Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-15-2004 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Local Planning Agency REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 15, 2004 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Morgan, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Akins, Mr. Trias, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Hearn, and Ms. Hensley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. Since both the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency were absent a new temporary chair needed to be elected. Mr. Lounds made a motion for Mr. Hearn to be the temporary Chairman for the evening. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a vote, the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 6-0). CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hearn 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: Chairman Hearn 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 July 15, 2004 Page 1 of 19 The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. Mr. Lounds stated that he read in the newspaper that the former Growth Management Director, Dennis Murphy had resigned. He stated that he provided a lot of knowledge and history to the County and would be greatly missed. Chairman Hearn stated that he had some conversations with residents regarding Agenda Item # 4, Oakland Estates. No other announcements or discussion. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 2 of 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 2004: Ms. Young stated that Mr. Grande had presented some corrections to the minutes in a letter since he could not be at the meeting. She recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting to allow time stated that she had a few corrections as well. Mr. Lounds made a motion to continue Agenda Item # 1 until the August 19, 2004, regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a vote, the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 6-0). P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 3of 19 AGENDA ITEM 2: PHIL-AM INVESTORS, INC. FILE NO. RZ-04-019: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application Phil Am Investors, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the I (Institutional) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 2.4 acres or property located at 415 Weatherbee Road. Mr. Flores continued that the petitioner is proposing to combine the subject property with a 4.35 acre parcel of property located to the east at the northwest corner of the intersection of South U.S. Highway No.1 and Weatherbee Road in order to develop a BMW automobile dealership. 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 Hearn questioned if the applicant or their representative were present. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, Ruden McClosky, stated that he was there representing the petitioner, Phil Am, and the contract purchaser who is buying the property from Phil Am. He stated that the staff report was complete with regards to what they want to do. He also stated that there is a section of commercially designated land use properties that runs 600 feet east and west of US No. 1, running north and south. He continued that this piece of property is within that commercially designated area. He stated that commercial property surrounds the subject property and immediately to the west is vacant property with a high density land use designation. Mr. Trias questioned if the project was contiguous to the City of Fort Pierce. Mr. Ferguson stated that it is on the northwest corner adjacent to the City of Fort Pierce. He also stated that Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) would provide utilities to the Mr. Ferguson confirmed that they would be signing an annexation agreement once the property is officially closed on. Chairman Hearn opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Hearn closed the public hearing. Ms. Hammer questioned if staff had any thoughts about having a uniform signage code for new businesses along U.S. Highway 1. Mr. Kelly stated that Chapter 9 of the Land that the section had not been modified in several years and any sign permits would have to be consistent with the code. He also stated that he did not believe any modifications were currently being done at this point in time. Ms. Hammer stated that she would like to have staff take a look at that section of the code since the signs along U.S. Highway 1 are a reflection of the community. Chairman Hearn stated that signs are an issue along U.S. 1 and might be something the County should look into. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Phil Am Investors, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the I (Institutional) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because I think it is more consistent with the area of US 1 and that four corner area creates less of a problem in the future than having Institutional zoning in between those areas. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Ms. Hammer stated that she hopes the applicant takes their comments regarding signs into consideration. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 4of 19 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 July 15, 2004 Page 5of 19 AGENDA ITEM 3: JOSEPH K. LOPEZ FILE NO. CU-03-012: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Joseph Lopez for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a landscaping and lawn maintenance facility on an 8.62-acre parcel of land located northeast side of the intersection of Devine Road and Selvitz Road. The subject property is designated with an AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) zoning designation and RS (Residential Suburban) classification. The subject property is surrounded by I (Institutional) zoning to the north and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) zoning to the south, east and west and P/F (Public/Facilities) land use to the north with RS (Residential Suburban) future land use to the south, east and west. The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portion of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code nor is it expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The property is currently a vacant, heavily vegetated site with an AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) zoning designation. There are residential lots located to the east of the subject