending his motion to include that. Ms. Morgan agreed as well. Mr. Trias stated that he believes the best way to phrase that idea would be to revise the site plan to address the issues of compatibility with neighboring parcels and some of the other environmental issues described. Mr. Akins and Ms. Morgan agreed. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 4-2 (with Mr. Grande and Ms. Hammer voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 15 AGENDA ITEM 6: WATERSONG File No. RZ-03-016 / PUD-03-008: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application of Ginn-LA, St. Lucie, Ltd., LLLP, for a Major Adjustment to an approved Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the project known as Watersong (formerly Ocean Oasis and Gloucester Towne) and a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District and PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District for a 28.32 acre parcel of land located at 4900 South Ocean Drive (east side of State Road A-1-A, approximately three miles north of the Florida Power and Light Nuclear Power Plant). Ms. Snay stated that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed amendment would be consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. She advised that the proposed adjustment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Watersong (3.21 du/acre) will result in a lesser density than that is less than the density approved under the Ocean Oasis PUD (3.93 du/acre) and less than approved within the RU (Residential Urban) land use designation of 5 du/acre. She also stated that the proposed site plan is requesting 91 dwelling units and the approved Ocean Oasis PUD was approved at 111 dwelling units, a total reduction of 20 units or an 18% decrease and that if the subject property were developed at its maximum residential density, 142 dwelling units would be possible. She continued that the proposed site plan design proposes to preserve 5.05 acres of wetlands found on the site as well as 9.43 acres of dune system. The original approval for the Gloucester Towne development required improvements to the dune system. These improvements have been completed. This will result in no net loss of wetlands for this development. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the major adjustment to a Preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan is compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. This petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that this petition be forwarded to the County Commissioner with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Anthony Yesbeck stated that he represented the owner, Island Development Group and Ginn Development the marketing & development director. He advised that they were requesting an adjustment to a previously approved site plan. He stated that the previously approved site plan incorporated a dedication of over 34 acres to the County and a park of about three acres to the north of the project was also dedicated to the County. He continued that they have worked with the Presidents Council of South Hutchinson Island to provide a wildlife corridor on the south end of the property, provided for a sidewalk consistent with the trail system of St. Lucie County, and have maintained the open space of the original site plan. He advised that they feel they have improved upon the previously approved site plan and also have brought Ginn Development aboard to generate excitement on the island for the project. He asked that they recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of their requested adjusted site plan. Chairman Merritt questioned if there were two and three story units being proposed. Mr. Yesbeck stated that every residence would be on pilings and have the ability to be three story structures. He continued that they would be of concrete construction. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 16 Seeing no one, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn stated Policy 7.1.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall prohibit construction seaward of the coastal construction line including construction of coastal or shore protection structures, except if the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) has issued the applicable permits authorizing that construction. He questioned that since this project was previously approved project with the old construction line is it grandfathered in. Ms. Snay stated that the applicants do have their beaches and shores variance from the DEP. Mr. Hearn questioned if that information was included in their packets. Ms. Snay stated that it was not in the packets but was located in the file. Ms. Hammer questioned if the land that was donated to the County was on the west side of A-1-A. Ms. Snay confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that there was also a portion to the north of the development that was also donated. Mr. Grande 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 approve the application of Ginn-LA, St. Lucie, LTD. LLLP, for a Major Adjustment to a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval for the project known as Watersong PUD, and for a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District and PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Watersong) Zoning District because the plan as resubmitted is a significant improvement over the plan that it is replacing. