Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-19-2004 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Local Planning Agency REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2004 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, and Mr. Merritt. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Trias (With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Diana Waite, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McCurdy 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. Grande stated that on Agenda Item # 5, he had met with the petitioners, and several citizens but has no interest in this item one way or the other. Mr. Hearn stated that he had spoken to at least one person about Agenda Item # 5 and had also had conversation with members of the public regarding Agenda Items # 10 and # 11. Chairman McCurdy gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for 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. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 1 of 26 The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has specific questions. The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. No other announcements or discussion. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 2 of 26 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2004: Ms. Hammer stated that on line 4 of page 9 there was a word missing. Mr. Hearn stated Mr. Grande made a motion to approve, as amended. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 8-0). P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 3of 26 AGENDA ITEM 2: GLASSMAN PROPERTIES, LLC. FILE NO. RZ-03- 017/PUD-03-011: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the Glassman Properties, LLC, application of for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Johnston Lakes) Zoning District. He stated that Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue action on these issues to the March 18, 2004 meeting. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande made a motion to continue the application of Glassman Properties, LLC, until the March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Upon a vote the motion was unanimously approved with a vote of 8-0. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 4of 26 AGENDA ITEM 3: GLASSMAN REALTY, LTD. FILE NO. RZ-03-035: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the Glassman Realty, Ltd., application of for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. He stated that Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue action on these issues to the March 18, 2004 meeting. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Merritt made a motion to continue the application of Glassman Realty, Ltd. until the March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a vote the motion was unanimously approved with a vote of 8-0. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 5of 26 AGENDA ITEM 4: CARROLL AND JANET COLLINS FILE NO. RZ-04-002: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the Carroll and Janet Collins, application of for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family 5 du/acre) Zoning District for property located on the east side of th North 44 Street, approximately 100 feet south of San Diego Avenue, in order to allow the property to be developed for a multiple-family (duplex) unit. He continued that the subject property is located in the Harmony Heights Subdivision, which is a single-family subdivision both in zoning (RS-4) and use. Any conversion of the lots within it to multiple-family use would be inconsistent with its character. The proposed amendment would not result in an orderly and logical development pattern. The subject property is located in an area of single-family homes and vacant lots. The requested multiple-family zoning is not consistent with these uses and designations. If a change in zoning were approved, the applicant, by right, would be allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses section. Any use under the Accessory Uses section would be allowed only if one or more of the permitted uses exist on the subject property. Any use under the Conditional Uses section could only be allowed if it first receives approval through the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the applicant or their representative was present. Mr. Carroll Collins and Ms. Janet Collins stated they were the applicants. Mr. Collins stated that they each own two lots that are 60x141 and are zoned to build a single-family unit as long as they can meet the setback requirements, which they can do. He continued that they are asking to marry the two lots together with quit claim deeds, which would make the size of the lot 120x141. He advised that what they would be building would be the same thing as building two single-family units on two lots. He stated that it would not bring any more traffic to the area, load on the schools, or any other effect that he could see. He continued that there is a great need for more apartments to be rented in St. Lucie County. He also stated that in many cities residential is comprised of single-family units as well as duplexes before the separate zonings were enacted. Ms. Collins stated that they live in the City of Ft. Pierce surrounded by homes that people have taken and divided up into apartments. She stated that they are not asking to build two separate homes; it is going to be a duplex. She continued that by building a duplex, it would take up less of the land, there would be more landscaping, and in their opinion it would be conducive and helpful. Mr. Akins questioned if the applicant would be able to build a single-family unit on each lot as they are situated now. Mr. Collins confirmed that they would be able to meet the set back requirements and build a single-family unit on each lot. He continued that he feels a concrete block duplex would be better for the area than two frame single-family houses. Mr. Lounds questioned if the each unit of the duplex would have three bedrooms. Mr. Collins confirmed that was correct. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. Kenneth Bowl, 2412 North 43rd Street, stated that he is the President of the Harmony Heights Homeowners Association. He stated that the residents of the neighborhood oppose this rezoning. He continued that the neighborhood is growing and they like their single-family unit community. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 6of 26 Ms. Dorothy Jackson, 2309 North 42nd Street, stated that if they wanted to be in a community where there were duplexes or rental properties, they would not have built homes out there. She continued that she has been a resident since 1978, built her home in a residential community, and she feels it should stay that way. She stated that only those who actually live in that community can say what is best for that particular community. Ms. Adrienne Blakely-Jefferson-Dover stated that she has lived in this community for approximately 20 years and they are unique because they are a family. She continued that they r applicants did not even meet with the people of the community to find out what is going on in that area. She thanked Staff for the recommendation of denial and also requested this application be denied. Ms. Annette Jackson, 4402 San Diego Avenue, stated that this property is directly across from her and when she sits in her living room she can see this lot. She advised that duplexes and apartments are a good idea, but not in this neighborhood. Mr. Clifford Graham, 2105 North 44th Street, stated that building single-family homes there would be much better for their community. He continued that they oppose building duplexes there. Mr. Arthur William stated he lives on North 45th Street and feels that duplexes are not appropriate for the area. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. 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 11.06.03, 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 Carroll and Janet Collins, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District because it is inconsistent with the surrounding area and the other reasons listed in the Staff recommendation. