Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-18-2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING September 18, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Morgan, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Trias, and Chairman Merritt. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Hilson (Absent 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 September 18, 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 / DISCLOSURES: Mr. Lounds, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Grande, Mr. Akins, and Mr. Hearn stated that they had conver meeting. Ms. Hammer stated that she had discussions with residents of The Reserve and the Kolter Developers regarding the PGA Hotel & Office petition. She also stated that she had requested an opinion from the County Attorney's office regarding a potential conflict on this matter as she lived within five hundred feet of the subject property and was included on the notice list for the public hearing. Ms. Young informed the Commission that she had spoken with an attorney for Florida Commission on Ethics who indicated this would not constitute a voting conflict. Ms. Young stated she had prepared a memorandum regarding this matter and would provide a copy to the Secretary for the record. 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. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 2 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. Lounds stated that they had received an informational package from the Community goals, objectives, and policies. He stated that in reading through it there is verbiage in it on page 1-9 it discusses 8 lots, parcels, or tracts, but their discussions and recommendations were to eight. He also stated that there was other verbiage in it that just seems to appear from past verbiage. Mr. Murphy stated that the information they received was a draft compliance agreement language that they have been working with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on for the last couple of months. He advised that the information was transmitted to DCA several weeks ago. Since that time there have been some other comments that came in about some other issues, specifically on the references to Policy 1.1.2.2. He stated that no final action has been taken on that and it is not a final document yet. He continued that it would be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for final action. He advised that the document was an attempt to address the compliance issues relative to urban sprawl and urban development issues that were raised by DCA. Mr. Lounds questioned if the recommendations from the Ad Hoc committee regarding open space were even considered. Mr. Murphy stated that those recommendations were made to the County Commission last week and would be processed through a separate amendment action that addresses some more specific issues. He also stated that this was an attempt in the compliance agreement to address issues that came up over the previous period of time. Those that have happened in the last few weeks were not reflected in the document because it was drafted prior to the most recent recommendations being finalized. He continued that when they get to the October 7, 2003 County Commission meeting, they will again discuss the open space issues after an intervening workshop has been held to address some additional issues. He advised that they plan to have specific policy language that will be part of the next set of plan amendments that will come to this board for review around November or December, then to the Board of County Commissioners in January for transmittal to DCA as part of the next large scale amendment process. Mr. Lounds confirmed that this has to be taken to DCA for review and then be resubmitted for the amendments. He stated that in the original draft in 1990 there were no provisions for buyouts, but there is a proposal for that in this submittal. Mr. Murphy stated that based on most recent discussions that provision would be removed when it is amended. Mr. Lounds questioned if it was written prior to the most recent discussions. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that the County Commission stated they did not like the buy out option and P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 3 questioned why it was included in the document that was transmitted to DCA. Mr. Murphy explained that the document was written and transmitted prior to the County Commission making the decision to have it removed, just two days ago. Mr. McCurdy stated that he has similar concerns. He continued that one of his main concerns is that the language in the document transmitted does not mirror or reflect what they and the Ad Hoc committee had recommended. He stated that it seems to have gone straight to the heart of what they did not recommend. He continued that he is concerned that this has been pursued in spite of their recommendations. He questioned if the required common open space element was still included in what was transmitted to DCA. Mr. Murphy stated that the language that was in the document did speak to the ability to have it as common or as open space but at the discretion of the Board could be determined to be common or individually held. He continued that the Board has subsequently directed them to remove the buy out clause and work towards some relief mechanism to allow for some variation of open space. Mr. McCurdy stated that he believes that requiring open space in an agricultural area would be considered to be a taking. He also questioned if the clustering element was still in effect. Mr. Murphy stated that the Comprehensive Plan references the was found in Draft Ordinance 03-005 addresses more specifically how that is applied in an agricultural environment. He continued that the Board of County Commissioners have not given him the clear definitive direction yet on what they want to see in the final document. Mr. McCurdy stated that it seems the recommendations of the Ad Hoc committee and this board were ignored. No other announcements or discussion. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2003: Ms. Hammer stated that she had a number of corrections to the minutes. She stated that on page third line from -- Same page, last paragraph, fourth line erstand what was being said. The next paragraph should add the word that the end of the sentence is after conditional use and then start the next sentence wi ttom should read, understand and needed to be reworded. She stated on page twenty-six, second paragraph, second -seven, paragraph, third li ond line, -1 (with Ms. Morgan voting against), not 7-0. Ms. Hammer apologized for being so picky but said she has had to read some court transcripts lately and wants to make sure that our minutes are accurate for the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Kelly stated that the typographical errors would definitely need to be corrected but several of them were what was actually said. He stated that Dawn was asked not to correct language of the speakers because it could potentially change their meaning. He continued that we tend to speak in a more informal manner than is normally written. He advised that each of the comments would be reviewed because clearly some of them needed to be changed but some may not be changed. Ms. Hammer stated that it is a lot easier to edit and proof the minutes than it is to write them. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to make it clear that when he made his motion on page 24 to P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 5 delete the requirement of open space. He continued that he knows that is what his motion was and that is how the minutes read, but that was not his intent. He stated that if someone were to read the minutes they could interpret that he was asking for the open space to be deleted and he wanted it clear that he was o Mr. McCurdy made a motion to approve. Motion seconded. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 9-0). Note: Changes to the minutes were made consistent with the discussion between Ms. Hammer and Mr. Kelly. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 2: KENNETH F. LOWE, JR. (PGA HOTEL & OFFICE) File No. RZ- 03-027 / PUD-03-018: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Kenneth F. Lowe, Jr. for a Change in Zoning, from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) Zoning District, for Preliminary PNRD approval for a 12,000 square foot office building, and Preliminary and Final PNRD approval for a 170-unit hotel for property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Commerce Center Drive and Champions Way, directly across from the PGA Learning Center. Ms. Snay explained that in 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 88- 357, which granted approval for a 2,100 acre Development of Regional Impact, known as the Reserve, for a total of 4,100 dwelling units; four golf courses; 1,600,000 square feet of industrial development; 290,000 square feet of commercial development; 100,000 square feet of office space and 250 hotel/motel rooms. She stated that as of this date, approximately 1,124 dwelling units have been permitted for construction, and another 609 units have received site plan approval but have not yet been built. She also stated that approximately 95,000 square feet of industrial development, one 80-unit hotel/motel, and less than 5,000 square feet of commercial development has also been permitted. Ms. Snay stated that the PGA Hotel and Office site is located in the area known as PUD III at the Reserve DRI, immediately south of the Reserve entrance, within the PGA Commerce Center. She also stated that PUD III received its original Preliminary PUD site plan approval in May 1989. She continued that in 1989, the revised overall Master Plan for the Reserve identified Parcel 37 as a portion of the Commercial tract of the Reserve. She advised that the net project area for Parcel 37C is 6.93 acres. She stated that Parcel 37C was being proposed for development with the remaining 170 hotel/motel rooms and an additional 12,000 square feet of commercial/office space which is consistent with the overall gross project density/intensity within the Reserve DRI. Ms. Snay advised that in 1984, as part of the Development of Regional Impact review process, the community infrastructure needs for the Reserve were reviewed and the type of required improvements identified. As a result of that review process, the County adopted a Development Order, which identifies various improvements that are triggered at different levels of development within this project. She stated that it has been the position of the County that the overall project developer is the entity responsible for the major construction/environmental protection obligations identified individual parcel developers are not held responsible for off-site improvements or other Development Order conditions that are not directly related to the permitting of the parcels development activity. Ms. Snay explained that condition # 76 of the Final development order for the Reserve requires that the developers of this project maintain certain minimum operating conditions at the Interchange of I-95 and Reserve Boulevard. She stated that at this time the intersection of Reserve Boulevard and St. Lucie West Boulevard has reached a point where the transportation levels requires signalization in order to improve the traffic flow at the I-95 Intersection and this development. She also stated that the subject tract has both a commercial land use and zoning designation and under these designations a hotel is permitted as a conditional use. She continued that since the property is being developed as a Planned Nonresidential Development (PNRD), the planned development hearing process serves the same procedural function as the conditional use P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 7 process, however the proposed use must also satisfy the standards for conditional use described in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. She advised that the development of this site for a hotel use, not to exceed 170 units, is consistent with the approved final development order for the Reserve, which permits up to 250 hotel units in the DRI. She continued that when added to the 80 units in the Mainstay Suites property, the 170 units would equal the maximum permitted under the projects original development order. Ms. Snay stated that the proposed use is consistent with the general character of the area and with the existing and proposed land uses in the area. She explained that to the north is the Mainstreet Village commercial tract with the PGA