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 17 AGENDA ITEM 7: EDGAR A. BROWN, BROWN RANCH, INC. File No. CUMJ-03- 001: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of Edgar A. Brown, Brown Ranch, Inc., for a Major Adjustment to a Conditional Use Permit and Major Site Plan Adjustment to allow the expansion of an existing mining operation known as Stewart Sand Mining Operation at Brown Ranch in the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District on property located ¾ mile west of I-95 on the south side of Indrio Road. She stated that the Existing Sand and Coquina Mining Operation is 290.46 acres in size and the proposed expansion area is 67.49 acres in size, for a total mining operation of 357.95 acres. She also stated that the proposed sand and coquina mining operation would be authorized under the provisions of Section 3.01.03(A)(7)(i), Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels. Ms. Snay advised that on November 5, 1996, via Resolution 96-185, the Board of County Commissioners approved a conditional use permit to allow for the mining of sand and coquina rock on 280 acres of land within the Brown Ranch. She also stated that in addition, on November 5, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners granted approval of a Class II Mining Permit for a period of time not to exceed 20 years for the subject property. She advised that this Mining Permit included two 40-acre pits that totaled 80 acres in size. She continued that a minor modification to the Mining Permit was granted on October 28, 1998 that increased the size of the Phase 1 pit and decreased the size of the Phase II pit, but kept the total acreage at 80 acres and did not required Board approval. Ms. Snay stated that a review of the conditional use permit and site plan indicates that the proposed mining operation will not be in conflict with any portion of the Land Development Code. Staff is recommending the following condition of approval in order to ensure that the existing approved Mining Permit is also modified to reflect the referenced modification to the Conditional Use Permit: 1. Prior to commencing any operation of the mining efforts on the 77.59 acres of land, the applicants shall be required to obtain an approved mining permit from the St. Lucie County Public Works Department that is consistent with Section 6.06.00 of the Land Development Code and 11.05.01 of the Land Development Code. Ms. Snay stated that the proposed expansion site and previously permitted mining site were closely examined for the occurrence or potential for occurrence of the Florida sand hill crane, onsite nesting of the caracara and sand hill crane is deemed low, due to the lack of suitable habitat but that the crested caracara has been documented nesting in the Dickerson Mining Site located on the north side of Indrio Road, west of I-95. She also stated that the proposed expansion area of the Stewart Sand Mining Operation is located within the secondary zone (5,015 foot zone) outlined by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and to ensure the survival of this species staff is recommending the following condition of approval: 2. Prior to any mining activities within the expansion area, the applicant shall submit to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resource Division a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Crested Caracara or an appropriate form of approval from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 18 Ms. Snay stated that the petitioners also submitted a reclamation plan that states that upon the completion of the mining activities, formal reclamation operations will commence with 90 days. She advised that these procedures would include grading, mulching and seeding in the upland areas, as well as sloping, stabilizing and contouring the final side slopes of the excavated lakes. She continued that in order to ensure that any wetland restoration survives and the littoral shelf does vegetate, staff is recommending the following condition of approval: 3. If the total herbaceous cover has not reached 50% of the improved marsh area, within one year of planting, an additional 1,000 plants shall be required to be installed in order to enhance the wetland. The additional plants shall be comprised of at least two other species than those currently proposed such as: Spike rush (), Arrow-Arum Eleocharis cellulose () or Sand Cordgrass (). Peltandra virginicaSpartina bakeri Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with the three recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Nick Stewart, President of Stewart Mining stated that they have been mining on Indrio Road for thirteen years and have not had any complaints to date. He also stated that they would like to have a mine expansion for the eighty acres to the west. He continued that they are located on a two thousand acre parcel of Brown Ranch. He advised that a large area surrounding the mine is still owned by Brown Ranch and is not considered as part of the conditional use. He stated that they mine aggregate material in St. Lucie County; provide materials for roads, and a DOT mine for base rock material. Ms. Hilson stated that she feels all of the environmental issues have been addressed and that she d if the expansion area is sixty-seven or seventy-seven acres. Ms. Snay stated that it is 77.59 acres in total proposed for the expansion. Ms. Hammer stated that Florida is lucky enough to have the Crested Cara Cara nesting in our areas and was very impressed with the precautions being taken on the subject site. Mr. Hearn questioned the need for the additional acreage. Mr. Stewart stated that their current area is almost exhausted and are expecting to have additional need because they are out of material. Mr. Hearn questioned if there would be an increase in truck traffic. Mr. Stewart stated that it would not be additional, it would be the same as currently used since the current mine is almost out of material. Chairman Merritt questioned when the Crested Cara Cara showed up. Mr. Stewart stated that he has been mining there for thirteen years and had not seen it until a few years ago. He continued that it built its nest within 400 feet of their phase on the north side. He advised that it appears that the bird is compatible with the area, as well as some other wildlife in the area. Chairman Merritt questioned if the Cara Cara was a native bird of Mexico. Mr. Stewart stated that he did believe it was native to Mexico and to Texas, especially on the prairie lands. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 19 Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Edgar A. Brown, Brown Ranch, Inc., for a Major Adjustment to a Conditional Use Permit and Major Adjustment to an existing Site Plan to allow the expansion of the Stewart Sand Mining Operation in the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District, subject to the three conditions listed, because I think it is a logical extension of an ongoing business and with the special conditions that have been proposed by Staff the not be any additional truck traffic on our highways. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Chairman Merritt questioned if Mr. Stewart agreed to the conditions listed by Staff. Mr. Stewart confirmed that he did agree. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 20 AGENDA ITEM 8: NESFAT M. MOHD File No. CU-03-009: Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 8 was the application of Nesfat M. Mohd for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the retail trade of undistilled alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) as an accessory to the retail sale of food in the CN (Commercial, th Neighborhood) Zoning District for property located at 2233 North 25 Street. He advised that the applicant is proposing the retail Sale of Undistilled Alcoholic Beverages (beer and wine) as an accessory to the retail sale of food. He stated that the surrounding zoning is CN to the north and south with RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) to the west and east. Mr. Flores stated that retail liquor stores selling beer and wine as an accessory to the sale of food are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The subject site is the location of an existing food store. 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, subject to the following condition: Only the retail trade sale of undistilled liquor (beer and wine) shall be permitted. Chairman Merritt questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. Nasar Barquet stated that he would be representing Mr. Mohd because of a language barrier. Mr. Barquet stated that the store has been there and would not be changed in any way. He continued that they had closed the store at one point because the construction on 25th street caused a decline in business but Mr. Mohd wants to reopen the business now. Mr. Grande questioned why the condition was listed because the conditional use permit is for the retail trade of undistilled liquor and that would be redundant. Mr. Flores stated that it is just a clarification and it is consistent with other similar conditional use permit requests in the past. Ms. Hammer stated that she assumed that there were regulations about how close this could be to any schools. Mr. Flores stated that was correct. Ms. Hammer also questioned if there were any type of police reports for the area with regards to this change. Mr. Flores stated that they did not request that information. Ms. Hammer questioned if the police department is asked for their input with regards to these types of requests. Mr. Flores stated they did not ask for their input with regards to this request. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Iris D. Williams, 109 Academy Drive, stated that she lives directly behind the store and is against his selling undistilled beverages there. She advised that they have had their share of trouble with the store when it was open. She also stated that there is a school in the neighborhood and their neighborhood has a homeowners association that is trying to clean up the area. She continued that there are children in that neighborhood and a Texaco in the area that already sells beer and wine. She advised that they have had problems with teenagers hanging out by the store and with the help of the Sheriffs department are trying to make it a better area. She stated that they are very much against anyone selling alcoholic beverages in that area especially since there is a bus stop right on the side of the parking lot. She also stated that there were several police reports made against that store when it was open before. She advised that she is a life long P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 21 resident of St. Lucie County and is trying to get the neighborhood back. She asked that they take their children into consideration and deny the request. Mr. Akins questioned if the conditional use permit allowed the beverages to be consumed on premises. Mr. Flores stated it was not for onsite consumption. Mr. Akins questioned if Ms. Williams was aware that it was not for onsite consumption. Ms. Williams stated that she has seen people buy the beverages and then hang out around the store drinking. She also stated that she ople hanging out around the store watching her. She advised that when the store was open in the past it became a hang out for young men. She continued that she had spoken to the owner many times about these issues and once the police get there they have left. Chairman Merritt questioned if a lot of the problems cleared up once the store shut down. Ms. Williams confirmed that the problems did clear up and it is now nice and quiet. She also stated that there is already a Texaco very close by that sells a another store selling these beverages. Chairman Merritt questioned if there was also a package store or bar on the corner of Juanita and 25th street. Ms. Williams stated that there is a lounge / bar there that does sell liquor as well. She continued that there are many children around and have a bus stop at the neighborhood convenience store. Ms. Betty Bratwell stated that she lives in Sheraton Plaza, 2801 Langston Drive, is a member of the St. Lucie County Weed and Seed program, and is also co-chair of the Sheraton Plaza Homeowners Association. She advised that she agrees with Ms. Williams. She stated that they have been doing volunteer work all over the community to rid it of crime. She continued that she has seen several of these types of businesses breaking the law while operating. She advised that turn the community around. She also stated that she feels these stores are only there to help themselves, not their neighborhood. She continued that they are adopting a safe haven in report everything that they see to the police department and will continue to do so. She also stated that the Texaco station has worked with her and does not allow people to hang around the store once they have made their purchases. She also stated that Sheriff Mike Graves has helped Sh Mr. Akins questioned if they have had prior experiences with this individual owner. Ms. Bratwell stated that was correct. Mr. Akins questioned if the Texaco is a problem within the neighborhood. Ms. Bratwell stated that they used to have problems with it prior to Larry coming in. She advised that since Larry has been running it they have not had problems like it was prior to his being there. Mr. Akins questioned if the Texaco operates and sells alcoholic beverages. with the Texaco anymore. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like the public to be aware that they should also attend the Board of County Commissioners meeting to voice their concerns regardless of how they vote tonight. He also stated that he applauds the community for making a stand in trying to keep their community involved. Mr. Elden Williams, 109 Academy Drive, stated that they are not trying to keep these people from making money. He continued that they just want to make sure to have a safe neighborhood. He stated that if they really wanted to help the community they could turn the store into an after school program or something like that. He also stated that there were problems with drug dealers P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 22 and the police in this store before. He continued that they should come up with something more positive for the neighborhood than beer and liquor. He advi beer or liquor in the neighborhood because there are already enough establishments in the area. He also stated that he would like everyone to think about the young children that are within that neighborhood. Ms. Narcis Plum, from Weed and Seed, stated that Sheraton Plaza is quite nice now and they many of the stores in the neighborhood in the past and found drugs on the floor. She also stated that they have beer and liquor on every corner and their children need more places for education. She advised that this store would only bring criminals, drug dealers, and gangs. Mr. Roy McGriff stated he is a lifetime resident of Sheraton Plaza, taught school for fifty five years, and coached some of the teams in neighborhood. He advised that they are trying to make He continued that they need an alternative for children within the neighborhood, not more alcohol and drugs. He stated that they have been working with the Parks and Recreation Department and Commissioners Bruhn and Barnes to get a recreation center in their neighborhood. He stated that they feel like they are being ignored. He also stated that their plans include a recreation center that would have a swimming pool, indoor basketball courts, and tutorial area for their community. ign anymore that shows they are Sheraton Plaza because it was torn down and never replaced. Seeing no one else Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Barquet stated that he would like to rebut some of the comments made. He advised that he appreciates the concerns of the neighborhood. He continued that she was referencing the actions of the previous people who ran the store. He advised that Mr. Mohd has always owned the store, but he had left the operations up to someone else previously. He stated that the previous individual was the one causing the problems. He continued that he has owned his store in advised that they are aware it is against the law and harmful to the community, so they would not allow it. He also stated that he is aware that if they allowed people to consume on premises he could lose his license and he would not do that. He continued that they are being accused of things that they did not do and that it is not fair to them. He stated that he appreciates the previous operator. He continued that they would not tolerate any type of illegal activities going on at their establishment. Ms. Hammer stated that she would like to commend the members of the community who have taken it upon themselves to go back to their roots and to take back their community. Mr. Hearn stated that he too wanted to express his appreciation to the members of the community for trying articular thing to happen in their neighborhood. He also stated that he believes that a lot of people act continued that he feels if the neighborhood embraced this, he might be able to support the He advised that he supports the neighborhoods position and would be voting against this petition. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 23 Ms. Hilson stated that there are churches and schools within the area and that the community is trying to clean up their neighborhoods. She also stated that there should be some concern because of a bus stop being very close to the subject property. She continued that she see any good coming from this request for the sale of alcoholic beverages. She stated that she is not a voting member but would not support this petition. Mr. Akins stated that he too commends the members of the community for coming in. He also stated that the Weed and Seed program is doing a tremendous job. He advised that he would have to agree with Mr. Hearn and could not support this request at this time. Ms. Hammer stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, 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 Nesfat M. Mohd for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the retail trade of undistilled alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) as an accessory to the retail sale of food in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District because I believe that the in this area and I do not support the Conditional Use of beer and wine in this community. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 24 AGENDA ITEM 9: WINN DIXIE STORES, INC. File No. CU-03-010: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 9 was the application of Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a retail liquor store for the offsite consumption of distilled and undistilled alcohol within the Retail Building Shopping Center. She advised that the liquor store would have a separate entrance from the grocery store. She continued that the subject property is zoned CG (Commercial General) and retail liquor stores are permitted with Conditional Use Review and approval. She also stated that the petition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Codes. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Ms. Noreen Dryer, of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, and Russell, stated that she was representing Winn Dixie Stores. She advised that this is a request to allow Winn Dixie to have a package liquor store within the footprint of the existing Winn Dixie grocery store. She continued that it is about 15% of the total grocery store that the conditional request is applicable to. She advised that she was available to answer any questions with regards to the request. Mr. Hearn questioned if there were any other liquor stores within that Indrio Crossings Shopping Center. Ms. Dryer stated that she was not certain. Ms. Snay advised that there is a bar that also operates as a package store that is in the northwest section of the shopping center. Mr. Hearn questioned if that existing store serves the community fairly well based on its size. Ms. Snay stated that she is not aware of the size of the location. Chairman Merritt questioned if there was a distance requirement. Ms. Snay stated there is not a distance requirement between liquor stores, only from churches, parks, schools, and those types of institutions. Ms. Hilson questioned the distance requirement because she believes there are several churches within the area. Ms. Snay advised that it is a distance of a thousand feet to a church. Ms. Hilson stated that she believes that is an insufficient distance requirement and is uncomfortable with that. She also stated that there are a number of children, a library, traffic, and an existing liquor store already in that area. Chairman Merritt questioned if the liquor store would be completely sealed off from the grocery store itself. Ms. Dryer stated that she did believe it is within the footprint, but will have its own separate entrance and staff. Mr. Grande questioned if the already existing liquor store would have been within the distance requirement for notification to allow their testimony. Ms. Snay explained that all of the facilities within the shopping center were notified. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 25 Ms. Hilson stated that there is already a store in the vicinity that sells alcohol and it is redundant to have a second one knowing the effects of alcohol in the community. She stated that she d understand why they would need another liquor store within that same shopping center. what the motivation would be for a big corporation to do this. believe this would be in the best interest of the community. Mr. Akins stated that he agreed and he could not support an additional liquor store since there is already a facility existing within the shopping center. Ms. Dryer stated that she would like to remind the board that there are four conditions that they are required to satisfy. She advised that the staff report indicates that they do satisfy those conditions, they have not had any opposition to the use. She stated that they are not open late at night and would not sell packaged liquors late at night either. She also stated that it would actually be open less hours than the grocery store and is for the convenience of those shopping within Winn Dixie. She respectfully requested that they consider those factors when making their decision. Ms. Hilson questioned if they already sell beer and wine within the actual grocery store. Ms. Dryer confirmed that was correct but this request would be to allow distilled liquors to be sold within the package store. Ms. Hammer questioned what the distance requirement was to a school. She stated that she too believed that a thousand feet to a church was not sufficient and that they should look at adjusting that distance in the future. She advised that she is concerned about this being near a church, and is especially concerned about it being any where near a school, especially an elementary school. Ms. Snay explained that the code requires no sale or transfer of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption within 1600 feet of a religious facility, school, public park, or public playground. She advised that the requirement is only for on premise consumption, not off premises. Mr. Hearn stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, 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 Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a liquor store in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because there an additional one is appropriate for this particular location given the type of people that generally shop in that area. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Chairman Merritt stated that he personally feels that since there is no objection by anyone that was notified there would be no reason to vote against it. Mr. Hearn stated that he believes a majority of the people notified are those who own stores in would be a concern of those who own stores there and then leave and go home to a different area. Ms. Snay advised that in order to address many of those concerns the mail out was done for five P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 26 hundred feet from the entire shopping center property boundary, not the stores boundary, to include those neighbors living around the center. Mr. Hearn stated that he lives close to that area and that he knows that many of those residences within the boundary are not the real upscale type of developments that would tend to come out to participate in these types of hearings. objection. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands that but he is doing what he thinks he should do. Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 3-4 (with Mr. Grande, Mr. Trias, Ms. Morgan, and Mr. Merritt voting against). Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, 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 Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a liquor store in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because Winn Dixie is clearly a responsible organization capable of controlling this type of a retail outlet and there is no opposition to it. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 4-3 (with Mr. Akins, Ms. Hammer, and Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 27 AGENDA ITEM 10: TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICES, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent) File No. CU-03-011: Chairman Merritt stated that Agenda Item 10 would not be heard this evening. Mr. Hearn questioned when it would be heard. ck Farrell stated he would like to have the item continued until the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 21, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. Hearn questioned why the applicant was requesting a continuance when there were members of the public there to speak with regards to the request. Mr. Rick Farrell stated that they had only recently received staff comments and there are a number of statements made that they would like to address. He also stated that he felt there were some inaccurate statements that they would like to correct too. Ms. Hammer questioned what happens if there are a number of residents who have come out to speak regarding the application. Ms. Young stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission would open the public hearing to allow those who cannot attend the rescheduled meeting to speak. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Cynthia Adams stated that she lives two miles west of the incinerator site. She continued that she and her husband submitted a letter and also a letter from Mike Adams. She stated that she had a couple of more letters from other residents in the area that she would like to submit. She also stated that she would wait until the next meeting to make her comments. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Akins made a motion to continue the application of Treasure Coast Tractor Services until the August 21, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) to continue until the August 21, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 28 AGENDA ITEM 11: AMENDMENT TO ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE File No. ORD-03-19: Ms. Heather Young, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 11 was proposed Ordinance 03-19 to exempt animals on property zoned AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) with Agricultural Classification pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. She advised that on March 4, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners amended Section1-4-16 to provide that repetitive animal noise, which lasted for five or more minutes, will be considered a public nuisance. She stated that in recognition of the animal noise inherent in many agricultural operations, the Board exempted animals located on property zoned AG-1, AG-2.5, AG-5, and PUD where livestock is permitted, or property on which livestock is permitted as a nonconforming use. She also stated that the exemption was not extended to AR-1 because of the widespread location of such property throughout the County and the fact that these parcels are more likely to be located adjacent to non-agricultural uses. She continued that there is parcels zoned AR-1, however, which is the site of bona fide agricultural operations meeting the requirements for an agricultural classification for tax purposes under Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. She stated that it would appear appropriate, therefore, to further amend Section1-4-16 to exempt animals located on such property. She also stated that the proposed amendment also makes it clear that the provisions of Section 1-4-16 shall not be constructed in conflict with the County staff has received several letters from Charles Crooks regarding the use of dogs in agricultural operations. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward proposed Ordinance 03-19 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Pat Ferrick stated that she was there on behalf of the North Fork Property Owners. She advised that they support the change and that they were instrumental in having the AR-1 classification included in the current classifications. She continued that the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) classification was put in place to allow the continuance of agricultural owners who found their agricultural zoning changed were assured that they would be grand fathered in regards to activities allowed on previously agricultural property. She advised that agricultural properties are covered under the Florida Right to Farm Act F.S. 823.14, (2) The Legislature finds that agriculture is a major contributor to the economy of the state; that agricultural lands constitute unique and irreplaceable resources of statewide importance; that the continuation of agricultural activities preserves the landscape and environmental resources of the state, contributes to the increase of tourism, and furthers the economic self sufficiency of the people of the state; and that the encouragement, development, improvement, and preservation of agriculture will result in a general benefit to the health and welfare of the people of the state. She continued that the Legislature further finds that agricultural activities conducted on farmland in urbanizing areas are threatened based on the theory of nuisance and that encourages an even forces the premature removal of farmland from agricultural use. She stated that it is the purpose of this act to protect agricultural activities conducted on farmland from nuisance suits. She also stated that (a) states in part that no farm operation which has been in operation for one year or more since its established date of operation shall be a public or private nuisance if the farm operation conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices. She continued P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 29 preparation, planting, cultivating, or harvesting of these products or any other practices necessary to accomplish production through the harvest phase, includes aquaculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, forestry, dairy, livestock, poultry, bees, and any and all forms of farm products and farm production. She stated that Florida Statutes 187.201 (a) Goal Florida should strive to expand its food agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry and related industries in order to be a competitive force in the national and international marketplace. She also stated that Preamble (Laws 1998, 98- been the declared policy of this state to conserve and protect and to encourage the development and improvements of its agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products. Ms. Ferrick continued that they believe that under Section 1-14-16 that (e) only that portion that states