Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-17-2004 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Local Planning Agency REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 17, 2004 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Hammer, Mr. Hearn, Ms. Morgan, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Trias, Ms. Hensley, Mr. Grande, and Chairman McCurdy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Akins and Mr. Lounds (both absent with notice). OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Randy Stevenson, Interim Growth Management Director; 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 he would be recusing himself from Agenda Item # 3, Robert Rigel because has a conflict. Ms. Morgan disclosed that she knows a homeowner who will be speaking with regards to Agenda Item # 2, Lennar Homes, but has no reason to recuse herself. 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 Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 1 of 20 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. Randy Stevenson, Interim Growth Management Director, stated that the petition of Glassman Properties, File No. RZ-03-035 that was continued to this meeting would not be heard because the applicant had submitted a letter to withdraw their petition for a Change in Zoning. He also stated that the Board of County Commissioners would not be having any night meetings in the heard on Tuesday, August 3, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. No other announcements or discussion. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 2 of 20 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES MAY 20, 2004: that would be corrected. Mr. Hearn stated that many times while they are voting on an item they make comments as to why they are voting one way or another and would like them included in the minutes in the future. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that would be done. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve the minutes as amended by Ms. Hammer. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote the motion was unanimously approved by a vote of 7-0. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 3of 20 AGENDA ITEM 2: LENNAR HOMES, INC. FILE NO. RZ-04-017: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Lennar Homes, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District for property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Silver Oak Drive and Tilton Road. The indicated purpose of this change in zoning is to rezone the property to the same designation that was in existence prior to the 1994 final PUD plan for the Silver Oaks single-family residential project. The prior 1994 approved PUD development plan was never constructed and therefore has expired. The property has an expired PUD site plan and no development can occur until either the property is rezoned to an appropriate zoning designation or a new PUD plan is approved by the County. During discussions with the applicant, Staff did discuss the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process. The applicant indicated that the proposed site layout will be dictated by the existing physical characteristics of the site with the upland portions being surrounded by wetlands and not significantly connected at any point and therefore, the PUD process would not be necessary for this site. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it 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 with a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Al Brodeur, Thomas Lucido and Associates stated that he was representing the petitioner Lennar Homes. He stated that about ten (10) years ago the site was zoned RM-5 (Residential, Multi-Family 5 du/acre). He continued that the property owner at that time petitioned for a rezoning to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) on the subject property and was approved for 422 dwelling units. He advised that the approval has since expired and they are requesting that this parcel be rezoned back to the original RM-5 (Residential, Multi-Family 5 du/acre) zoning. Mr. Trias questioned if the applicant had any particular development plans on the site. Mr. Brodeur displayed a conceptual drawing of the site with 130 dwelling units, which was an average density of 1.2 units per acre. He continued that the reason for the lower density on this site was because approximately 25% of the site is wetlands and this conceptual plan would only impact .3 acres of those wetlands. Ms. Hammer questioned how the previous property owner was able to receive an approval for 422 units. Mr. Brodeur stated that the property has an RU (Residential, Urban) land use, which allows for a maximum density of five (5) units per acre, which also included the eastern sections of the property. He also stated that this rezoning request does not include those additional portions. Ms. Hammer questioned how many units the applicant was planning for the entire site. Mr. Brodeur stated that they did not have an actual number at this time and explained that this request was not for both areas. He also stated that under the RM-5 (Residential, Multi-Family 5 du/acre) zoning they are required to have an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size, under a PUD (Planned Unit Development) there are no minimum lot size requirements. Ms. Hammer stated that they are proposing to have 130 units on this site. Mr. Brodeur confirmed that was correct. Ms. Hammer questioned why the applicant was requesting to have an RM-5 (Residential, Multi-Family 5 du/care) zoning on this site if they were only proposing to have 130 units and that seems excessive. Mr. Brodeur explained that the previously approved PUD (Planned Unit Development) expired and that in most other counties when a PUD expires the original zoning is placed back on the property. He stated that they were under the assumption that would happen in this case, but found out that St. Lucie County does not automatically do that, so they are here requesting that. Ms. Hammer stated that she did not feel they needed to have an RM-5 zoning with their proposed zoning of two units per acre would work for their proposed project. Mr. Brodeur stated that their client did not feel that was appropriate and would like to have the RM-5 zoning because of the P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 4of 20 larger lot size requirements. He continued that a maximum of 5 units per acre was allowed under the existing land use on the property. Ms. Hammer stated that she was uncomfortable with an RM-5 zoning, especially since the applicant is proposing a development that would work within a 2 unit per acre zoning. Mr. Hearn questioned why the applicant did not request to be rezoned to RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/acre) since their proposed plan only anticipates an average of 1.2 units per acre. Mr. Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido and Associations, stated that their request is consistent with the RU land use and that are just asking that the expired PUD be reverted back to the original RM-5 zoning, which is the zoning that the Board of County Commissioners had applied to the property previously. Mr. Hearn questioned again why the applicant was asking for such a dense zoning when the plan they displayed did not require it. Mr. Boggs stated that plan displayed was only a conceptual plan. He also stated that the RS-2 zoning has a minimum lot width of 100 feet, which would not work with their proposed plans. He continued that Lennar was proposing to have lots that were 75 x 135 and would need the RM-5 zoning for these lots to meet all of the setback requirements. He stated that the RM-5 zoning allows for more flexibility, would allow for town homes, which allows for a mixed-use project, which the RS-2 zoning does not allow. Mr. Hearn stated that he did not believe the RM-5 zoning that was on the project previously was right for the site and that is why the PUD was a more appropriate zoning choice for that area. Mr. Boggs stated that the Comprehensive Plan governs the site, which is RU, and allows for up to five (5) units per acre. Mr. Hearn stated that he was not comfortable with a straight RM-5 zoning on this property and feels that a request for RS-2 would be more appropriate for the area. Ms. Snay stated that the RS-2 zoning would not allow for town homes, which the applicant has stated they are interested in building; however the PUD zoning would allow a mixed-use development. Mr. Grande stated that if the applicant had requested a new PUD plan they would be locked in, but the straight RM-5 zoning does not give anyone any assurances to how the property would be developed. Mr. Trias stated that he was not comfortable with a straight rezoning and would have preferred to see a PUD request. Mr. Boggs stated that their design ideas are good but that what they displayed was only a concept plan. He also stated that they would have to redesign everything in order to submit a PUD application. Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant could have lots that are 75 X 135 under an RS-2 zoning. Ms. Snay stated that the minimum lot width under RS-2 zoning was 100 feet therefore making those size lots unacceptable under an RS-2 zoning. Mr. Boggs stated that the proposed project was in a high growth area, inside of the Urban Service Boundary, and therefore should be granted a standard zoning. He continued that there are situations when a PUD request is necessary, but he does not feel this is one of those situations. Mr. Grande stated that with a PUD request they are assured what would be built on the site, with a straight rezoning they are not guaranteed anything. Mr. Trias stated that he agreed and that the requests for a PUD were not utilized to their fullest in the past and he feels it is time to start doing that so that there are clear plans for the County. Mr. Boggs stated that because the site has 30 acres of wetlands they are very restricted on how they can develop the property, so it would not be possible for them to even get the maximum density if granted an RM-5 zoning because of the environmental restrictions. Mr. Merritt stated that he has been a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission for over ten (10) years and feels that this Commission is micro-managing development within the County. He stated that there is RM-5 zoning to the east and north, and RMH-5 zoning to the south, so this request is consistent with the surrounding areas. He continued that the applicant is asking to rezone the property back to its original zoning and the 30 acres of wetlands restricts much of their ability to develop the property. Chairman McCurdy stated that this request is consistent with the land use and surrounding zonings. He also stated that this is a logical request, is not sprawl, and does not see a problem with this request either. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 5of 20 Mr. Frank Knott stated that he lives to the east of the subject property. He advised that the smallest properties in the area are over an acre and a half and that these 8000 square foot lots are nothing in comparison. He stated that the area is not yet considered to be a high growth area and until the PD&E study is completed they should not be categorized that way. He continued that there are only dirt roads in that area and there are no town houses anywhere, so it is not consistent with their neighborhoods. He also stated that even though there are wetlands on the property that does not stop them from developing because they can mitigate those wetlands. He continued that if they receive a zoning that allows a maximum of 5 units per acre, since this property is 106 acres, they would be able to get 580 units on the subject property. Mr. George Stone, 1225 Tilton Road, stated that they have an equestrian community that has the Savannas close by and homes on at least an acre and a half. He continued that the Savanna Club Mobile Home Park is also in the area, but there are no town houses out there and having them would not fit in with their community. Ms. Frances Doro, 7180 South Drive, stated that she has lived there for over 20 years and that a lot has changed in the area over those years. She stated that when the original PUD was approved there was a stipulation that they would need to pave the roads to U.S. 1. She advised that she is concerned that with a straight rezoning request the road issues would not be addressed and feels this project needs to have further review regarding the paving of the roads. Ms. Snay stated that when the applicant brings in a site plan for approval the road issues would be addressed at that time. She continued that this is a rezoning request and they cannot condition a rezoning in any way. She advised that Staff would address any concerns over the Lennard Road expansion at the time of site plan review and the developer would be required to meet those conditions for the site plan to receive approval. Ms. Deborah Cain, 1250 Tilton Road, stated that Lennar Homes is not the recorded owner of this property and questioned how they could request a rezoning on something that is owned by someone else. She continued that she believes Lennar has not bought the property yet because they want it at an RM- property. She also stated that the MSBU for that area was accessed at $2,000 per unit for the 438 approved units by the previous PUD approval. She questioned who would be responsible for paying the difference if this request is granted and the applicant actually only develops 132 units. She also questioned if the developer would be required to pay for any additional units over the 438 if they do develop the property to the maximum of five (5) units per acre. She stated that she has been waiting for Lennard Road to be expanded for 15 years and it still has not been started. She also stated that the Department of Environmental Protection advised her that they would not allow the expansion of Lennard Road. Mr. Grande questioned how many units were reserved under the MSBU for the previously approved PUD. Ms. Snay stated that 540 units were reserved under the MSBU. Ms. Michelle Smith stated that she lives on 5 acres and agrees that a PUD request should be used on this property. She questioned why Lennar could not just use the plan that was already approved previously to develop the project. She continued that she feels they are hiding RM-5 zoning. She stated that they are in a wooded, secluded area that backs up the Savannas and does not feel this proposed plan would fit in with their neighborhood. She also stated that Lennar knew that wetlands were on the property before they ever offered to purchase it and that the Army Corps of Engineers will allow for them to do some mitigation so they can build on it. She Mr. Brian Holden stated that he was a representative of Ms. Suzy Lizano, who owns a nine (9) acre parcel on Tilton Road, immediately to the north of the proposed project. He advised that Ms. Lizano, who lives at 1634 Cranes Nest Road in Sewalls Point, gave him a letter to read stating that she was in favor of the rezoning request. Mr. John Ferrick stated that he does not live in the area but that he has friends who do and they are concerned about fire protection. He also stated that the Staff report references a fire station that would service this community but there is a station on Midway road that is closer. Ms. Snay stated that the information about the servicing fire station came directly from a map provided by the Fire District. She continued that there might be one closer, but their info shows that the station on Rhode Island would be the servicing station for this development. Mr. Ferrick stated that without a PUD request on this site there are no guarantees that the developer would not put five (5) units per acre on the site. He stated that it is a rural neighborhood that has a lot of horses and added vehicular traffic does not go with the area. He asked that this project be denied. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 6of 20 Ms. Christine Borne, of Guillotti Place, stated that Lennard Road was going to be expanded into a two-lane road, not a four-lane road. Ms. Snay stated that the road expansions are handled by the Engineering Department so she could not advise if it is planned to be two lanes or four lanes. Ms. Borne continued that the Midway Road or Prima Vista fire stations would be closer to the site. Mr. Bill Hammer stated that he does not live in the area but it sounded like a wonderful place to live. He stated that the County has been putting too much trust in developers and should not make any decisions until all of the answers are clear. He also stated that the County should be have to pay any differences. Mr. Ben Permoy, 1820 Tilton Road, stated that he lives north of the subject property and it is a country setting. He stated that most of the homes out there are on 2 ½ to 5-acre lots and that town houses do not blend in with that. He asked that the Commission deny this request. Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Ms. Morgan questioned how Lennar could apply for a rezoning if they only have the property under contract. Ms. Snay stated that there was a notarized form from the Property Owner in the Ms. Hensley stated that the Lennard Road expansion is proposed to be four (4) lanes to Port St. Lucie High School and then two (2) lanes further north. Ms. Snay stated that she did not work in the Engineering Department and that they would determine how many lanes the expansion would be when the PD&E study was completed. Mr. Boggs stated that he understands the concerns of the community but that the property owner has to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. He continued that under the RU land use they are allowed a maximum density of five (5) units per acre. He stated that Lennar Homes was not trying to hide anything and that a representative from the firm was present to confirm that. He also stated that the developer would be paying their fair share through impact fees and that it was not uncommon to request a rezoning while a property is under contract. He advised that they are only requesting to take the property back to its original zoning of RM-5. He also stated that the 50-acre parcel to the right of this property has no impact on the wetlands, buffering, tree preservation, and is already being reviewed by the Staff. He continued that building spacing requirements are not reviewed in a PUD and that a straight rezoning is more restrictive. Mr. Merritt questioned what the value of the units would be. Mr. Boggs stated that as per Rhett Waldman from Lennar Homes, the single family units would start at $300,000 and that town homes would range between $190,000 to $225,000. Mr. Hearn stated that he could support a PUD request but since this is a straight rezoning request and they have no guarantees he cannot support this. Ms. Hammer stated that PUD approvals expire for a reason and this allows the County to rethink about how the areas should be developed. She continued that the County is much different now than when the original PUD was approved ten years ago. She stated that she feels an AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) zoning would fit in the area since that is what is to the north and east of the subject property. She also stated that if they were requesting two (2) units per acre and had a firm plan, she might be able to support that request. She continued that of all of the public that came up and spoke only one person stated they were for this request, and that person Ms. Morgan questioned why the applicant was so against requesting a PUD on this property. Mr. Grande stated that he had the same question but that he also agreed with Mr. Merr that the density is higher to the south. He stated that a PUD does give them some guarantees so he could not support this straight rezoning request. He also stated they do not have any say about a site plan because it only is reviewed by Staff and then the Board of County Commissioners, not them. Mr. Merritt questioned if the zoning is RM-5 to the right of the property. Ms. Snay confirmed that was correct and that property was also under contract by Lennar. She stated that they were proposing to have town houses on that property since it is already zoned RM-5. Chairman McCurdy questioned if that portion of the original PUD remained RM-5. Ms. Snay confirmed that was correct. Chairman McCurdy stated that this request would be bringing this portion of the property into conformity with the side that is already zoned RM-5. Mr. Grande stated that both pieces were included in the PUD and questioned how the eastern portion remained RM-5 if they P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 7of 20 approved the PUD. Ms. Snay stated that they never received a final PUD approval on both properties together. She continued that since the final approval was not finalized the eastern portion of the property remained zoned RM-5. Mr. Merritt 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 grant approval to the application of Lennar Homes, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development Silver Oaks) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District because it brings it back in conformity with the existing land use of the property. Motion seconded by Chairman McCurdy. Upon a roll call the vote the motion failed with a vote of 2-5 (with Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Ms. Hammer, Ms. Morgan and Mr. Trias voting against). Mr. Hearn stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, 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 Lennar Homes, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development Silver Oaks) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District because the plan presented tonight does not guarantee anyone that we are only going to have what they presented tonight and if they come back with the plan as a PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the less than two (2) units per acre it would be more appropriate for the neighborhood and the surrounding properties. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. She also stated that taking the density to five (5) units per acre in this area is not to the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved by a vote of 5-2 (with Mr. Merritt and Mr. McCurdy voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 8of 20 AGENDA ITEM 3: ROBERT P. RIGEL FILE NO. RZ-04-016: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Robert P. Rigel, for a Change in Zoning from the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for property located at 3385 South U.S. Highway No. 1. The petitioner, Robert Rigel, has requested this change in zoning from the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District on property located at 3385 South U.S. Highway No. 1 in order to allow the property to be developed for commercial general uses. The surrounding area is considered commercial/industrial for any future development. 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, therefore, recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of approval to Board of County Commissioners. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the applicant was present. Ms. Pam Rigel stated that they were requesting the change to CG (Commercial, General) because it would allow them more flexibility with the development of the land. Mr. Hearn questioned what the applicant was proposing on the property. Ms. Rigel stated that they were looking into possibly having an eating establishment or a food store and found that the permitted uses under the CG zoning was what they preferred to do. She continued that they were no longer interested in having a car lot. Mr. Hearn questioned if the permitted uses in the IL (Industrial, Light) zoning would work for what the petitioner was considering doing. Mr. Flores confirmed that the IL zoning would not allow those types of uses but they had more choices under the CG zoning. Chairman McCurdy questioned if there was already a structure on site and what the site was previously used for. Ms. Rigel stated that there is building on the lot and that Gulf Stream Auto Sales previously operated it. She stated that Gulf Stream had since moved out and she and her husband were not interested in staying with used car sales. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Merritt 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 grant approval to the application of Robert Rigel for a Change in Zoning from the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because it will bring it in line with the rest of the zoning in that area. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 6-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 9of 20 AGENDA ITEM 4: RIO LAGO FLORIDA ACQUISITIONS, LLC. FILE NO. RZ-04- 018: Rio Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item 4 was the application of Lago Florida Acquisitions, LLC., for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District for property located on the West side of Keen Road, approximately 700 feet north of Angle Road. The petitioner, Rio Lago Florida Acquisitions, LLC, has requested this change in zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District on property located on the west side of Keen Road, approximately 700 feet north of Angle Road in order to develop the property for a single-family development. The subject property has a future land use classification of Residential Urban, which may allow the RS-4 Zoning District and the uses associated with this designation. The subject property is bounded by the Harmony Heights residential subdivision to the east across Keen Road, which has a zoning district designation of RS-4 and is within the urban service boundary of St. Lucie County. Adequate water and sewer services are available to the area. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the petition was present. Mr. Dan Harrell stated that he was there to represent the petitioner and also had Eric Zeiss from Culpepper & Terpening, the project engineer, present to answer any questions. He continued that the applicant was requesting a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District for 33 acres to allow for the development of a single-family subdivision of 70 homes. He continued that they are only developing at two (2) units per acre but the RS-4 zoning allows for better lot sizes and set backs. He continued that the parcel also has 12 to 14 acres of man-made lakes and a ½ acre upland area that they are attempting to preserve. He continued that they would be removing some Australian Pines and Brazilian Peppers. He stated that the Staff report explained everything else thoroughly and asked that the request be approved. Mr. Grande stated that the aerial photo provided in their packet looks like the lake is planted. Mr. Harrell stated that it was not and had existed for at least 40 years. Mr. Hearn stated that under the new zoning, if approved, they could get an additional 100 units on the property. Mr. Harrell stated that theoretically that was correct but once the minimum lot size and setback requirements are met, that would not be possible. He stated that under the AR-1 zoning they could only get 33 units and the rezoning to RS-4 would allow them to get 70 units. Mr. Hearn stated that he was very concerned about increasing densities and making sure that growth is paying for itself. He advised that was a major concern expressed by the public at the North County Charrette and he was not comfortable with this request. He continued that it is a developers dream to buy property at one (1) unit per acre prices and then develop it at 4 units per acre. Mr. Trias questioned if this request was consistent with the ideas of the North County Charrette. Mr. Stevenson stated that the North County Charrette plans are still being reviewed and are fluid documents at this point. He continued that right now they are only concepts and would not be concrete until a plan is completed and adopted. Chairman McCurdy questioned if this property was within the Urban Service Boundary. Mr. Flores confirmed that it was. Chairman McCurdy stated that at the North County Charrette they discussed development within the Urban Service Boundary and encouraged it, so he felt this would be conducive. Mr. Trias stated that the there were maps prepared that showed areas where growth should be encouraged and questioned if this property was within those areas. Chairman McCurdy stated that this property is within those areas on the North County Charrette maps. Mr. Hearn stated that they discussed that there was a need for more density within the Urban Service Boundary at the North County Charrette but that they stated a formula should be created to determine how to move densities from areas that would not be developed to these areas. He P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 10of 20 continued that he was not interested in increasing densities unless they are giving up density in other areas. Mr. Merritt stated that he did not believe anyone would be willing to sell their density. Mr. Hearn stated that he believed Mr. Adams of Adams Ranch would be interested. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed a transfer of density rights plan should be implemented but that it was not fair to penalize this applicant since the concept is not already in place. Mr. Merritt questioned the values of the units. Mr. Harrell stated that they would start at $300,000 and that these would only be single-family units. He continued that they would not have multi-family, zero lot lines, and no patio homes. He stated that they were only interested in single-family and the minimum lot size and setback requirements under the RS-4 zoning. Mr. Merritt stated that he was only concerned about the value of the density and not the density itself, for tax base purposes. He continued that based on values of $300,000, he would support this request. Mr. Harrell stated that those values are consistent with the property values along Keen Road. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Stephens, 3625 Orange Avenue, stated that he owns two lots on the corner of San Diego and Keen Road that he wants to build on. He stated that the smallest lots in that area are a minimum of 3/4 of an acre, 600 feet deep, and 75 feet wide. He continued that most of them have property are lakes, there would be 70 units on 18 acres, which would not be only two units per acre. He stated that they would be very narrow lots that are inconsistent with the surrounding area. He stated that to the east of the property are higher densities, smaller homes that are low income, and are overcrowded. He stated that he wants to have the land remain at the AR-1 zoning. Mr. Hearn explained that the density transfers off of the lake so that is why it is classified as being two (2) units per acre. He explained that basic math is not used to calculate the density it is a specific formula that is used to determine how to transfer the density from areas that cannot be developed on. product. He continued that many people want $300,000 homes and do not want to have to maintain any yards. Mr. Stevens stated that there was not a guarantee that the homes would start three acre lots. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed with Mr. Merritt and having 1/4-acre lots with half of Ms. Sherri Goodner, 2850 S. Jenkins Road, stated the County should be concerned with smart growth because urban sprawl is very costly. She stated that these developers are working with the citizens in the area and want to produce high quality homes. She stated that the developers built Panther Woods and has shown that they have a good reputation and are providing quality homes to the County. She also stated that if approved these homes will give the other property owners the opportunity for higher property appraisals by having other comparable homes in the area. S Mr. John Stephens, 3625 Orange Avenue, stated that homes at $300,000 are great for the tax base He advised that most of the residents in that area have large amounts of acreage and there are no services in that area, so this type of development does not fit in. He stated that the areas north, south, and west of the property are not dense and they want to keep it that way. Mr. John Holt, of Orange Avenue, stated that the North County Charrette was an idea on how the County should progress and allow growth in a smart manner. He stated that if a developer wants to increase density, then they should be decreasing density somewhere else and have plenty of open space. Ms Hammer stated that at the North County Charrette she heard a majority of the property owners stating that the County should not be increasing density without getting a reduction of density somewhere else. She also stated that she is concerned about land for schools, fire departments, and other services. She advised that if they approve this request now, then someone in the future will also ask for RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) zoning to the north, west, or any P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 11of 20 other area because we allowed this. She questioned when increasing densities would stop and stated that she feels there should be a valid reason and need for an increase, not just because a developer wants it. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would be allowed to build condos or town houses if they approved an RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) zoning request. Mr. Flores stated that RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) zoning is only for single-family residences and does not allow any type of multi-family development. He also stated that under the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) zoning the applicant would be required to have a minimum of 8000 square foot lots if on water and sewer or 1/2 acre lots if water and sewer is not available. Chairman McCurdy questioned if there were any proposals for development south of the canal. Mr. Flores stated that property has been bought and sold many times and that there have been some casual discussions about development, but nothing has ever been officially submitted. Chairman McCurdy questioned how close the water and sewer lines run to this property. Mr. Flores stated he believed it runs to Westwood High School. Mr. Merritt stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve the application of Rio Lago Florida Acquisitions, LLC, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single- Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District because it meets the land use requirements. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion. Mr. Hearn stated that because of the burden on the community for having additional density and because of the precedent it will serve for the land surrounding that area he was voting against the motion of approval. Mr. Grande stated that he has always been an advocate of not increasing density without a justification and they should not raise the zoning up to the maximum allowed under the future land u he felt it did merit an increase so he was voting for the approval. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved by a vote of 4-3 (with 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 Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 12of 20 AGENDA ITEM 5: ORDINANCE 04-012 HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Ms. Heather Young, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was a Draft Historical Preservation Ordinance that addresses the Coastal Management Element Objective of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan requiring the County to implement and strengthen regulations that provide for the protection, preservation, or sensitive reuse of historic resources and to adopt a historic preservation ordinance by 2002. The draft ordinance provides for the creation of a St. Lucie County Register of Historic Places; creates the Historic Preservation Committee, a sub-committee of the Historical Commission; and provides for a Historic Preservation Officer to review applications and serve as staff to the Historic Preservation Committee. The ordinance also sets forth the criteria and standards for placing a property on the local register; modifying, restoring, and demolishing property on the local register; and provides for a tax exemption for properties on the local register. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Ms. Ellen Uguccioni of Janus Research stated that this ordinance provides another tool that allows a qualitative analysis of what is important to history. She also stated that they have a large body of information from the many years that historic preservation has been around in the United States and Florida. She continued that she feels what is contained in the draft ordinance would be history and culture. She stated that she was also there to answer any questions. Mr. Trias questioned if the only way to get a structure designated was to receive a petition from the property owner. Ms. Uguccioni stated that the way the ordinance is written they could receive a petition from the owner but it does not preclude the Historic Preservation Committee from initiating a designation. Mr. Trias stated that the language of the ordinance should be amended to make that more clear than it is currently written. Chairman McCurdy stated that he was concerned that a property owner could not opt out of having their structure from being designated. He also questioned if the homeowner had any recourse from complying with being designated. Ms. Uguccioni stated that the final designation does go to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval, so they could come to the meeting and speak. She also stated that there is an economic hardship clause in the ordinance but they do not have an option to opt out because in some respects it would negate the value of the ordinance itself, which is to try to steward properties throughout generations. Chairman McCurdy stated he understood the intent but was still concerned about infringing on private el it is appropriate not to have a mechanism that allows the property owner to say no. Ms. Young stated that in order for the County to be designated as Certified Local Government with a Historic Preservation Ordinance that provision to opt out is not permitted. She continued that they had discussed having a requirement for a super majority, which is a 4/5 vote of the Board of County Commissioners, to approve the designation in the event that a property owner objects. Chairman McCurdy stated that he felt it was still a governmental taking and that is why he is having a problem with this ordinance as it is written. Mr. Trias stated that his experience in the City of Fort Pierce the process of democracy works in the sense that they have public hearings where people can come and object to the designation of a property. He continued that it had usually been in the context of a District and when they do a District there are twenty or thirty buildings with a few people who object. He stated that those people who objected had been excluded based on their input at the public hearings. Chairman that they participate then he would be fine with the ordinance, but that is not written into it. Mr. Trias stated that it does not necessarily need to be written in because the property owner has the opportunity to make their case at a public hearing and in the City of Fort Pierce every time that was done the homeowner was excluded. He continued that the ordinance does not specifically state that but the process does allow it because we are a democracy and he feels comfortable that the property rights of the owners are protected. Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed with Chairm needs to be compensated, which is where the Burt Harris Act would come in. He also stated that he feels that will be an important part of the ordinance and he has a problem with the government telling him what he can do with his building, especially if he wants to improve it. He questioned if scenic vistas were included in the ordinance. Ms. Young stated that they were originally included but removed at the suggestion of Mr. Grande because of the possible conflictions with P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 13of 20 the ongoing Scenic Highway program. She also stated that there were provisions for landscape features to be designated, but not specifically scenic vistas. Mr. Grande stated that there are some areas that were a little confusing and would not want to have the document misinterpreted. He questioned that on page 3, it lists article 1, but the rest of the articles have roman numerals. Ms. Young stated that it would be changed to a roman numeral for one so that it is consistent with the format of the rest of the document. Mr. Grande also stated on page 9, in Section 1.10.2.5, Creation, on the second line it references the St. Lucie County Historical Commission, but they are not listed in the definitions and should be added. Ms. Young stated that there is a St. Lucie County Historical Commission that was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and is more generalized in their approach to enhancing the historical awareness of the County. She also stated that they would be added. Mr. Grande also stated that on page 10, the second line in the last paragraph indicates a meeting of at least four (4) times a year and is concerned that some of the time frames listed throughout the ordinance are too short if there are 90 days between meetings. He stated that on page 11, vation. Ms. Young stated that would also be corrected. Mr. Grande stated that on the fifth line he questioned how the Committee and the Board both have a function here. Ms. Uguccioni stated that it actually should only be the Committee because that section pertains to the National Mr. Grande stated that on page 18, number 4 says that if no action is taken within 60 days and he feels it should be 120 days if the meetings are 90 days apart. Ms. Young stated that four (4) is the minimum number of meetings required but they would meet more often if necessary. Mr. Grande stated that he understands that but that particular paragraph relates to a default and he feels 60 days might not be enough time if they have a problem getting a meeting together and should be longer. Ms. Uguccioni stated she has a problem with changing it to 120 days because they want to be as responsive as possible to the owners and possibly holding them up for 120 days from getting any permits might be excessive and her experience has been that most Historic Preservation Boards meet at least once a month for that reason. Mr. Grande stated that he agrees with having a timely response but that paragraph deals with a default approval and if for any reason they were unable to have a meeting he was concerned about such a short period of time. Ms. Uguccioni confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande also stated that on page 