Villages; to the south is the PGA Learning Center and Vistana Tract (Parcel 37A and 37B @ the Reserve); to the east is Interstate 95; and to the west is the Mainstay Suites. She stated that as part of the site plan design; the developers have provided a native vegetation transplant zone located along both Commerce Centre Drive and Reserve Boulevard. She also stated that this area is intended to provide a buffer of native vegetation along both of these roadway facilities. Ms. Snay stated that the proposed site design includes a number of parking spaces that are proposed as reserve parking and that these reserved spaces create increased landscape islands within the development. She also stated that the parking areas would not be paved until such time as the applicant can demonstrate that they are needed. She advised that the applicant proposes to access the project from three points of ingress and egress: two points from Commerce Center Drive and one from Champions Way. She stated that all deliveries would be made at the western most access into the project off of Champions Way. She also stated that the site design has incorporated an internal covered loading/delivery zone behind the hotel, this is where all employees will enter into the hotel and all deliveries for the project will be made. Staff has determined that the proposed use is consistent with the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.02.10 and Section 11.07.00 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Order for the Reserve. Staff is recommending that this project be approved subject to the conditions found on page 6 and 7 of the staff report. Ms. Pamela Hammer stated that she was notified on this application because she resides in The was told she was able to vote on this application. Mr. David Miller stated that he is the architect for the proposed hotel and has worked with PGA and Mr. Lowe over the last several months to develop this plan. He continued that this piece has had commercial zoning and land use on it for 80,000 square feet of commercial space. He stated that a hotel would be a very viable use because of the golfing that is at The Reserve, along with the activities at the Learning and Education Center. He also stated that going through the PNRD process was more appropriate for this property because it allows both the hotel and office component to share a common primary entry off of Commerce Centre Drive. He advised this would minimize the impact on the roadway and allow the two uses to be symbiotic on the site. He continued that their intention is to proceed with the first phase of the hotel, which would include all of the first floor, public, lobby, restaurant, and meeting spaces, and up to ninety rooms. He advised that the second phase would be the eighty rooms, which would total the 170 rooms. He stated that they do not yet have a user identified for the 12,000 square foot office component. He also stated that this site has quite a bit of trees and under storage plantings under the pines that they are saving by relocating as well. He continued that the hotel is unique because it will be a full service hotel with meeting spaces, full restaurant uses, and training capabilities. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 8 This would provide both the resort user and other users to utilize the facilities of The PGA to h into their final site plan and are meeting or exceeding all of the County requirements. He also e exception of the comment relative to the interchange work. He advised that the requirements under the DRI for all of The Reserve are the responsibilities of the Master Developer, which is Kolter, not his client. He stated that he does feel limiting their ability to obtain building permits based on something that Kolter is responsible for, is not appropriate because Kolter is not part of this project. He stated that he believes it would be more appropriate to make the restriction the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy rather than any building permits. Mr. Grande questioned if Staff would agree to amend the condition. Mr. Kelly explained that staff was concerned that the improvements get put into place, which is why the restriction was added to th of the conditions as written in the report. Mr. Kelly explained that the issue needs to be addressed and that they have the right to address it however they choose. Chairman Merritt questioned if they were legally able to require that condition since it is not a responsibility of this applicant, but the responsibility of Kolter. Mr. Kelly stated that he believed it could be done. Mr. Miller stated that he felt the condition as it is worded in the staff report was too vague and would be better addressed by changing it from the permits to the certificate of occupancy. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Hammer, 7672 Charleston Way, stated that he was not for or against the application but had several concerns regarding the project. He stated that they are concerned about concurrence of the infrastructure to support any development because of the speed and magnitude of growth in the area. He also stated that he is concerned about the adequacy of the proposed facility with the multiple uses expected. He stated they are concerned about the adequacy of parking and traffic flow. He advised that there is a traffic circle at the entrance, which are two lanes around the continued that if you are heading to the west into that circle, which all traffic coming from the east into the hotel will have to do, there are three lanes that merge into the two-lane circle. He stated that the right hand lane is a designated right turn only lane, but must enter the outer lane of the circle in order to make the right turn. He also stated that they are also concerned about the pedestrian crosswalk crossing that roadway from the east, heading west, because it is not safe. He advised that the highest facility in the vicinity is two stories and this would be doubling that height, which would really stick out. He also stated that the statement of finishing the project as the market dictates could become an issue and should not be allowed to proceed without a certain date of completion. Mr. David Miller stated that the statement about finishing the project as the market dictates was actually meant to be that both phases might be built at one time, if the market demand was there. He also stated that the schedule of development is not anticipated to extend any further than projected because they are considering building both phases at the same time. He advised that the project also would have more than the number of required parking spots based on the total space. Ms. Hammer questioned if the plan involved any shared parking. Mr. Miller explained that the parking would exist separate from one another. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 9 Ms. Hammer stated that the residents were concerned about traffic going into the circle. She continued that the residents had suggested trying to divert Commerce Drive and bring it straight between the hotels. She advised that she discussed this with Mr. Dennis Murphy and was told that both State and Federal regulations would not allow any intersection any closer to the I-95 ramps than the present circle is currently. She stated that if you come west along Reserve Boulevard people are crossing over the eastern lanes and pulling into Champions Way. She suggested that something must be done to keep people from coming head on into traffic exiting The Reserve. She stat se, but believes anyone trying to enter the hotel could come head on into traffic. She also stated that she hopes that Kolter will get the roadway straightened out as quickly as possible. She because they will get confused when they hit the circle. She also stated that they are concerned about the line of site at the intersection of Commerce Boulevard and Champions way. She suggested that the vegetation be pushed back further than depicted on the plan to allow for the line of site to be clear at the corners. She confirmed that they would comply with construction hours regulated by the County. She also stated that after hearing the applicant, it would be unfair to condition the start of their project to when Kolter decides to deal with the roads. She stated she would be willing to tie the condition into the Certificate of Occupancy rather than the issuance of building permits as the applicant requested. Mr. Lounds asked the applicant to clarify the parking issues and requirements. Mr. Miller explained that it is a 5000 square foot restaurant with 1000 square feet of outdoor seating area, for a total of 6000 square feet. He stated it would hold approximately 150 to 200 patrons. He continued that there would be 170 hotel rooms. Mr. Lounds questioned what the expected parking lot requirements were for the office space. Mr. Miller stated that the County parking requirement for office space is 5 per 1000 square feet. Ms. Snay explained that the hotel itself is required 247 spaces, which included the spaces for the restaurant and hotel rooms. She continued that the office building required an additional 60 spaces, which totaled 307 required parking spaces for the site. Mr. Lounds questioned what the expected occupancy of the hotel would be. Mr. Miller stated that most hotels have an average occupancy of 65 70% for them to be economically viable. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels this design saves a lot of the native trees and shrubs that are on the site. Mr. Akins stated that he is concerned about shifting responsibility that is currently under a DRI to this project and would set a dangerous precedent. Mr. Lounds questioned if this would be shifting the requirement away from Kolter and placing it on this developer. Mr. Kelly explained that the condition as it is written in the staff report is placing the requirement on the developers of this project. Mr. Miller explained that the responsibilities for any improvements are that of the Master Developer as written in the DRI for The Reserve as a whole. Mr. Murphy stated that this project is only a preliminary plan review and the rest of the Kolter projects already have their preliminary approvals. He also stated that Kolter is going to have 4 additional parcels going before the Board of County Commissioners on October 7 for final PUD approval. He advised that the original development order stated that no more building permits could be issued once a certain level of service standards has been met. He stated that they have met that standard now and they are concerned about the timing of the Master Developer providing the signalization. Mr. Grande stated he felt this should be voted on exactly as Staff recommended and let the Board of County Commissioners review the discussions in the minutes to make their decision. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt the recommendation to change it from building permits to a certificate of occupancy should be included in the motion to send the message to the Board of County Commissioners. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 10 Mr. McCurdy 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 grant approval to the application of Kenneth F. Lowe, Jr., for a Preliminary Planned Non- Residential Development (PNRD) approval for a 12,000 square foot office building and Preliminary and Final PNRD approval for a 170-unit hotel and a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) Zoning District for the project known as PGA Village Hotel and Office with the conditions cited by staff with the exception that in Condition # 5, the actual issuance of the building permit is allowed and the certificate of occupancy would only be granted if the specified work is performed to the specifications of the County because it is a good use of the parcel. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 9-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 11 AGENDA ITEM 3: GLASSMAN PROPERTIES LLC. File No. RZ-03-017: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager stated that the applicant had stated that they would like to have Agenda Items # 3 & # 4 continued to allow time for a charette to be done. He also stated that these two applications would be re-noticed and re-advertised. Mr. Kerran Kilday stated that they feel it would be more appropriate to address their applications after a charette has been done. He asked that both items be continued until February 19, 2004, which is a six-month delay, to allow time for the charettes to be completed. Mr. Grande & Mr. Hearn both thanked the applicant for their request. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Ms. Hammer made a motion to continue until February 19, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 9-0) to be continued until the February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 12 AGENDA ITEM 4: GLASSMAN PROPERTIES, LLC. File No. RZ-03-035: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager stated that the applicant had stated that they would like to have Agenda Items # 3 & # 4 continued to allow time for a charette to be done. Mr. Kerran Kilday stated that they feel it would be more appropriate to address their applications after a charette has been done. He asked that both items be continued until 2-19-04, which is a six-month delay, to allow time for the charettes to be completed. Mr. Grande & Mr. Hearn both thanked the applicant for their request. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Ms. Hammer made a motion to continue until February 19, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 9-0) to be continued until the February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM 5: T&T LAND LTD. File No. RZ-03-032: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of T & T Land, Ltd., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District for 19.11 acres of property located on the East side of North Kings Highway, approximately 2,500 feet south of Angle Road. He advised that the petitioner had requested this change in zoning in order to allow the property to be developed for light industrial uses. He also stated that the Kings Crossings Park of Commerce, an 8 lot industrial subdivision, is located to the southwest of the subject property. 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. Al Brodeaur, Thomas Lucido and Associates, stated that he represented the petitioner T&T Land, Ltd. He stated they concurred with the staff report and recommendation. He advised that in the past the County had intended, at one time, for this area to be a light industrial area. He continued that with the access to the highway, scheduled road improvements, lack of residential uses, and the market climate has become more favorable for light industrial development. He stated that caddy corner across the street was approved and being developed as a small light industrial park and believe this rezoning would be consistent with the surrounding area. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Kenny Hogan, a representative of Hogan Brothers Welding, stated that they are the neighbor to the north, which is zoned IL (Industrial, Light) and he recommended approval of this request. Seeing no one, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. McCurdy 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 T&T Land, Ltd., for a Change in Zoning from the AG- 1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District because that has been the trend in this area. I believe it is going to continue to be the trend and that has been expressed in the several other rezonings in the area. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 9-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 6: GERHARD KAMPICHLER File No. RZ-03-034: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application of Gerhard Kampichler, for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 0.91 acre of property rd located at 1123 South 33 Street. He continued that the surrounding zoning is CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) to the south and west with CG (Commercial, General) to the north and further south and R4 (Residential 4) is located to the east in the City Limits of Ft. Pierce. He also stated that the petitioner had requested the change in zoning in order to allow the property to be developed for general commercial purposes. He advised that Mr. Kampichler operates a sealing and coating business and thus a rezoning to CG would be required. He continued that the property is currently being operated with a refrigeration business, a non-conforming use, and a photography business, a conforming business. 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 to Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Lana Brown, 701 Texas Court, stated that she was the representative and partner of the petitioner Gerhard Kamphichler in the seal coating business. Mr. Lounds questioned if this changed the use of the land or would just bring the non-conforming use into compliance. Mr. Flores stated that it would change the use of the land because the previous owner did those other two uses and this owner wants to change it to a sealing and coating business. Mr. Grande stated this is a significant change of the land. He stated that it currently is a more gentle usage than any of the permitted uses, like a gas station, under the proposed zoning. Mr. McCurdy questioned if Mr. Grande was familiar with the 33rd Street corridor. Mr. Grande confirmed that he was. Mr. McCurdy stated that there are other CG (Commercial, General) at that they need to understand that this request is a change in zoning, so if approved, the permitted uses, any of them, would be allowed under this proposed zoning. Mr. Hearn questioned how long they had owned the property. Ms. Brown stated they had just purchased it about two months prior. Mr. Hearn questioned if they knew at the time of purchase that they could not have that type of business under the current zoning and would need to be rezoned. Ms. Brown stated they were not aware of that because it was only advertised as being commercial property. She continued that after investigating further they found out it was CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) as opposed to CG (Commercial, General). Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Estelle Dunn, 3204 Kentucky Avenue, stated that she was representing the other owners in the neighborhood and that they were against this change because it would change the area from a neighborhood to more of a business. She advised that the area that the business is planning to go to is really not suitable for a business. She continued that it is a small tract of land that would be more suitable for just a home, not a business. Mr. Akins questioned if Ms. Dunn was aware of P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 15 the other commercial businesses operating in the area. Ms. Dunn stated that she was aware that there is a little neighborhood store and previously there was also a thrift shop. Mr. Hearn questioned how intense the storage of commercial vehicles and the equipment and supplies be under the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning and if they would be allowed to be stored surrounding the building. Mr. Kelly explained that outside storage is not a permitted use under CG (Commercial, General) Zoning. Mr. Hearn questioned if this business could be compared to a contractors office under the permitted uses in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that is generally what he understood. Ms. Brown stated that they have a four-stall pole barn in the back that the equipment would be stored in and cannot be seen from the road. She also stated that there is a 3/2, 2/2, and a 1/1 on the property too that have tenants st. She continued that they planned in the future to put up a fence so that it would not be an eye sore for anyone. Ms. Hammer questioned what they would be storing in the pole barn. Ms. Brown stated they would store their trucks and tanks. She advised that their business uses a coal tar emulsion seal coating to cover cracked driveways, parking lots, and doing the striping. Ms. Hammer questioned if there was any odor from the materials. Ms. Brown explained that it is a cold application and there would be no odors because it is not used until on a job site. Mr. Hearn stated that under the permitted uses it shows construction services with offices and st of the pole barn and would need to do know more about the pole barn to see if that qualifies as an interior use. Mr. Flores stated that the applicant advised him of the pole barn and he directed her to the building department to find out their requirements for enclosing the structure itself. Ms. Brown stated that if there were any requirements to enclose the pole barn they would be willing to do that. Chairman Merritt questioned how big the site is. Mr. Flores stated that it is just under an acre. Mr. Lounds stated that there is another property shown on the Arial photograph that has a building with many items being stored behind it. He stated that he d this concern about storing items within a pole barn that is on an acre. He advised that this area problem. Chairman Merritt questioned if there are three houses currently on the property. Ms. Brown explained that there is one house with a 3/2 and a 2/2. She advised that there is a separate cottage, which is a 1/1. She stated that the four-stall pole barn was built when they were building I-95 through and the county used it to store all of their vehicles. Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant wanted to do business out of the pole barn but continue to maintain the three apartments that are currently on the site. Ms. Brown confirmed that was the CG (Commercial, General) zoning. Ms. Brown stated that they are pre-existing. Mr. Kelly explained that three buildings would not be permitted within CG zoning. He advised that they are non-conforming uses. Mr. Grande stated that they are not within CG zoning presently, they are in CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that they are also non-conforming uses under the current CN zoning so it would not be making a change to the status of the residences. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows all of this area as commercial. He P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 16 continued that all of the zoning in this area is also commercial with a number of existing CG (Commercial, General) zoned parcels there. Mr. Grande questioned why no one was notified on Louisiana Avenue. He also questioned if the residents within city limits would be notified as well. Mr. Kelly stated that all of the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, including city residents, were notified. He went through the list and advised that the residences on Louisiana are apartments that are owned by people who reside in Del Ray Beach and they were notified. He advised that we did not notify the renters themselves because they do not own the property but there was a sign placed on the subject property. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. 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 Gerhard Kamphichler for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because I think it is consistent with which the neighborhood is beginning to move, noting that there is a residential area across the street, but also the fact that there is commercial, commercial neighborhood, commercial general all through the western side of this particular area. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 5-4 (with Mr. Grande, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Hearn, and Mr. Trias voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 17 AGENDA ITEM 7: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF FT. PIERCE FILE NO. CU-03-014: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational Services and Facilities in the I (Institutional) and RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning Districts for 19.46 acres th of property located at 4500 South 25 Street. He continued that the surrounding zoning is RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) zoning to the north with AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential th 1 du/acre) to the south and across South 25 Street to the west. He also stated that R/C (Residential Conservation) is located to the east with I (Institutional) and RF (Religious Facilities located to the west. Mr. Flores stated that the applicant has applied for the requested conditional use in order to establish an educational facility for a maximum of 40 students for a pre-school. He advised that a church is currently located on the subject property and the addition of two new 672 square foot classroom buildings is being proposed. He also stated that educational services and facilities are allowed as conditional uses in both zoning districts subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. 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 three limiting conditions: 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 40. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 A.M to 6 P.M., Monday through Friday. 