Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-15-2004 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Local Planning Agency REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2004 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Morgan, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Trias, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Merritt, Ms. Hensley, and Chairman McCurdy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Akins (Absent with notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Randy Stevenson, Interim Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Diana Waite, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Vanessa Bessey, Environmental Resources Manager; 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. Hearn stated that he had discussions with members of the public regarding Agenda Item # 2 Vegetation Protection. Ms. Hammer stated that she too has spoken with the public regarding Item # 2 and also had discussion regarding Agenda Item # 3 Historical Preservation. Mr. David Kelly stated that Agenda Item # 4 Northwood L.L.C. (Dickerson Florida Inc.) has requested on April 13, 2004 to have their item postponed. He stated that there has not been a specific date set yet, but that the item would be re-advertised, re-noticed, and the sign on the property would also be changed to reflect the new date, once it has been established. 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. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting April 15, 2004 Page 1 of 8 Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has specific questions. The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. No other announcements or discussion. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting April 15, 2004 Page 2 of 8 AGENDA ITEM 1: ORDINANCE 04-006 RETAIL FIREWORKS: Ms. Mackenzie-Smith, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was Draft Ordinance 04-006, which would amend the Land Development Code by creating Section 7.10.25 (originally numbered as Section 7.10.24) to regulate placement of firework retail stores. Sections 3.01.03(S) Commercial General and 3.03.03(T) Industrial Light and 3.01.03(U) Industrial Heavy Zoning Districts are amended to provide for fireworks retail stores as a conditional use subject to the following requirements. She stated that the fireworks stores shall be at least one thousand (1,000) feet from any other fireworks retail store, established gas station, school, public playground, public park, and residential zoning districts. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that this item was brought to the Local Planning Agency on March 25, 2004. At that time, the Local Planning Agency requested information as to the number of parcels that would be available for possible placement of a fireworks store if the ordinance was passed with a 1000 foot buffer or a 500 foot buffer. She continued that the Community Development Department has plotted the possible available parcels with the requested buffers. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 04-006 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Merritt stated that he did not feel there was a need for this ordinance. Mr. Lounds questioned why a five hundred foot buffer had more possible locations than a thousand foot buffer. Mr. Grande stated that he wanted more information about if this ordinance is more restrictive than other standards, if this restriction applies to those gas stations and other restrictions being placed within 1000 feet of an existing fireworks store, and where the measurement is being taken from, the front door, the property line, or external wall. He also questioned the need for this ordinance. Ms. Smith stated that this came from the suggestion of the Board of County Commissioners after hearing the ordinance about restricting firework sales in tents, which requires they be sold in buildings. She continued that this is more restrictive and that the 1000-foot buffer was used so that it would be consistent with other buffers used in the Land Development Code, to make it easier for Code Enforcement. She also stated that she would need to review the draft ordinance to review how it would be applied to those restricted areas developing within the buffered area. Mr. Merritt questioned why this restriction is only for fireworks stores and not gun shops. Ms. Smith stated that the firework concerns were raised by the Fire Department. She advised that the intent of the ordinance is to keep these stores as far away from residents as possible. Mr. McCurdy stated that he felt this was an attempt to ban fireworks sales all together because there are gas stations near residents and they are at as much risk of causing injury as a fireworks store. Mr. Merritt stated that he was a member of the American Pyrotechnics Association and in their newsletter they stated that there was only one fire in a fireworks store in 20 years. to regulate gun shops too. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Schaul stated that he did not feel there was any need or use for this ordinance. He stated that any safety concerns and regulations are already addressed through the building requirements. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting April 15, 2004 Page 3of 8 Mr. Lounds stated that the concern should be with the safety of use after they are sold to Mr. Hearn stated that he was not quite sure about this ordinance but wanted the community to be safe. He questioned how many stores within the county would be enough and if there was a need for any more. Mr. Grande stated that he wants to make sure that the Board of County Commissioners know that if they approve these restrictions they should be sure that a companion ordinance is written to regulate the restricted areas from moving near the existing fireworks stores and if that is done he would support this. Mr. Merritt stated that injuries from fireworks come from reckless use, not the retail stores and that he could not support this ordinance. Mr. Merritt made a motion to deny Draft Ordinance 04-006 because it was not necessary. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed with a vote of 5-3 (with Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, and Ms. Hammer voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting April 15, 2004 Page 4of 8 AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE 04-008 VEGETATION PROTECTION & PRESERVATION: Ms. Vanessa Bessey, presenting Staff comments stated that Agenda Item # 2 was Draft Ordinance 04-008, which would amend the Land Development Code to provide for a protection and preservation standards. She continued that this would also amend Section 11.05.06 to provide for a clarification of the procedures in regard to the issuance of a vegetation removal permit. She stated that these changes were being made to make our regulations consistent with the State regulations. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 04-008 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Grande, Ms. Hammer, and Mr. Hearn stated that there were some typographical errors that needed to be corrected. Mr. Grande questioned if two working days was a sufficient amount of time. Ms. Bessey stated that it was sufficient. Mr. Grande questioned if there is a default, would it default to approve. Ms. Bessey stated that was correct. Ms. Hammer questioned that if there is a property that is less than an acre that they would be able to remove any trees that were less than twenty-four inches. Ms. Bessey explained that was correct and would remain the same in this ordinance. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt this ordinance, as it was written, was very confusing and felt this item should be continued for at least thirty days. He also suggested that a workshop be held to explain this to the public. Ms. Bessey stated that the Environmental Advisory Committee would be meeting on April 21, 2004 from 5-7 p.m. in the Engineering Conf Room. She also explained that they would be reviewing the ordinance before it would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. She stated that she would make sure that any conflicting information and interpretation issues would also be corrected. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Murphy, Hoyt C. Murphy, stated that he has received calls from a lot of property owners concerned about this ordinance and how it would affect them. He stated that he feels the ordinance needs some reworking. He also stated that the ordinance should be tree specific and not so broad. He continued that it might be helpful if it cited specific site plan examples and how the plan would be affected under these new regulations. He stated that, as it is written, it is too broad and should receive further staff review before making any recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Peter Harrison, 23285 Orange Avenue, stated that he was concerned about the agricultural exemption. He also stated that this new language also conflicts with some of the old language that would be remaining in the new ordinance. Currently any agricultural properties only need to do a ten-day notice and the way this proposed ordinance is written they are required to actually file for a permit. Ms. Bessey explained that the agricultural exemption is still there but this is just an added measure to help regulate those areas. Mr. Merritt questioned if someone would be required to mitigate if a tree is killed during a pasture burning. Ms. Bessey explained that mitigation would not be required since the tree was killed by nature. Mr. Harrison stated that having to apply for a permit every time that they are doing ditch clearing would become cumbersome. Ms. Bessey explained that general routine maintenance is addressed in the proposed ordinance and would not require the permit. Mr. Harrison also stated that he feels that citrus should also be included in the ordinance. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting April 15, 2004 Page 5of 8 Mr. Paul Schaul stated that he did not become aware of this ordinance until yesterday because he did not see the notice. He stated that he is opposed to this ordinance because what is already on record is enough. He feels this new ordinance would take away the property owners rights. He stated that lot coverage requirement should be excluded; they should consider front, back, and side setbacks, because this overburdens the property owners. He continued that he feels this is a taking and that any parcels under three acres should not be included in this ordinance at all. He also stated that he did not feel the public received enough notice about this and should be brought back next month. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Ms. Hammer questioned if this ordinance was advertised. Ms. Bessey explained that a display ad was published in both the Tribune and the News on April 5, 2004. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels the ordinance needs more work and should be rewritten to be more specific. Mr. Grande agreed stating that he feels it would be premature of them had a chance to review and make comments on it. Mr. Grande made a motion to continue Draft Ordinance 04-008 until after the Environmental Advisory Committee has reviewed the ordinance and are satisified with it. He also stated that they would not be continuing this to a specific date so a new advertisement should be done prior to being heard by the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 8-0). P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting April 15, 2004 Page 6of 8 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 04-012 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION: Ms. Diana Waite stated that Agenda Item # 3 was Draft Ordinance 04-012. She continued that the item was being presented tonight for information only and was not a public hearing. She advised that Ms. Ellen Uguccioni of Janus Research would be making a presentation and they both would be available to answer questions. Ms. Ellen Uguccioni of Janus Research presented a slide show presentation, which is attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Trias stated that he was very happy about this ordinance. Mr. Grande also agreed but suggested that a definition be included for the CRA. He also stated that the CME should be reviewing these since they included scenic corridor criteria. Mr. Lounds requested a more detailed explanation of the type of tax incentive this ordinance is offering. Ms. Uguccioni stated that if an alteration is done to the property to increase its value they would only be taxed on the original value, not the increased value. Mr. Hearn stated that he was struggling a bit with offering a tax exemption but felt the ordinance was a good thing. Ms. Waite explained that this was a discussion item only and would not require a public hearing or a vote. She stated that it would be presented to the Local Planning Agency at a later date as a full public hearing item. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting April 15, 2004 Page 7of 8 OTHER BUSINESS / DISCUSSION: The next scheduled meeting will be May 20, 2004. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted: ____________________________________ Dawn V. Gilmore, Administrative Secretary P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting April 15, 2004 Page 8of 8