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 7of 26 AGENDA ITEM 5: NETTLES ISLAND FILE NO. RZ-03-007/PUD-03-005: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the Nettles Island, application of for an approval for the project known as Nettles Island Commercial Real Estate Office, and for a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned Nonresidential Development Nettles Island) Zoning District for a 0.59-acre land tract to allow the operation of a commercial real estate office within an existing building. The subject property is located west side of North A-1-A, just north of the entrance to the Nettles Island Adult Community and east of Island Beach Club Ms. Snay continued that the proposed rezoning has been determined not to be in conflict with any applicable provision of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The application for Preliminary and Final Planned Nonresidential Development (PNRD) approval has been reviewed for consistency with the provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and has been determined to meet all applicable standards of review. Ms. Snay stated that Section 7.06.02 requires that a general office building (which includes real estate offices) allocate 5 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of building. Therefore, the existing 2,050 square foot building is required to have 10 parking spaces. The PNRD plan indicates 19 parking spaces being on the project site. She advised that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed PNRD (Planned Non- Residential Development) amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. She continued that this proposed change in zoning and the accompanying Planned Non-Residential Development site plan is consistent with the existing and proposed uses within the area. The subject parcel of land is located at the , the subject always been assessed as a commercial use. Ms. Snay stated that according to the ITE trip generation, a single-use office development, such as a real estate office would produce 11.57 trips per 1000 square feet of gross floor area. Based upon this ratio, a 2,050 square foot real estate office would only produce 24 vehicular trips daily. According to the Spring 2003 traffic counts for St. Lucie County sufficient capacity exists on State Road A-1-A to meet the needs of this project. This proposal will result in minimal demands on the existing transportation network. She also stated that as part of the PNRD process, the applicants are required to upgrade the existing landscaping on the site to meet all minimum code requirements. There is no significant native vegetation located on the subject site. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary and Final Planned Non-Residential Development 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 recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Ms. Hammer stated that attorney Jane Cornet is the attorney for the VNI and is also representing her homeowners association in litigation against the City of Port St. Lucie. She questioned if she would need to recuse herself from this petition. Ms. Young stated that the attorney represents a variety of homeowners and condominium associations and Chairman McCurdy made an announcement that the Planning and Zoning Commission received 469 letters of opposition regarding this petition and they are aware of the concerns. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 8of 26 Mr. Akins stated that he did not believe this was the forum to take up issues regarding funding between the homeowners association and acquisition of the real estate office. He advised that in reviewing some of the letters there might be a conflict within the Nettles Island community as to some of the funding decisions reached by various entities within the association. He stated that this board is not someone that can resolve that or get involved with that because it is not within the scope of their duties or jurisdiction. He relevant to this rezoning request because they are internal monetary conflicts. Chairman McCurdy agreed and explained that to the public. Ms. Hammer stated that they have documents from two organizations: Nettles Island Inc. and Nettles Island Community Action Association. She questioned if one of the speakers could explain who each of these parties are. Mr. Lawrence Creary stated that Jane Cornet represents Nettles Island Inc. and he is from the law firm of Creary Buchanan who represents VNI Realty Inc. He stated that Nettles Island Inc. is the condominium association that has oversight over all of Nettles Island. He continued that it is the authority in Nettles Island and the unit owners in Nettles Island elect its Board members. He advised that two years ago Nettles Island Inc. bought VNI Realty, including the piece of property that is being requested for rezoning. He stated that VNI Realty Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nettles Island Inc. The condominium association acquired this corporation, which is a real estate brokerage. He also stated that the property requested for rezoning has, since the inception of Nettles Island, been a real estate office. He continued that they are asking for a change in zoning to align the zoning with the use that has been there all of these years and to allow VNI to operate as a full service real estate office on the subject property. He stated that since it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nettles Island its main purpose is to ultimately benefit the unit owners. He continued that Nettles Island Inc. is the Board of Directors and are the actual owners of the property in question and the only legal authority for Nettles Island. He stated that he would not be able to explain the Community Action Association because he was not familiar with them. He advised that this particular property was never platted for lots, since the onset was reserved for special use by the developer, and once Nettles Island acquired it that special use continued. He stated that this zoning change would allow the zoning to be in line with the use that has been there since its inception in 1969. Ms. Esther Peabody, President of Nettles Island, Inc., stated that the Community Action Association is a small group of people, which are a political action committee. She continued that two of the Nettles Island Board members were not present because they were co-chairing a dinner party with 220 of their residents attending. She stated that several of the Board members did email and send letters to them in favor of this zoning change. She asked all Nettles Island residents that were in favor of the zoning change to stand up. A large group of people stood up. Ms. Peabody continued that in 2001 1,578 lot owners of Nettles Island voted to purchase VNI and the land on which it is located. She advised that there were 1,395 votes cast where 1,321 voted yes and only 69 voted no, which was an unheard of precedent. She stated that this summer they took a survey of the lot owners concerning the zoning issues and 753 sent back cards in favor, only 5 sent back cards against it. She requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of this request. Mr. Grande questioned if the original existing facility was the site plan proposed for this PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) request. Ms. Snay explained that it is exactly as existing and they only needed to update some landscaping to meet the current code, which is shown. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. Mark Boston stated that he is the President of the Nettles Island Community Action Dr. Joe Braun stated that he is a retired family doctor who resides at Nettles Island. He read into record a letter P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 9of 26 stated that those are internal issues and are not relevant to their decision about the zoning change. Dr. Braun questioned if they have the authority to request it. Mr. Akins stated they would need to take that up with the courts and not with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Tyrone Goodard, 1276 Nettles Boulevard, stated that there have been some changes to the entrance, which includes a left turn lane for those accessing. He continued that he has never seen a five-minute wait, does not see the traffic problems that they are portraying here tonight, and the only delay he has seen is when people are checking into the park. Mr. Roland Cobb stated that he has lived in the park for 32 years and became a full-time resident about five years ago. He advised that he was a real estate broker in Delaware for 38 years and this negativity only comes from a few people at every meeting they have. He continued that these people are against everything that they stand for that is good for help keep their expenses at their current level or at a controlled level. He stated that their real estate agents should have the option of selling real estate anywhere because it will help bring money into their park. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds asked that Ms. Snay repeat her information regarding the traffic analysis. Ms. Snay stated that according to the ITE trip generation, a single-use office development, such as a real estate office would produce 11.57 trips per 1000 square feet of gross floor area. Based upon this ratio, a 2,050 square foot real estate office would only produce 24 vehicular trips daily. According to the Spring 2003 traffic counts for St. Lucie County sufficient capacity exists on State Road A-1-A to meet the needs of this project. This proposal will result in minimal demands on the existing transportation network. Mr. Hearn questioned if the paved parking lot was used exclusively for the real estate office. Ms. Snay stated that people checking into Nettles Island could also use it. Mr. Hearn questioned how many paved parking places were required for a building of that size under the Land Development Code. Ms. Snay stated that currently they would be required 5 spaces for every 1,000 square feet, or ten parking spaces. She continued that the site has a total of 19 spaces on it currently. Mr. Hearn questioned if people within the park could use those parking spaces. Ms. Snay stated they could also use them if they wanted to. Mr. Lounds 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 Nettles Island, Inc. for a Preliminary and Final Planned Non-Residential Development approval for the project known as Nettles Island Real Estate Office, and for a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development Nettles Island - PNRD) Zoning District because I think that it is consistent with what the majority of the folks in on the traffic flow and I think it is good business on their part to be able to control their livelihood. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 10of 26 AGENDA ITEM 6: HAROLD H. SMYTH FILE NO. RZ-03-048: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the Harold H. Smyth application of for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District for a 1.05-acre parcel of land located on the west side of Trowbridge Road, approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Orange Avenue and Trowbridge Road. She continued that the future land use designation was MXD-Orange Avenue West (COM/IND). She also stated that the purpose of the requested change in zoning was to make property more consistent with the Ms. Snay stated that the IL (Industrial Light) Zoning District has been determined to be an acceptable zoning district within the MXD Orange Avenue West (Mixed Orange Avenue West (SU COM/IND)) future land use designation. She advised that the proposed zoning district is considered to be consistent with existing and proposed future land use designations in the area. The property located to the north, northwest and east are being utilized for general industrial uses further to the west is commercial uses, to the south is a residential unit. The permitted uses in the IL (Industrial Light) Zoning District are not expected to unduly impact the surrounding area or uses. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that the proposed petition conforms to the Standards of Review as set forth in 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 from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) zoning district to the IL (Industrial Light) zoning district. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. Harold Smyth, 1502 Seaway Drive, stated that he was the applicant and would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Lounds questioned if the piece just south of his was the old Rawlerson piece. Mr. Smyth stated that it is not. He stated that there is one house in between and the Rawlerson house is one more parcel below. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Ms. Vickie Vierthaler stated that she lives on the property just to the south of this parcel. She continued that she would like to keep this a residential or agricultural area. She stated that there are mini ranches proposed down the road from them and would not personally want to live in an industrial area. She also stated there is already industrial around and this property currently acts as a buffer and would like to keep it that way. She advised that the reason the applicant wants it rezoned is because he would have a better chance of selling it and because it is a small acreage. She continued that she has 2 1/2 acres. She sta south. She also stated that the next gentleman is her neighbor and they would like to keep as much industry out of that area as possible. Mr. Henry Eplin stated that he lives next door to Ms. Vierthaler at 401 Trowbridge Road. He stated that he has lived out there his whole life and was raised there too. He continued that to the north and east of their property are industrial and commercial properties. He stated that they would like to keep the southern portion as residential so they can have their own little neighborhood. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that in his previous discussions about industrial properties along Kings Highway and Airport road he has suggested that the petitioners provide better landscaping so that residents in the area feel it buffers the industrial nature of the projects. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 11of 26 He continued that he would like to ask the Board to again consider enhancing the IL ( problem with this project because it squares off a piece that it is industrial and general commercial. He continued that he is very familiar with that area and what is out there. He stated that he understands what the residents who live in that area are talking about. He advised that enhancing the IL (Industrial, Light) landscaping requirements to provide some additional buffering would improve those areas, as long as the County regulates maintaining that landscaping. Ms. Morgan questioned why the IL (Industrial, Light) zoning is necessary if he only ust be in the industrial area and cannot be in the general office category. She continued that if the applicant wants to have equipment or anything of that nature it must be in the industrial category. Ms. Morgan questioned if the petitioner was planning on putting equipment on the site. Mr. Smyth stated that they would be storing materials and equipment on the property. He continued that they have a backhoe, tractors, and other types of equipment that they would be storing material on the property. Ms. Morgan questioned what type of contractor the applicant was. Mr. Smyth stated that he is a general contractor. Mr. Merritt questioned if the applicant would be working on the equipment on that site. Mr. Smyth stated that they would only be working on it there if it happens to break down and he needs it out the next day. Ms. Hammer stated that if this was just a home that was going to be a regular office for the contractor to go in and out of she might be able to live with that. She continued that putting heavy equipment, with the noise of it backing up, and storing construction materials right beside individuals that have homes she has a problem with. She stated that if would be better if there was a place in the code that only allowed contract offices rather than the broad range of permitted uses allowed under the IL (Industrial, Light) zoning. She continued that she is concerned about what could happen on this ged. the area at all. Ms. Hammer stated that she did not know this area. Mr. Lounds stated that there is a lot of traffic on this portion of Orange Avenue and many industrial areas already there. He continued that the residents who live in that area are well aware of these types of businesses and the noises affiliated with them. He advised that this is a situation where there are residents in an industrial area but this whole area is one of the light industrial areas for St. Lucie County that is west of town and not part of the in town