3. First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce shall finalize negotiations with St. Lucie th County for the additional right-of-way for South 25 Street prior to permits being issued for the school addition. Mr. Charlie Canginelli, 1004 S 11th Street, stated that he was there representing the applicant and Pastor Andy Boyd was also present. He continued that this request was to accommodate an education facility. He advised that the proposed preschool facility would accommodate 40 children, Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. He stated that at this time the 23 acre site was under design for a new church, preschool, and supporting facility. He advised that he did not know if it was possible for the applicant to meet condition # 3. Pastor Andy Boyd, 1715 SW Mockingbird Drive, stated that he has spoken with David Brian McCarsky who is representing the County in land acquisition along 25th street for the widening there would be any problem with the negotiations and meeting condition # 3 that was set forth. Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant would be willing to leave condition # 3 as it was written in the staff report. Pastor Boyd stated that would be fine. Mr. Grande questioned if they could justify adding condition # 2 because it would never allow a night class or any kind of evening activities. Mr. Flores stated that it was consistent with what was done with previous preschool requests. He continued that they recognize there might be occasional nighttime activities, which would be allowed. Mr. Kelly stated that the intent was not to prevent parents meeting at night to P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 18 discuss educational issues but was to limit the actual operation of the educational facility and children. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. John Ferrick, 4802 S 25th Street, stated that his wife Patricia Ferrick has concerns regarding the ingress and egress on 25th Street. He advised that if constructed there would only be a left turn heading south and only a right turn heading north causing u-turns in this area. He stated that there would not be the ability for a bus to make turns into the property safely. He questioned what portion of this property the conditional use would apply to. He stated that the size of the property could lead to expansions. He also stated that this property burned exotics when clearing the property, which caused serious health threats and hazards in the area. He stated that this parcel is 19 1/2 acres for a 40-child, two-classroom preschool and that seems a little much. Mr. Mitchell Wilson, 1005 W 1st Street, stated that there would not be any busing for this facility, only parent drop-off and pick-up. He also stated that the modular unit for the school would be placed on their existing property, not where the property is currently being cleared. He advised that the burning on the site was complete and there would not be any additional burning done. He stated that they were clearing the property for the past two or three months, had the proper permits, and met all of the requirements necessary for the burning. He stated that they tried diligently to address any concerns from the neighborhood that they were told about. He also stated that they were inspected almost daily during the clearing process by regulatory agencies from the County and the City. He continued that they worked with the Division of Forestry, Fire District, and all necessary agencies for their clearing and burning. He advised that they are working with RK Davis on the first phase of their project and their master site plan. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would have any problem adding a condition that there would not be any school bus transportation. Mr. Canginelli stated there was no problem with adding that condition. Chairman Merritt stated that he felt it would be more sensible to have one single bus entering and exiting the school rather than forty cars. Mr. Hearn stated that if the traffic structure could su under the impression there were problems getting a bus in and out of the property. Mr. Ferrick stated that under the new proposed 4-lane construction of 25th street it has an island in the median area, which would make it difficult for a bus to enter or exit the property. Pastor Boyd stated that their church currently owns and utilizes a 27-passenger mini bus, which has no trouble turning around or maneuvering in and out of the prop to accommodate larger vehicles turning around. Mr. Trias questioned if this is a DOT road or a County road. Mr. Kelly explained it is a DOT road. Mr. Trias questioned if the County has any influence regarding the design of the median. Mr. Kelly stated that they have very little to do with DOT roadway projects. Ms. Hammer stated lt yet, Senator Pruitt and Representative Harrell should be able to do something to correct this issue. Seeing no one else, 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. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 19 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 First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce for a Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) and RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning Districts subject to the three conditions listed in the Staff report because it appears to be a natural progression of their plans for this area and with some adjustment Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 9-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 20 AGENDA ITEM 8: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY PLANNING: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 8 was an Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning in St. Lucie County. He stated that as part of the 2002 legislative session, the governors signed and passed into law Senate Bill 1906, which made several amendments to the general planning statutes found in Florida Law. He continued that one area which was added to the law required that all local school districts and local governing bodies within a county enter into a specific Interlocal Agreement that would set out specifically how the various units of government would coordinate school planning. He stated that these Interlocal Agreements are to be approved by all affected parties no later than December 31, 2003. He advised that in the case of St. Lucie County, rather