with agricultural classification pursuant to Section 193.461 be excluded. She stated that not all properties that raise livestock have that classification. She also stated that this is just being overly restrictive, which makes it arbitrary and capricious. She advised that the Right to Farm Act is not restricted to only properties with an agricultural classification. She continued that these statutes were enacted to protect agricultural activities when areas become urbanized. She stated that restricting this to an agricultural classification is a contradiction of the statutes. why anyone with an AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) zoning and no exemption were excluded from this ordinance. Ms. Young stated that there are properties that are zoned AR-1 that are not commercial farm operations and those with an AG zoning would be more likely to be that type of operation. She continued that it would also make it easy for the animal control officers to determine violations by either calling the property appraisers office or checking the website for the classification. She advised that there is language that makes it clear that nothing in the ordinance is intended to contradict the provisions of the Florida Right to Farm Act. Chairman Merritt stated that he has AR-1 zoning on the back portion of his property and also has livestock there for his grandchildren. He questioned if should recuse himself from this ordinance since it could affect him. Ms. Young stated that this is a legislative matter and he would not need to recuse himself. She also stated that this issue is a policy decision and with regard to the original ordinance, AR-1 was included as one of the categories but the Board of County Commissioners decided to take it out of the ordinance at that time. She continued that she believed they removed it because some of these properties are very close to non-agricultural, residential uses and also scattered throughout the county. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands where Ms. Ferrick is coming from. He questioned how there would be very many regarding horses, chickens and other farm animals of this nature. He advised that he is concerned about a lot of land where there are no farming activities at all, which have increased in price, where expensive homes are being built on those properties. He continued ve these properties and have dogs barking all hours of the night and not be able to control those situations. He advised that he is sympathetic to the situation but is very concerned about sending the wrong message to those who might allow a dog to bark and become a nuisance. He continued that he believes if a dog is barking, the owner should go out and find out why, and correct the problem. He advised that wrong message. Ms. Pat Ferrick stated that under AR-1 provisions having livestock is tied to specific lot size and setback requirements. She stated that there are others within her areas that have larger parcels P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 30 and if this is tied to the classification they could end up getting cited. She advised that this could become a code enforcement problem because there are new people moving into the area who guaranteed in the 80-1 were going to grand fathered in. She stated that they should not have to be defending themselves because of this new ordinance being tied to a classification. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands what Ms. Ferrick is saying but that there does not need to be a specific lot size to have dogs and that is his main concern. Ms. Ferrick stated that dogs are not tied to agricultural classifications. She continued that having just dogs, under Florida Statute, cannot be tied into agricultural classification. Mr. Hearn stated that he is very concerned about someone who has dogs living in the AR- Mr. Grande stated that those fortunate enough to have an AR-1 zoning, without an agricultural not. Mr. Charlie Crooks stated that he has lived in St. Lucie County all of his life. He continued that - s very stated that anyone who has a bonafide working dog would be able to qualify for the exemption and therefore be excluded from the violations. He continued that he feels staff needs to do some more work on this request before they make any decisions. Mr. Crooks stated that the Right to Farm Act states that animal noises cannot be cited. Mr. Hearn stated that he is not challenging the Right to Farm Act but is concerned about a dog in a residential neighborhood becoming a nuisance. He also stated that if they exempt all AR-1 from this ordinance then barking dogs will allowed to be able to become a problem. Mr. Crooks stated that this ordinance, as proposed, is for only those that have the exemption. Mr. Hearn stated that Ms. Ferrick was asking that they eliminate that so that all of AR-1 is exempt. Ms. Ferrick stated that they are asking that anyone with the AR-1 zoning that has livestock should be exempt. Mr. Crooks stated that anyone with AR-1 and the exemption should be added to the ordinance. Mr. Hearn stated that he understood that but that Ms. Ferrick wanted the exemption portion removed from the ordinance. Ms. Pat Ferrick stated that she did not want someone with AR-1 zoning and no exemption to be cited for the sounds of their livestock. She continued that was their reasoning behind asking that the exemption portion of the ordinance be removed. Ms. Hammer stated that after hearing the concerns from both sides she would like to see if the attorney can somehow amend the ordinance as it is currently written to be a compromise. Ms. Young stated that the only thing that she can think of would be to provide for all animals under AR-1 with agricultural classification and all livestock if it is simply AR-1. Mr. Grande questioned if the definition of livestock would include dogs. Ms. Young explained it would not include dogs. She continued that the problem with defining the word working dogs was that there could be some breeds classified as a working dog, but not used as a working dog. She advised that was their difficulty, but if they need to further look at that type of language they orking dogs or non-working dogs should matter because if they have the working dogs they would have