traffic. Mr. Smyth showed the Planning and Zoning Commission members pictures taken of the north, south, east, and west views from standing in the middle of his property. He explained that as the pictures showed most of the views in that area are of industrial more noise than what is already there. Ms. Hammer stated that when property owners purchase land that is zoned AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) they have rights that state they will have AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 as a construction office. She stated that she feels the permitted uses allowed under this zoning are very intensive and being next to residential areas is not right. Mr. Akins questioned what the north south dimension of the property was. Mr. Smyth stated that it is approximately 150 feet. Mr. Hearn stated that he feels this application is a perfect example of why applicants should be encouraged to submit a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) plan P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 12of 26 rather than a straight rezoning. He continued that with the PNRD (Planned Non- Residential Development) application, they can impose limiting conditions, and it ensures that the applicant will do what they say they are going to do. He stated that he has a hard time justifying a request for IL (Industrial, Light) zoning adjacent to residential uses. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would be willing to submit a request for a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development). Mr. Smyth stated that he did not see the reason for it because the surrounding zonings are consistent with what they want to do, it is IL (Industrial, Light) surrounding it, and would not want to do change his request to a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development). Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Harold H. Smyth, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District because it is consistent with the future land use in the area. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 6-2 (with Ms. Hammer and Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 13of 26 AGENDA ITEM 7: ST. LUCIE CITRUS MINE FILE NO. CU-03-017: Carl Austin Powers, Ms. Snay stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of for a Major Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow for a sand mining operation to be known as St. Lucie Citrus Mine in the AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District. She stated that this request was for a 152.08 acres parcel of land located on the east side of Ideal Holding Road, approximately 600 feet north of Mach One Drive. The purpose of the requested Conditional Use Permit is to allow a Sand Mining Operation on the subject property. This use would be authorized under the provisions of Section 3.01.03(C)(7)(i), Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels. Ms. Snay stated that the subject property is surrounded by AG-2.5 (Agricultural 1 du/2.5 acres) zoning and land use to the north and northeast and AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 acres) zoning and land use to the south, east and west. The existing uses in this area are agriculture in nature with row crops and cattle to the north, south, east and west and residential to the northeast (Hidden Acres) and southwest (Aero Acres a private airstrip community). She continued that in addition to the Major Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit, the applicant is processing a Mining Permit. This request is for three lakes (Phase I lake 11.04 acres in size; Phase II lake 10.30 acres in size; and Phase III lake 11.79 acres) in addition a 30-acre dewatering settling basin will be utilized for this site. Each lake is approximately 2,100 feet long, 200 feet wide and 20 feet deep. The petitioners have indicted that by the end of 2010 they will complete the mining operation. Upon completion of the mining operation, the petitioners have indicated that they will be proposing to develop the property as a residential development with a water-ski venue. Ms. Snay stated that the proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The developers have incorporated a number of safeguards to offset noise, air contaminants and vibrations impacting the nearby properties. There will a perimeter berm around the site at the 100-year, 3-day storm event elevation to prevent operation for this facility will be from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. 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 a recommendation of approval, subject to the six limiting conditions found on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the applicant or their representative were present. Mr. Gary Basham stated that he is with Culpepper and Terpening and is the engineer of record. He stated that Mr. Carl Powers, the owner and applicant, was also present. He questions they might have. Mr. Lounds questioned what the intention of the applicant was once the property was mined out. Mr. Powers stated that several years ago he and his father did a development of ski lake communities in the Pacific Northwest and was intending to build a few lakes on the property with a home for he and his family. He advised that he picked this property because it fit within the Comprehensive Plan but he could not keep all of the sand and dirt on the property and this was the only way to legally remove it from the property. Mr. Lounds questioned if there was any coquina under this. Mr. Powers stated that he did not believe so. Mr. Basham stated that the geo-technical report indicates that it is sand down to the depth that Mr. Powers wants to excavate, which is approximately 20 feet deep. He continued that the mining permit only allows for sand to be removed from the site. Mr. Lounds questioned what prevents the applicant from mining to 60 feet. Mr. Basham stated that the permits from the County, as well as the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), restrict them from going any further than 20 feet. Mr. Powers stated that for a water-ski lake, you really want to be between 14 and 20 feet for optimal skiing conditions. Mr. Grande questioned if the extraction portion of this project is a step towards a P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 14of 26 residential development. Mr. Powers confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande questioned what the maximum density currently allowed on the property would be. Ms. Snay stated it would be a maximum of thirty houses. Mr. Powers stated that he would only be starting with a home for his family. Mr. Grande questioned how the applicant could be kept to a maximum of thirty units when he decides to develop in the future. Ms. Snay stated that the underlying land use is AG-5 and if they want to develop at a higher density, they would have to submit another application for review. Ms. Hammer questioned how close Hidden Acres and Aero Acres were to this site. Ms. Snay stated that she did not have actual distances but indicated where the locations were on a map. Mr. Hearn questioned if the equipment that is used on the site can have a different device than the beeping sound that comes from it when it is backing up. He asked if OSHA would permit any other type of warning device on a machine that is backing up. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not know the answer to that, but could try to find out. Mr. Hearn also questioned what would happen if the applicant did not control their stockpiles. Mr. Kelly stated that the materials in the stockpiles are subject to the requirements of the mining permit, which would be a violation of that permit. Mr. Hearn questioned who would monitor the mining permit and any violations. Mr. Kelly advised that the Public Works department monitored it. Mr. Lounds questioned what the anticipated outfall of water would be. Mr. Basham stated that the site is designed to have no outfall into the surrounding canals. He advised that the reason for the 30-acre settling basin in the middle of the site is to allow for zero discharge off of the site. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Dave Legates stated that he lives on Kitty Hawk Court in Aero Acres. He stated that Ideal Holding Road was dirt in 1995 and was paved through an MSBU. He continued that 79 people paid for that MSBU, with 68 lots being from Aero Acres. He questioned if this applicant would pay any monies back to the MSBU if approved to develop this site. He also stated that they are concerned about large dump trucks destroying the road that they have paid for. He questioned how mining 20 feet down and dewatering would affect the water table in Aero Acres because their wells are only down 22 feet deep. He questioned what the impact of dewatering 35 acres would have on the surrounding dewatering pump would create by running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for six years. Mr. Randy Vering, 18502 Tranquility Base Lane, Aero Acres, stated that he represents Aero Acres Homeowners Association Board of Directors and also represents the approved PUD Carlton Country Estates, owned by Mr. Joe Miller. He stated that they would be the most directly affected residents by this project. He continued that they are concerned that the applicant is misrepresenting his intentions. He stated that if they consider approving this request they would ask that the following items be included as conditions: a bond secured for 1 million dollars, or an amount deemed necessary by St. Lucie County, in effect until the mining and site work are completed; an approved PUD (Planned Unit Development) be in place prior to the approval of this mining request; the depth of the lakes to be no deeper than 15 feet and total site work to be completed within two years of construction start; the time of daily construction work should be established with consideration to the residents of Aero Acres, Carlton Country Estates, and Hidden Acres; Mr. Powers and any future owners, who wish to apply for a building permit on that property, agree to include in the sales contract and any owned homeowner covenants an attachment signed by the lot owner freely stating that they were informed that there is an airport within 1 mile of the property and they agree to live in harmony with the aircrafts to the south and west, with horses to the north and east, and cattle to the west. Ms. Ann Norville stated that she represents Mary Carlton Ranch, which is due west of the subject property. She stated that she feels if the applicant digs wells it would affect the water table. She stated that she asked the applicant why he wanted to sell the dirt off of ght the property for a ski-resort but that he really bought it to mine and sell the dirt. She stated that Mary Carlton Ranch opposes this request. Mr. Lounds questioned if this applicant discussed his plans with her. Ms. Norville stated that they have never been approached or talked to by the applicant. Mr. Dick Ashure, 18605 Mach One Drive, stated that he is concerned about the noise and P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 15of 26 dust generated from this project. He stated that he is completely opposed to this project unless he knows for sure that this project could be complete in one or two years and they have a guarantee that a ski-lake community will be built. Mr. Andy Gasper, 18604 Tranquility Base Lane, stated that he too is opposed to this six- year project and feels the applicant has a hidden agenda. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Powers stated that this property was an old orange grove that was losing money before he bought it. He continued that he did boring tests to see if it would be a viable site for a ski-lake community. He stated that about two years ago he met with staff and proposed to do a PUD (Planned Unit Development), which was a 30-unit subdivision, but it was too costly. He stated that he might only dig one lake for his own family will use the money from selling the dirt to pay for the infrastructure, utilities, and the roads. Ms. Hammer questioned what the applicant thought of the five conditions proposed by Mr. Vering. Mr. Kelly stated that a condition of the conditional use permit is to provide a bond to pay for the maintenance of Ideal Holding Road and the amount would be worked out with the Engineering Department. Mr. Powers stated that they would not be able to dig lakes that were any less than eight feet deep because of bacteria levels and that a twenty foot lake has more manageable costs. He also stated that he is open to having a two-year completion date and only allowing 20 trucks per day. Mr. Kelly stated that condition # 5 of the conditional use permit limits the trucks to a maximum of 40 trips, which are 20 trucks in and out of the site. He also stated that condition # 4 does limit the hours of operation for the project. Ms. Morgan questioned if the applicant met with the neighbors. Mr. Powers stated that he met with Ken Mascara, and he spoke with Joe Miller. Mr. Akins questioned if the applicant already had their South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits in place. Mr. Powers advised that they did. Mr. Akins questioned if the SFWMD considered the water levels when they decided to approve the permits. Mr. Gary Basham stated that he did believe that was something they took into consideration before approving the permit and that if it is found to affect neighboring properties they would shut the project down immediately. Mr. Lounds questioned if there were any flow wells on the property. Mr. Basham stated that they did not find any when the survey was done and that the only structure found was to withdraw water from the canals, which SFWMD instructed them to remove. Mr. Merritt questioned if it was practical to dig the lakes, stockpile the dirt, do away with the pumps, and have the project finished in two years. Mr. Basham stated that would not be possible without dewatering and to be done in two years they would have to work very Mr. Lounds questioned if the density of the dirt would be adequate to use as foundations for homes. Mr. Basham stated that the geo-technical research stated that it would be adequate for fill. Ms. Hammer stated that she felt this request should be delayed at least 60 days to allow the applicant time to meet with the neighbors, address their concerns, and come back to them with more adequate information. Ms. Morgan made a motion to continue the application of Carl Austin Powers, St. Lucie Citrus Mine to the March 18, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a vote, the motion was approved 7-1 (with Mr. Merritt voting against) and continued to the March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 16of 26 AGENDA ITEM 8: HOME DYNAMICS CORPORATION FILE NO. PA-03-005: Ms. Diana Waite, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 8 was the Home Dynamics Corporation application of for a Change in Future Land Use classification from COM (Commercial) and RU (Residential Urban 5 du/ac) to RH (Residential High 15 du/ac) for a 35.4-acre site located at the southwest corner of the th intersection of South 25 Street and Edwards Road. The majority of the site currently has a COM Future Land Use classification allowing general commercial uses only; the remaining 3.2 acres has a RU classification allowing residential uses up to 5 dwelling units per acre and limited commercial uses. Approval of the proposed change to RH would allow up to 15 dwelling units per acre or 531 total dwelling units and limited neighborhood commercial, office and institutional uses. Ms. Waite stated that the purpose of the requested future land use classification change is to provide for high quality residential town homes and condominiums in close proximity to employment centers. The proposed RH Future Land Use classification can be considered complementary to the adjacent public school, and nearby retail and employment centers. High density residential uses on the subject site provides an opportunity for families with children to reside within walking distance of the adjacent middle school and nearby Central High School, which is located within one mile of the subject site. Ms. Waite stated that approval of the proposed amendment would result in residential densities higher than nearby residential areas. Existing lower density single-family homes th to the east are separated from the project lands by South 25 Street, which is being expanded to a four-lane roadway. The three existing single-family homes on large lots to -foot North St. Lucie River Drainage District Canal right-of-way. This canal right-of-way will assist to buffer the proposed higher density development from the existing homes. The northern portion of the subject parcel is bordered by Edwards Road, which contains a small strip center and vacant commercial lands along its north right-of-way. Based upon the information provided, staff has found the proposed land use change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. The proposed Future Land Use Classification change would increase residential densities in the urban area and thereby further goals to provide for a compact urban form and reduce vehicular trips through the use of multi-modal transportation facilities. Staff analysis of this petition generally supports the requested change to RH. Staff would possible to achieve the maximum density of 15 du/ac on this parcel. Staff would also note that if approved, this would be one of the very limited numbers of parcels on the mainland of unincorporated St. Lucie County with an RH designation. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval and that the petition be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the petitioner or their representative were present. Mr. Mark Matthes, Lucido and Associates, stated they were the applicants representative. He advised that he and Mr. Delphino were there to answer any questions and agreed with units per acre that is allowed under the RH (Residential High) land use. However, there is not any in between land use available to request. He continued that they hope to time the submittal of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) so that the Board of County Commissioners hears this request and the PUD concurrently. Mr. Akins questioned why the PUD (Planned Unit Development) was not being brought before them concurrently. Ms. Waite stated that they could not process the PUD P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 17of 26 (Planned Unit Development) application until after the Future Land Use amendment is approved because the change in zoning would not be consistent with the existing land use. Mr. Matthes stated that the timing of a land use amendment is quite lengthy and a PUD is a much shorter process Agency together. Mr. Akins questioned what the proposed construction completion date would be and how would it coincide with the expansion of 25th Street. Mr. Matthes stated that they are working with the Engineering Department staff on that issue right now and would have more definitive answers when the PUD (Planned Unit Development) is brought back before them. Mr. Akins questioned if they felt that the expansion of 25th Street would be complete before their build out date. Mr. Matthes construction on the 25th Street expansion would begin in 2004. Mr. Kelly stated that there is currently some acquisition being done in that area, but the project is funded. Ms. Hensley stated that this property is adjacent to one of their schools and that there was some mention about being within walking distance of the middle school and high school. She stated that was correct, however, St. Lucie County is not a community based school system, and student assignment designates what schools the children will go to, not necessarily the school closest to them. She advised that the applicant probably should not mention it because it does not guarantee anyone those schools, especially since the high school is not even in the same zone. Ms. Hammer stated that the applicant is requesting an increase in density from 5 units per acre to 15 units per acre, which is impacting the schools three-fold. She questioned what the developer is doing for the community. Mr. Matthes stated that as part of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process there is give and take and as they go through that they will have negotiations regarding the conditions of the development approval. He advised that information is not relevant right now because this is not a PUD (Planned Unit Development) request; it is a land use matter only. He stated that they would be paying the necessary impact fees, and opportunity for housing choice, a quality development of new residences, with on-site recreational amenities. Ms. Hammer stated that the impact fees collected only pay for construction, not for the additional teachers or busing. She questioned if these units would be for sale or rent. Mr. Matthes stated that they would most likely be for sale. Ms. Hammer stated that she felt the applicant should disclose in the agreement of sale that there is no guarantee that their children will go to those neighborhood schools. Mr. Hearn stated that they are being asked to increase the density in an area where they have no assurances that they will actually build what they are proposing. He continued that if the applicant decides not to build it and they have approved the land use change anything of any quality of this higher density could be built. Mr. Kelly stated that this is a change in future land use and that does not affect the zoning on the property. He advised that if someone else wants to develop the property they too would have to submit some sort of plan or change in zoning request, which would come back to them for their review either way. Mr. Grande stated that the applicant has stated that they need to have more than 9 units per acre, which is why they requested a RH (Residential High) land use. He stated that this is a very large change and he feels it is premature in the area. Mr. Delphino stated that they would not be building 15 units per acre, but needed to have more than 9 units per acre in order to develop between 330 and 360 units. He continued that they would not have any condos or rental units and that it would only be town homes and single-family homes. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that 9 units per acre on 35 acres would be over 300 units. Chairman McCurdy stated that the applicant did state they were proposing 330 to 360 units. Ms. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 18of 26 Morgan stated that if the applicant has 360 units it would be approximately 11 units per acre. Ms. Hammer stated that she feels approving this change would give the applicant an entitlement attitude and she cannot support a change to 15 units per acre. She advised that she might be able to consider 9, but definitely not 15. Mr. Grande stated he felt the same way but he could not support any change without seeing a plan at the same time. Mr. Merritt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve the application of Home Dynamics Corporation, for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from COM (Commercial) and RU (Residential Urban) to RH (Residential High), and transmit the petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review because it fits the character of this neighborhood and they will have to come back with a PUD (Planned Unit Development) before development. It is impossible to put 15 units per acre on this site. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 3-5 (Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Hearn, and Mr. Lounds voting against). Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, attorney for applicant, requested that the request be continued to the March 18, 2004 meeting to allow them time to provide more information and a draft site plan for review by the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Lounds made a motion to continue the application of Home Dynamics Corporation to the March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a vote, the motion was approved 7-1 (with Ms. Hammer voting against) and continued to the March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 19of 26 AGENDA ITEM 9: LUCIE ROCK, LLC. FILE NO. PA-03-006: Ms. Diana Waite, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 9 was the Lucie Rock, LLC application of , for a Change in the Future Land Use classification from RS (Residential Suburban) to MXD-Orange Avenue (Mixed Use Orange Avenue/I- 95 Activity Area) for a 94.34-acre tract on Rock Road, just north of the St. Lucie County agriculture, low-density residential, institutional and neighborhood commercial uses. The subject property currently contains a citrus grove. The petitioner is seeking a change in adjacent uses, including the St. Lucie facility is located approximately 130 feet to the south. Ms. Waite continued that the surrounding area consists of a variety of uses including industrial extraction, office, industrial, institutional