than enter into individual agreements with each City and the County Commission, the School Board has asked, and the local governments agreed to, enter into one common agreement to be executed by all parties. Mr. Murphy stated that the Interlocal Agreement sets out a process whereby St. Lucie County and the School District are to review on an annual basis growth projects and facility needs. He also stated that through this agreement the County and the School Board would work jointly to determine where and when to locate new schools. He advised that the County would be responsible to make sure that school designs are done in such a manner as to minimize the effects on the adjoining properties and area roadway network. He continued that the School Board would be responsible to try and locate sites that minimize negative impacts onto the local community. In addition to school sites, these same facility-planning requirements apply to the non-educational components of the School Boards physical plant. Staff recommends that this be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a finding that the presented Interlocal Agreement between the St. Lucie County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners is consistent with Objective 1.1.17 and its intended Policies, and further recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this agreement as drafted. Mr. Grande stated that on page 5 under Section 3.4, Provision of Reports, it appeared that there was an attempt being made to have communication being made back and forth so that everyone would keep each other up to date on what is happening within thirty days. He continued that in the next phrase they state the next semi-annual staff working group meeting and wondered if there was some reason for that exception in time. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Harrell stated that he was the attorney for the School Board and that this agreement was a model developed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He continued that St. Lucie County has already been doing these things but this agreement just formalizes the sharing of information. He also stated that this would lead to a greater sharing of information that has gone on in the past. He stated that the language in Section 3.4 is essenti advised that the reason for the exception is that the planning information generated at the planning level takes time to be reviewed by everyone and this exception allows for that time. Mr. Hearn questioned staff if this agreement is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that it is in compliance as noted in the last paragraph of the staff report. Seeing no one else Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 21 Mr. Lounds made a finding of consistency that the presented Interlocal Agreement between the St. Lucie County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners is consistent with Objective 1.1.17 and its intended Policies, and further recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this agreement as drafted. Motion seconded by McCurdy. Upon a vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 9-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 22 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Mr. Lounds stated that nobody takes their advice as a board. He continued that they are here because they like the county but he thinks that there are commissioners driving the open space issues the way they want it. He stated the commissioners should realize that it is a three out of five vote that makes things happen in the county, not one. He also stated that this board and the public have spent a lot of time working on the open space and clustering issues and is being ignored. He continued that he feels the verbiage is being driven by members of the County Commission to get it passed regardless so that the urban service issues remain where they are today. He advised that they do not want the county to e agricultural area to survive under a better land plan than what they are trying to do. He continued that somewhere all of this would come out and ten years from now we will hopefully look back and say it worked out. He stated that right now he is upset with the system and the grinding wheel of bureaucracy is working well right now. Chairman Merritt questioned when the open space issues were started. Mr. Murphy stated that it was first presented to them around January 2003, with lead in discussion and work around October of 2002. He also stated that they have discussed it on three or four different occasions. He advised that on September 30, 2003 there would be a workshop to go over some things that Commissioner Barnes wanted to discuss. He continued that the final reading of the ordinance would be on October 7, 2003. He stated that the Board wanted it rewritten without the buy out clause and there were also some additional issues relative to if this would apply to specific areas or the entire western portion of the county. Mr. Hearn stated that they did not eliminate the open space requirement in their discussions last month and that is what Mr. Murphy is stating. Mr. Murphy explained that the language that was in ordinance to be deleted because they did not want to eliminate all of the open space requirements, ersion of his ordinance at the Board of County Commissioners meeting eliminating the requirement for common open space and the clustering component. Mr. Hearn stated that he wonders why we sit on the board control on how property is being utilized. He advised that in 1960 the people of the county voted that they wanted planning and zoning regulations adopted in the community. He continued that they have worked reasonably well and set a pattern of development that most folks can live with. He stated that he fully supports the fact that the western property owners have a problem and need to sell some of their land for residential development. He stated he is concerned that if people sub-divide their agricultural land for residential development then people will put a few cattle on the property and ask for an ag exemption. Next scheduled meeting will be October 16, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: _____________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary P & Z / LPA Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 23