the classification and P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 31 therefore be exempt. Ms. Young stated that would work fine with saying AR-1 without the exemption would allow for livestock only. M from being cited, that would be okay. Mr. Grady Fitzpatrick stated that he and his wife own property north of Mr. Crooks and that he represents the residents of Grove Drive. He advised that the Mr. Crooks and his son have several dogs that bark, howl, and whine repetitively. He understands that these working dogs are asset to eel that hunting hogs is an agricultural endeavor. He stated that when these dogs are housed close to a residential neighborhood it is not fair to the residents who live close by. He advised that they are against amending the noise ordinance to read that animals in AR-1 are exempt from the ordinance. He continued that the way the ordinance reads currently is fine with them and does not need to be changed. He also stated that cows, horses, and other livestock, do not bother them, but the dogs bark repetitively. He advised they live in a quiet community with well-kept homes and it is not fair for them to have to deal with this nuisance. He stated that if they had known about the dogs before purchasing their home they would not have moved into the area. He continued that it is difficult to sleep with the dogs barking constantly. He advised that they love St. Lucie County and have lived here for thirty-five years and ask that they not approve the amendment to the ordinance. Ms. Valerie Crooks stated that she has been married to Mr. Crooks for twenty-five years. She stated that she has lived on that property for those twenty-five years and the dogs have been there the entire time. She advised that under the Florida Right to Farm Act, these dogs are considered working dogs, and this is within their rights. She continued that they have tried to move the dogs away from the residences to reduce the amount of noise. She also stated that they also plan to move them again in the future. She advised that they have not just stood by and let the dogs be a nuisance to the neighborhood. She stated that they have been doing everything they can to ease the concerns of Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Crooks stated that he was born and raised in Fort Pierce and has lived in that house all of his life, and his family has been there for over a hundred years. He continued that there have always been dogs there and it has always been used agriculturally. He also stated that they have 32 dogs out there and was used for hunting. He advised that their dogs and farm has been there the entire time and was there prior to Mr. Fitzpatrick building his home. He continued that if they had looked around a little they would have seen that they had dogs. Ms. Hammer questioned how many dogs they currently have on the property. Mr. Crooks stated that he has about twenty dogs with some puppies. He also stated that his son on the west side who also has some dogs and then in the middle he has another son who also has dogs on his property. He advised that they have many different breeds that they use to hunt for the wild hogs that are ruining pastures. He continued that he has a contract with the Florida Turnpike and has traps from West Palm Beach to about eight miles north of Yeehaw Junction. Ms. Hammer stated that she was hoping to have a compromise available to allow Mr. Crooks to continue his business but also give relief to the residents. Mr. Crooks stated that they have been moving the dogs around to try and help the situation and also have plans to move the dogs again. Mr. Grande questioned if Mr. Crooks has an agricultural exemption. Mr. Crooks stated that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that with the compromise that has been discussed, he would not be out of compliance with the ordinance. Ms. Young stated that was correct. Mr. Crooks stated that he was originally AG but the County wanted to do away with all of the AG that was east of the P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 32 turnpike so he was changed to AR-1. He advised that he was guaranteed the same privileges as AG but would be zoned as AR-1, so that is why they agreed. Mr. Grande stated that if the changes they proposed were made, his situation would remain the same. Mr. Merritt stated that he has AR-1 zoning on the back half of his property, is grand fathered in, but they have a cow and horse and is concerned about how this ordinance would affect him. Ms. Young stated that he would not be affected because the cow and the horse would be classified as livestock under the proposed change. She continued that what she has heard so far would be to keep the language with regards to AR-1 with the agricultural classification to apply to all animals, but if it were AR-1 without the classification it would only apply to livestock. Ms. Young stated that without a classification, if you have dogs that are excessively barking, it would be a violation. Mr. Akins questioned how long Mr. Fitzpatrick has lived on the property next to Mr. Crooks. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated they purchased the property in 1998 but he still should the dogs. Mr. Akins advised that the dogs were there prior to their buying the property. Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn made a motion to forward Ordinance No. 03-020 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval as amended by legal staff as a address the other concerns of the AR-1 district as far as the AG exemption part of it. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Ms. Hammer stated that if this does pass, she would encourage Mr. and Mrs. Crooks to do what they can to get the dogs moved as soon as possible. She advised that they should continue with their plan so that some relief is given to the Fitzpatr possible. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 5 1 (with Ms. Hammer voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval as amended. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 33 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be August 21, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted: _____________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 34