20, 1D, also has a 60-day default on a potential 90 day meeting schedule, and he thinks that should also be changed to 120 days. Mr. Trias questioned why it was necessary to have default decisions. Ms. Uguccioni stated that she was not sure it was a necessity and has not ever seen where a Board could not get together a meeting to make a decision. Ms. Young stated that if the Local Planning . Mr. Trias stated that he would like to have any and all type of default actions deleted from the entire ordinance. The Local Planning Agency agreed to that. Mr. Grande stated on page 22, section 1.10.2.21, in the middle of the paragraph, line 20, it discusses that the Historic Preservation Committee could modify adherence to the section and at the end of the line it talks about the staff of the Historic Pre the staff of the Committee would be the Officer initially and possibly in the future could have additional staff, so it is correct the way that it is written. he would like to commend anyone and everyone who worked on putting together the ordinance because it is a complex subject and document but still could be understood. the very last paragraph on the cover page, compared to the original one presented to them in the eligible for historic designation at the local level consistent with the local ordinance. In addition, P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 14of 20 the survey found the 20 buildings that were previously recorded on the State Division of Historic that they were just trying to clarify the staff report and condense it for this presentation. Ms. Hammer stated that she thought it was an interesting bit of information. Mr. Hearn stated that in the future when a document is presented to them at one meeting and they recommend changes he would like to have those changes designated in some manner, maybe by a double line, so they can be sure that all of their requested changes were made. He also stated that he was not sure that just because the County has a scenic highway designation that it would cover all of the historic scenic vistas that are in the community. Ms. Uguccioni stated that she has never seen historic vistas defined in a historic preservation ordinance and feels that it might be something they should do some more research on and how they would relate to this ordinance. Mr. Trias stated that he feels the issue of scenic vistas is too complex to deal with at this point, would be detrimental to the approval of this ordinance at this point, and he would recommend approval without adding scenic vistas. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. John Ferrick, 4802 S. 25th Street, stated that he agrees with Mr. McCurdy that the government should not be able to take away the property owners rights. Ms. Lucille Wrights-Murtow, 816 St. Lucie Crescent, Stuart, stated that she lived in Fort Pierce for 40 years and now owns a town house at 2711-B North A-1-A in Fort Pierce. She stated she was representing the Southeast Florida Archaeological Society and that the oldest house standing in St. Lucie County at this time is degrading because the owner is not maintaining it, it is not in a historic district, and would like to see something in the ordinance showing that one person could nominate a home to be registered as historic. She stated that eventually that home would be demolished by neglect and would like to stop that from happening. Ms. Young stated that the Historic Preservation Committee could nominate a home and if a citizen contacted them they could review the property and if warranted take forward a petition. She also stated that this ordinance would not apply to that house in particular because it is within St. Lucie Village and they are under their own jurisdiction because this ordinance only applies to the unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County. Mr. Rick Langdon, 9007 South Indian River Drive, read his letter into the record, which is Mr. Phillip Stickles, 10800 Carlton Road, questioned if this ordinance would protect any historic or archaeological sites from the affects of neighboring properties. He stated that there are 528 acres preserved out west where the Paleo Indians had villages that could be affected by the historic property and the neighbors in that area from the detrimental effects of the mining operation. Ms. Young stated that this ordinance is designed to protect the property itself once it is designated. She also stated that when any other proposed project is reviewed the impact on adjacent properties could be considered, but this ordinance is mainly designed to focus on preserving individual properties that might be facing demolition or demolition by neglect. Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Trias made a motion to recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to Draft Ordinance 04-012, Historical Preservation, as amended by the Local Planning Agency and accepted by Staff, not including the suggestions ence of a negative impact from this ordinance and he has never seen any either. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion. Ms. Hammer stated that she would like to have the letter from Mr. Langdon forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with his concerns. Chairman McCurdy stated that Mr. Langdon had valid concerns and agreed his letter should be presented to the Board of County but it should not be considered an endorsement by the Local Planning Agency of recommending any of his comments be included. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 6-1 (with Chairman McCurdy voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 15of 20 AGENDA ITEM 6: ORDINANCE 04-021 OFF ROAD VEHICLE PARKS: Mr. Randy Stevenson, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was to consider Draft Ordinance 04-021 that would provide for an amendment to the Development Code providing for an expansion of the zoning districts in which an Off-Road Vehicle Park might be located. This expansion would permit the development of such a facility not only in the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/ 5 acres) Zoning Districts, as they currently are allowed, but would also add the IL (Industrial, Light) and U (Utilities) Zoning Districts, subject to the completion and approval of a conditional use permit. Mr. Stevenson continued that, in addition, Draft Ordinance 04-021 seeks to amend Section 7.10.21 (Off Road Vehicle Parks) to provide for the applicability to all landowners and to include the IL (Industrial, Light) and U (Utilities) Zoning Districts as possible zoning districts, in which this activity might be approved as a conditional use and to clarify certain habitat protection measures as required by this section. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 04-021 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Hearn stated that he believed this ordinance was brought forth by the desire to build an Off Road Vehicle Park on the Airport property. He questioned Staff if that was accurate. Mr. Stevenson stated that was the original intent of getting the ATV steering committee together. He continued that they were looking at a site at the Airport. Mr. Hearn stated he feels this is an incredible liability burden for the taxpayers of St. Lucie County to bear giving the track record of the seriousness of injuries that occurs with off road vehicles. He questioned that if this is approved at the Airport, would alcohol be allowed on the premises at the time that these vehicles are out there. He also questioned who would monitor that the vehicles are following the rules that have been established. He stated that he was also concerned as to whether monster trucks and small ATV vehicles would be allowed on the track at the same time. Ms. Young stated that Paul Phillips, Airport Director, was present and is serving as the lead Staff for the All Terrain Vehicle Feasibility Plan Steering Committee. She also stated that several other members of the committee were present and had met this afternoon to address several of the same questions. She stated that the consensus of the committee was to recommend adoption of Draft Ordinance 04-021. Mr. Paul Phillips, Airport Director, stated a lot of the questions that Mr. Hearn brought up are currently being developed by their steering committee as part of the feasibility plan. He stated researching the liability issues, as of today. He also stated that they discussed proposing some rules, which all would be addressed and put together in a feasibility plan and presented to the Board of County Commissioners who would then make a recommendation as to whether or not to proceed with it. Mr. Hearn questioned why they were being asked to approve this ordinance tonight if those questions cannot be answered yet and all of the research is not done. Mr. Phillips on the Airport property. He continued that they would be required to come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission for their Conditional Use Permit before this type of service would be allowed at the Airport. Mr. Stevenson confirmed that this request was only for an amendment to the text of the Land Development Code and would be applicable to all properties zoned IL (Industrial, Light) or U (Utilities), not just specifically the Airport property. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands that, but the Airport property is what initiated this request and it bothers him that we are changing the zoning text for the entire county to accommodate a request from the Airport, which are County taxpayers owned property. Ms. Young stated that they had two alternatives there, to do a change in zoning on the Airport property, or amend the permitted uses for the zoning that exists at the Airport. She continued that they decided it would not make sense to rezone the Airport to the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/ 5 acres) Zoning District to allow these types of operations. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about making a permanent long-term change to allow for a temporary use on the property, especially since that is valuable property that is within the Urban Service Boundary. He also stated that he believed there was plenty of land available to purchase within the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/ 5 acres) Zoning District to allow these particular activities and would not be a disturbance to anyone. Mr. Grande stated that he views the Airport property as an incredible resource for the County. He stated that to develop as an industrial base we should use those open areas to attract the kinds of companies that would bring jobs to the County. He also stated that he is concerned about what the impact of this type of recreational situation would be on the lands that would be used to attract industrial businesses to move into the county or next to those lands. He advised that the word P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 16of 20 structured track, it was designed to be an area where an ATV could be used to its fullest. He continued that those uses would be best met within those agriculturally zoned areas that currently allow for that type of use. He stated that he felt those areas were originally allowed because it would have the least amount of impact on the land or surrounding communities. He questioned why the Airport was chosen and stated that he was not sure that the committee was looking at the negative impact on the very valuable property that the Airport is for us. Mr. Phillips stated that the committee started about three or four months ago and investigated several County owned sites. He continued that they eliminated any environmental properties and basically the Park owned properties because of the incompatibl the Airport was the single largest landmass that the County owns that could possibly accommodate this type of activity. He advised that there is a 750-acre cattle lease on the Airport property that is currently zoned U (Utilities) and IL (Industrial, Light). He stated that property was slated for industrial development in the Airport Master Plan, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, in 2012. He continued that there is a current industrial park underway, which is just southwest of this property in the existing Airport. He advised that there are so many projects already being worked on that the development opportunities for that piece were so remote it was offered as a temporary site for this type of activity. He stated that they were looking at it as a temporary site to allow the County to develop the funds to be able to purchase property out in the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/ 5 acres) sections for long-term uses of an ATV park. He stated that it consist of a series of trails with very little infrastructure need, so it could be relocated very quickly if they had a major tenant that needed 750 acres, which is very unusual. He stated that the reason they chose the Airport is that it is a large piece of property, currently cattle leased with very little income potential to the Airport at this time, and they were trying to fill a need to the community, which is get the ATV riders out of the environmentally sensitive properties like the Savannas. Mr. Merritt stated that he feels this is something that the private industry should be reviewing. Mr. Phillips stated that it could be a possibility that a private industry could do, but that have not done to date. He also stated that they had discussions with the Board of County Commissioners regarding this issue and they asked the committee to investigate the possibility of putting together a feasibility plan, which is what they are in the process of doing. Mr. Hearn stated that he finds it incredibly difficult to believe that it is going to be ten years before someone will have a need for that property for a large amount of money to the taxpayers of St. Lucie County. He continued that he would support a bond issue, or whatever tax money it takes to buy land, to allow ATV activities on a permanent basis somewhere out where it would keep people from destroying the wetlands. Mr. Grande stated that he believed that there was a concept as part of the ordinance that would charge riders for the use of the facility and that funding would someday be used towards buying land in the agricultural area. Mr. Phillips confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that this is the type of situation that really should be a private enterprise and should be out west in the agricultural areas. He also stated that he was not sure that they would get people who are tearing up the wetlands and sensitive areas for free to pay to ride their ATV on the Airport property where it would be more restrictive. He stated that this idea might be attractive to Mr. Phillips and Savannas. He also stated that h areas if they have to pay to use the Airport property. Chairman McCurdy stated that he too had those concerns and would support a bond issue for more law enforcement in the environmentally sensitive areas because that is the only way to stop it from being destroyed. He also stated that he did not see anything good about this ordinance and could not support it. Ms. Hammer stated that she was very concerned over liability and would also like to have some research done about how many serious accidents have been reported in our county and neighboring counties. She stated that the taxpayers are going to have to pay the bill when there are multi-million dollar lawsuits. She also stated that she lived in an area up north that had vacant She continued that the noise is unbelievable and she has sympathy for anyone who lives in the areas of these parks. She stated that if it is put out west, it needs to be in an area where there is a have to hear these vehicles from dawn to dusk everyday. She also questioned if there had been a large number of requests from the community for this type of facility or just a couple of people P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 17of 20 who thought up this idea. She stated that she would not support this ordinance and would not support tax dollars for it either. Ms. Morgan stated that it was her understanding that this request was only an ordinance to add language to the Land Development Code to allow a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the U (Utilities) and IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning Districts, not how the Airport property should be developed. She continued that if anyone were to want to develop an ATV park, they would be required to bring their Conditional Use Permit request back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and recommendation. Mr. Phillips confirmed that was correct. Ms. Morgan stated that there is a need for these types of facilities in the county. She stated that she has a 14-year-old stepson who has a Yamaha 90 and has nowhere to ride it. She continued that he could ride it on their property but all he could really do is ride around the house continuously. She stated that there is nowhere for the kids to go and most of them have been going to a park in Okeechobee County. She stated again that this is not a request to approve an ATV park at the Airport, only to amend the Land Development Code to allow for requests for