and vacant lands. The existing industrial uses are located just southeast of the project, in the MXD-Orange Avenue/I-95 Activity Area on the east side of Rock Road. These include American Concrete and the Ft. Pierce Auto Auction. She stated that the applicant has proposed (MXD-medium) intensity for the western portion of the amendment site to insure that future uses are compatible with the adjacent resident land uses to the west. This addresses staff concerns for the future compatibility of this site and the residential lands to the west. Staff would note, that the southern amendment parcel contains an existing natural pine flatwood buffer along a Fort Pierce Farms Water Control District Canal on the parcels western boundary that can assist to buffer industrial uses from future residential areas to the west.The MXD Future land use will ensure that any change in zoning is to PUD, PNRD or MXD and the uses are segregated to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential land uses. Ms. Waite stated that higher intensity uses that may present a nuisance or health risk to residents to the west can be directed to the eastern portion of the amendment site along or the portion of the amendment site along I-95. The MXD Orange/I-95 Interchange Future Land Use classification allows the County to control of the type and location of facilities to ensure the type of future uses are compatible with the residential areas to the west. The southern parcel contains a natural pine flatwood buffer along its western boundary that should be maintained to buffer industrial uses from future residential areas to the west. Ms. Waite stated that based upon the information provided, staff has found the proposed land use change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. The proposed MXD Future Land Use Classification change would increase intensities and industrial uses along the I-95 interchange while providing an opportunity to protect future residential areas to the west. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval and that the petition be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. Bobby Klein stated he was there on behalf of the applicant and complimented Staff for their suggestion to change their request from IND (Industrial) to MXD. He also stated that they support Mr. Grande questioned if the PUD (Planned Unit Development), PNRD (Planned Non- Residential Development), and PMUD (Planned Mixed-Unit Development) all carried the same requirements for plan submittals. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Valentine Sermons, 1545 Pine Burg Lane, stated that she resides in Timberlake Estates, which is directly behind this proposed project. She continued that the area is P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 20of 26 lots in her development that are anywhere from a half acre to an acre. She also stated that she could look out her kitchen window and see this project site. She advised that they just found out about this petition because the letters only went out to the four residents in the back of the development. She stated that they are completely opposed to this project. Ms. Sarah Span stated that she lives directly across from the subject property. She stated that she took pictures of the area and it is a not very pleasing view across I-95. She continued that there is dirt and sand already stacked up very high in the area. Chairman McCurdy questioned how long Ms. Span has lived there. Ms. Span stated she has been there for fourteen years. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the sand mine was there prior to her moving in. Ms. Span stated that it was not there that she was aware of. Chairman McCurdy stated that he believed that sand mine operation was in operation before Timberlake Estates was ever established. Ms. Span stated that they just removed some trees and now it is causing her health issues. Chairman McCurdy stated that the trees was there. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that when the pepper trees were cleared off of I-95 it did open the view of the pit, which has been there almost twenty years. He questioned if the applicant could present something to clean up that area. He stated that the Timberlake Estates area is a very nice development and would feel more comfortable with this request if he knew exactly what the applicant planned on doing on the site. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about the broad spectrum of things that can be done in an industrial land use and if he knew exactly what the applicant was putting in there it would make this more comfortable to him. Mr. Grande stated that they are requesting an MXD future land use. Mr. Bobby Klein stated that their original request was for an industrial land use but they changed their request to MXD to ease the concerns about what could be done on the site with an industrial land use. He also stated that they did try to purchase the existing pit to include in this request but were unsuccessful. He advised that they are aware of the concerns of the neighboring communities and will do under the MXD future land use they would be required to submit some plan (PUD, PMUD, or PNRD) on this site and it would be brought before them for their review. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Lucie Rock, LLC, for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RS (Residential Suburban) to MXD-Orange Avenue (Mixed Use Orange Avenue/I-95 Activity Area)and transmit the petition to , the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review because I think it is consistent with the industrial area that is there, the correctional facility, industrial heavy, and commercial that is there. Mr. Lounds also stated that when this plan comes back that everyone within the Timberlake Estates subdivision be notified, even if they are outside of the 500-foot boundary. Mr. Kelly confirmed that they would make sure that everyone is notified when the plan comes back before them. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 7-1 (with Ms. Hammer voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 21of 26 AGENDA ITEM 10: BJK, INC. FILE NO. PA-03-007: Ms. Diana Waite, presenting Staff comments stated that Agenda Item # 10 was the BJK Inc. application of , for a change in the Future Land Use Designation from RS (Residential Suburban 2 du/ac) to RU (Residential Urban 5 du/ac) on 49-acres located about ½ mile west of the Florida Turnpike, between State Route 70 and natural areas located along Ten Mile Creek. The amendment site contains land recently cleared of an abandoned citrus grove. She continued that the amendm designation allows residential uses up to 2 du/ac or 99 total dwelling units. Approval of the proposed change to RU would allow up to 5 dwelling units per acre or 248 total dwelling units and limited commercial and institutional uses. The future land use application package includes a Traffic Impact and Environmental Statement that was utilized to evaluate the proposed future land use amendment. Ms. Waite stated that the amendment site is part of a larger development site with the remaining 316.40 acres retaining their existing RS Future Land Use designation. The entire 366- Development process. An extension of the western portion of the development si Urban Service Area Boundary line is the subject of PA-03-008. The PUD is proposed to include approximately 800 dwelling units, consisting of single-family homes and multi- family units, limited commercial and recreational uses. A change in future land use for the subject 49 acres would allow slightly higher residential densities that can be distributed through the entire 366-acre PUD site. provide for urban land use densities adjacent to the MXD-Crossroads Future Land Use area that includes a variety of uses, including residential, commercial and industrial uses. The amendment site is part of a larger parcel that contains land zoned R/C (Residential Conservation) along Ten Mile Creek. Based upon the information provided, staff has found the proposed land use change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. The proposed Future Land Use Classification change would slightly increase residential densities in the urban area and thereby further goals to provide for a compact urban form and reduce vehicular trips through the use of multi-modal transportation facilities. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval and that the petition be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Mike Houston, Houston Cuozzo Group, stated that they were representing the applicant, BJK, Inc. He stated that this property has been in the planning process for quite a while. He advised that both this and the next item were intended to lay the ground work for their master PUD (Planned Unit Development), which would provide a mix of residential uses, small village commercial, and community recreational. He continued that it is a unique site where the creek would become a major element in the planning of that site. He stated that this request is a change from two units to the acre to three. He continued that the previous project discussed is along their projects eastern boundary. He also complimented staff and their report on the land use amendment. He stated that this project is slightly less than a mile from the turnpike entrance and they want to provide a variety of housing products with low densities. He continued that he or Butch Terpening from Culpepper and Terpening were there to answer any questions. Mr. Grande questioned how this project relates to the current urban service boundary. Ms. Waite explained that this portion of the project is within the urban service boundary. Ms. Hammer questioned if an agreement for water and wastewater with the Port St. Lucie system was in place as stated on page 13 of the staff report. Mr. Butch Terpening from P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 22of 26 Culpepper and Terpening stated that they have not yet executed an agreement by the Board of County Commissioners but they are currently in discussions about it. Mr. Lounds questioned where the State preserve was in relation to both of these properties. Mr. Terpening stated that the 10-Mile Creek attenuation basin, which is about 1,100 acres, is directly south of the property. He continued that they have been working with the County and the State to have joint utilization of and development of amenities. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant owned all of the property between the cross hatched areas. Mr. Terpening stated that they do own all of that property, but those areas are not being included in this request. Ms. Hammer questioned what type of guarantee they had that if this request is approved that the applicant would not utilize the 5 units per acre that is allowed under the new land use. Ms. Waite explained that this request for RU (Residential Urban) land use only applies to 49 acres of the site. Ms. Hammer questioned how increasing the density would reduce trip generations as stated in the staff report. Mr. Houston stated that the multi- family homes proposed would generate fewer trips than single-family homes. Ms. Hammer questioned if the roads would be installed prior to building. Mr. Kelly explained that would be addressed during the site plan process. Ms. Hammer questioned what kind of impact this would have on schools. Mr. Kelly explained that there is a methodology for calculating this and it is the same one used to calculate impact fees. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Paul Gagnon, 9864 Okeechobee Road, stated that he lives across from the second portion of this project, complimented Mr. Kosar on the project, and stated he was in favor of this request. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of BJK, Inc., for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RS (Residential Suburban) to RU (Residential Urban) and transmit the petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review because this fits the nature of the area and improves the area. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 7-1 (with Ms. Hammer voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 23of 26 AGENDA ITEM 11: BJK, INC. FILE NO. PA-03-008: Ms. Diana Waite, presenting Staff comments stated that Agenda Item # 11 was the BJK, Inc. application of for a 2,540-foot extension of the Urban Service Area (USA) boundary line to incorporate 148 acres into the USA boundary. The applicant has stated that the purpose of the extension is not to increase the density within the subject area but to hook up to central water and sewer lines in compliance with the comprehensive plan policies that require lands connected to public utilities to be within the USA. The water and sewer lines are currently being extended to the east of the subject lands to provide service to the Seminole Tribe o amendment site. Ms. Waite stated that the proposed amendment is part of a larger tract 366-acre tract, a portion of which is the subject of PA-03-007 requesting a change in RS (Residential Suburban) Future Land Use designation to RU (Residential Urban) for 49.6 acres of the project. The remaining 218 acres of the project are within the USA. The requested extension of the USA is requested to place the entire project site within the urban service area. She continued that although, the applicant is not requesting a Future Land Use classification change, extension of the urban service boundary line will provide an opportunity to request a change in future land use classification to higher densities. The proposed extension of the urban service area boundary provides a logical extension of the urbanized area. The subject lands are located within a 1 mile of the Florida Turnpike mixed land use area and in an area where central water and sewer services are being extended. The existing USA boundary line is adjacent to the amendment sites eastern property line. Based upon the information provided, staff has found the proposed land use change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. The proposed Future Land Use Classification change would slightly increase residential densities in the urban area and thereby further goals to provide for a compact urban form and reduce vehicular trips through the use of multi-modal transportation facilities. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval and that the petition be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review. Service Boundary followed the ownership lines in 1989 it most likely would have been drawn to the line they are requesting. He continued that unfortunately the Urban Service Boundary separated a property that was under one owner. He advised that currently the property, if developed, would have a portion of the property with well and septic, and the other with central water and sewer. He stated that they preferred to develop the area with water and sewer to be consistent throughout the property. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Paul Gagnon, 9864 Okeechobee Road, stated that he has lived there since 1946 and in front of his property. He questioned why they could not just run the line along the canal so they could be included, avoiding having an enclave. Mr. Kelly stated that this applicant has only requested their property and we could not add his property to this request. He continued that the County is doing a review of the entire area with regards to the Urban Service Boundary lines. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn questioned what law or rule prevents someone from tapping into the lines that run right through their property. Mr. Kelly stated that he believed that it is specified in the Comprehensive Plan that anyone outside of the Urban Service Boundary was not able to access water and sewer lines. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 24of 26 Ms. Hammer questioned if the applicant could come back at a later date and request a future land use change on this portion of the property if they approve this extension request. Ms. Young confirmed that was correct. Mr. Merritt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of BJK, Inc. for an extension of the Urban Service Area Boundary Line and transmit the petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review because it would facilitate sewer and water to this project. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 25of 26 OTHER BUSINESS / DISCUSSION: The next scheduled meeting will be March 18, 2004. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted: ____________________________________ Dawn V. Gilmore, Administrative Secretary P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting February 19, 2004 Page 26of 26