Conditional Use Permits. She also stated that if the Airport were to bring back a request for a Conditional Use Permit they would be required to address all of those issues and the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners would be allowed to access restrictions and conditions of approval. Mr. Hearn stated that he understood that this is just a request for an approval to change the Land Development Code, but he sees it as the foundation for what is proposed at the Airport. He continued that if the Board of County Commissioners does not approve this ordinance, the ATV Park at the Airport would not be possible. He stated that he sympathizes with the riders but does not want to see this at the Airport and feels that if you buy an ATV you should be aware beforehand of where you can and cannot ride it. Ms. Morgan stated that she understands what Mr. Hearn is saying but that the Airport was not before them asking for an ATV park, the Staff was only requesting a change to the Land Development Code. Mr. Grande stated that he feels that the cart is before the horse and this ordinance should not have been brought to them until the feasibility study and plan was fully completed and all of the outstanding questions had been answered. He also stated that he agrees with Mr. Hearn that this ordinance is the first step to put an ATV park at the Airport and could not support the submittal of this ordinance until the committee came forward with a report that justified making a change to the Land Development Code. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. John Ferrick, 4802 S. 25th Street, stated that he believes there is a need for an ATV park in the County. He questioned what type of vehicles would be allowed in the ATV parks. Ms. tracks, and a mountain bike track, no mud bogging trucks would be allowed. She also stated that allowing motor cross bikes. Mr. Stevenson stated that they had also discussed specifically excluding go-carts and racetracks in the language. Mr. Ferrick stated that he feels this type of track should be out near the Fairgrounds, not at the Airport. He also stated that he has a problem with changing the IL (Industrial, Light) zoning because this belongs in the agricultural areas, but they need a specific track to do it in. Mr. Paul Julin, 1245 17th Lane, Vero Beach, stated that he is part of the steering committee and also owns land just north of the proposed site at the Airport. He stated that many riders have had to buy property an hour or two away just so that they can ride. He also stated that only a small amount of the riders are the ones trespassing on private lands. He continued that having a closer place would be better for them. He stated that there are a lot of clubs, with thousands of riders, that follow the rules, are concerned about the environment, and ride in areas where it is permitted, but would like to have a designated area closer by. He advised that they would never be able to stop everyone from riding on private property but they might be able to encourage some of them to stop by giving them a place that they can go to ride legally. He also stated that the liability issues have not been resolved yet. He stated that there is an area called Croom, over by the west coast, that has been operational for over twenty years and have had no problems dealing with the property specifically and use a bond referendum to buy a piece of property out west. He stated that no matter what the location is, the liability is still there for the County if they are going to purchase it. He also stated that the area in Okeechobee is being closed because they sold the property to be developed, so that park will no longer be available for riders to use. He advised that the plan they are preparing is designed to be self-sufficient and would not absorb any tax dollars. He continued that it would be set up as an enterprise account, since they will charge for P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 18of 20 use of the park that will pay for staffing, improvements, and whatever is needed. He stated that there are some sensitive areas on the property and they will be isolated so they will not be destroyed or damaged. He also stated that there would be a sound buffer to the north of the property to protect Indrio Road and they are planning on having the BMX bicycles in that area - wheelers that are 500 c noise and those issues are being worked out by the steering committee. Mr. Grande stated that SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) is amassing huge land tracts that would not be used for the next ten years or so and should be looked at for a potential site for a park. He continued that those areas are going to be used as filter marshes, attenuation or retention areas, or becoming massive reservoir areas at some time in the future. He stated that what happened to the land on those parcels would not be an issue therefore making those areas ideal for a temporary ATV park. He also stated that if those lands were used the County would not be involved; it would still be physically within St. Lucie County, but out beyond the Urban Service Boundary in the western half of the county. to. Mr. Grande stated that SFWMD did just volunteer to pay 50% of the well capping in Lakewood Park so he believes they are a lot more cooperative than they are making them out to be. Mr. Merritt stated that if they were that willing to cooperate they would have paid 100%, not just 50%. Ms. Young stated that she would review the restrictions that are on the property with the attorney who is handling the land purchases for the SFWMD. Chairman McCurdy stated that Mr. Paul Hiott, 1816 S. 33rd Street, stated that he is on the steering committee and an ATV enthusiast as well. He advised that he drives over 3 hours to get to Ocala National Forest to camp re is no where locally to ride. He stated that their objective is to make somewhere available in St. Lucie County for riders to be that ATV riding is a stress reliever for many people and this is also an opportunity for younger riders to learn how to drive in a controlled atmosphere without being on a roadway. He continued that the request before them was not about the ATV Park at the Airport, it is about changing the Land Development Code to allow someone to submit a request for a conditional use permit. He stated that the steering committee has discussed having staffing in place to supervise the activities. He stated that he hoped this ordinance request would be approved and everyone would have the opportunity to come out and enjoy the ATV Park. Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Ms. Hensley stated that they have a youth advisory group in St. Lucie County that represents children throughout the county and one of their first topics of concern was the lack of variety of Parks and Recreation activities available to serve the needs of the community. She continued that they had not specifically mentioned an ATV park but they had mentioned such things as drag racing, or places to race their bicycles, or something along those lines. She stated that this might be something that the steering committee might want to discuss with them and then possibly let them help with the investigation and presentation. She also stated that they do have the same types of concerns about the lack of variety in this county. She advised that they might be beneficial in helping the steering committee spread the word about their cause to the other entities. Mr. Hearn stated that maybe that would be an opportunity for the school system to offer some diversified learning. Ms. Hensley stated that the program is not through the school system and she feels they are diversified enough. She continued that the Parks and Recreation Department helped have the Parks Referendum passed so that there would be an availability of funds to diversify activities that would meet all the needs of the citizens of St. Lucie County. Mr. Hearn made a motion to deny Draft Ordinance 04-021 because I think there are too many unanswered questions at this time and before I make a decision on something I want anybody except for the ATV enthusiasts. I move that we deny this change. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 6-1 (with Ms. Morgan voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 19of 20 OTHER BUSINESS / DISCUSSION: The next scheduled meeting will be July 15, 2004. No other business or discussion. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: ____________________________________ Dawn V. Gilmore, Administrative Secretary P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting June 17, 2004 Page 20of 20