property. To the south of the subject property is a plant nursery; to the north is the Life Christian Church and to the west is property dedicated to the County as part of the Midway Industrial Park, Phase III approvals. Further to the north of this site, approximately ¼ mile are a variety of industrial uses which include but are not limited to a chemical plant, sod company, and a concrete manufacturing facility. Based upon this, Staff has determined that the proposed use will continue with the current development trends along Selvitz Road. In order to protect the single-family lots to the east, staff is recommending that a condition of approval be that at the time of site plan approval, a 100-foot vegetative buffer be provided along the northern and eastern property lines. At no time shall construction or clearing be permitted within these buffer areas. The applicant has indicated that the hours of operation for this facility will be from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. Staff is also recommending that the hours of operation be from 6:45 am to 5:30 pm to allow sufficient time for the employees to arrive and depart the site. This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. The subject property will be provided water and sewer through an on-site well and septic sewer system. The proposed development would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The subject parcel is a heavily vegetated site that will require minor site plan approval. At the time of site plan approval, all environmental issues will be resolved prior to approving the site plan. 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 following conditions: 1. Prior to commencing any construction on the 8.62 acres of land, the applicants shall be required to submit for review and approval a minor site plan that is consistent with the Land Development Code. 2. The applicant shall provide a minimum 100-foot vegetative buffer along the northern and eastern property lines. No future development can occur in this vegetative buffer unless a modification to the Conditional Use Permit eliminating the vegetative buffer or portion of the vegetative buffer is submitted for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. The hours of operation for this landscaping and lawn maintenance business will be 6:45 am to 5:30 pm. Mr. Lounds questioned if this property has access off of Canal 102. Ms. Snay stated that access would be off of Devine Road, which is a county road and is north of the canal. Mr. Lounds questioned if there was also access off of Selvitz Road. Ms. Snay confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lounds questioned if they could limit access to Selvitz Road. Ms. Snay stated that could be added as a condition of approval if the Commission felt it was necessary. Chairman Hearn questioned what the 100 foot buffer would consist of. Ms. Snay stated that it would consist of native vegetation or they could supplement with a vegetative screening that was 100 feet wide. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 6of 19 Chairman Hearn questioned if the applicant or their representative were present. Mr. Al Brodeur, Thomas Lucido and Associates, stated that the applicant had also submitted their minor site plan application for their maintenance building to store their lawn care equipment to the Growth Management Department for their review. He continued that the applicant had no problems with the 100 foot buffer and would be removing some Brazilian peppers and replacing them with native vegetation. Mr. Lounds questioned if the 100 foot buffer would be along Devine & Selvitz road. Mr. Brodeur stated it would be on the north and eastern property lines only but they would be willing to have buffers along all of the roadways if the Planning and Zoning Commission felt it was necessary. He also stated that they would prefer to have it along their southern property line, Devine Road. Chairman Hearn stated that since the property is zoned AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre), he is concerned about the maintenance of the machines taking place after their hours of operations. Mr. Brodeur stated that the applicant had no objections to the maintenances of the machines being done during the stipulated hours of operation. Ms. Snay stated that the hours of operation condition could be modified to specifically include maintenance of machinery too. Mr. Lounds sta need to be added into the conditions because he feels the applicant would be a good Chairman Hearn stated that he was still concerned about the nearby residents and was surprised to see this type of conditional use permit requested in a residential area. Chairman Hearn opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Hearn closed the public hearing. Ms. Hammer commended the applicant for agreeing to place a 100 foot buffer all the way around the property. 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 Joseph Lopez, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a landscaping and lawn maintenance business in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District subject to the three limiting conditions included in the staff report and condition # 2 being amended to include the western property line as the applicant agreed to at the public hearing because particular business on that particular piece of land. I would rather see that than another gas station or something. Ms. Hammer stated that she would second the motion if condition # 3 was amended to read the hours of operation, including maintenance would be restricted. Mr. Lounds did not want that added to his motion Code Enforcement would get involved. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Ms. Hammer recommended that the applicant not do any maintenance on his equipment past 5:30 p.m. because it fair to the surrounding neighbors. She stated that she supports the businesses in the community and wished the applicant good luck. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels the applicant needs to have consideration for his neighbors and they are putting faith in him by not adding maintenance into the restrictions. Chairman Hearn stated that he did not feel this type of business belongs in a residential district Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved by a vote of 5-1 (with Chairman Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 7of 19 AGENDA ITEM 4: JAMES T. LONG FILE NO. RZ-03-041/PUD-03-027: James Ms. Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of T. Long, Skyline Building and Development , for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval a 73-unity single-family residential project to be known as Oakland Estates Subdivision and a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Palomar Drive and Kings Highway. The property abuts Palomar Drive, Hummingbird Way, Eden Road and Kings Highway within the Lakewood Park Subdivision and is 20.59 acres in size which includes the existing roadway network and drainage system which were constructed on private property. The subject property is designated with an RU (Residential Urban) future land use designation. Under this designation this property would be permitted a maximum of five (5) dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting a density of 3.95 which is compatible with the zoning designation and the existing density of Lakewood Park. The proposed project is on 18.46-acres of the site. riginal petition was for an 80-lot single-family residential subdivision, which would have been consistent with the RU (Residential Urban) Future Land Use designation. During the site plan review, the applicant and staff worked together to ensure that the roadway issues with regards to the right-of- addition to the infrastructure issues, the applicant and county staff worked together to ensure that the existing strand of Oak trees located along the eastern property line was preserved. Further after discussions with the surrounding residents, the applicant redesigned the access to the site from Palomar Drive to align with the existing Lakeside Drive on Hummingbird Drive. This realignment and redesign included a reduction in the total number of requested units from 80 to preserve environmentally sensitive area onsite. The project is designed with a central roadway system that loops throughout with one central access point for entrance and exit. The access point into the project is located on Hummingbird Way. All of the roadways within Lakewood Park are dedicated to the County. The closest county arterial roadway to the proposed connection is Kings Highway. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIR) which considered the following roadway links: Kings Highway from US 1 to St. Lucie Boulevard, Indrio Road from US 1 to Johnston Road and Emerson Avenue from Indrio Road to the Indian River County line. The Avenu indicates that both Kings Highway and Indrio Road are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. St. Lucie County Utilities, via a bulk service agreement with Ft. Pierce Utility, will be providing water and sewer services to the project. In order for this site to be provided water and sewer services, the applicant will be required to extend the water and sewer lines into the site. The applicant was required as part of the submittal package to address the drainage impacts for this project on the NSLWCD system. At the same time, the County was working with the firm of Hazen and Sawyer to review the entire Lakewood Park drainage system. This firm created a model, which analyzed the entire system, and the results indicated that the system was working correctly. As this project was going forward, staff requested that Hazen and Sawyer review the submitted information to determine if any negative impacts would occur from the proposed project. They incorporated the information for the project into the model and determined that there would be no negative impacts on the Lakewood Park drainage system from the construction of this project. The Oakland Estates PUD will be served by adequate school facilities. A 73-unit single-family subdivision is expected to generate 25 (.34 students per unit) new students. The Oakland Estates PUD is located in School Choice Zone 1. Student assignments from this community will be made consistent with applicable St. Lucie County Board Of Education standards and regulations. The proposed project is compatible with the character of the area and with the surrounding land uses. The subject property is surrounded by single-family residential homes. In addition, the Bel-Aire Mobile Home Park (located internal to Lakewood Park) is located to the southwest of P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 8of 19 the subject property. The Lakewood Park Subdivision was platted in 1956, prior to St. Lucie County establishing a Building Department. Research of the Lakewood Park plats indicates that at no time was the subject property ever considered to be part of the Lakewood Park Subdivision. Based upon research, this parcel of land is not subject to the HOA/POA regulations of Lakewood Park. The surrounding area was platted as single-family residential development. In addition, the Lakewood Park has a density of 4 dwelling units. The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential lots and has a compatible density of 3.95 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is not expected to result in any adverse impacts on the natural environment. Of the 18.46 acre PUD site area, a total of 6.461 acres is required to be preserved in order to meet the minimum 35% common open space requirement of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The applicant has met the 35% open space requirement through the preservation of 6.611 acres of common open space. In addition, the site design incorporates a number of existing trees within the open space areas. As part of the site plan process, the developers and staff worked together to redesign the site to preserve onsite vegetation within its natural state and to locate the lot lines in a manner that establishes the buildable area away from the existing trees. Within the northeastern corner of the site, the developers have incorporated a recreational area that is 0.33 acres in size. The proposed stormwater/lake feature also will provide a recreational amenity to the development. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit 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 subject to the following conditions: 1. l provide for the creation/establishment of a Conservation Easement over all areas of protected upland preservation areas as shown on the project site plan. This conservation easement shall be in favor of St. Lucie County. No alterations of land within these areas so designated may take place without the prior consent of the County and determination by the County that the proposed activity is not in violation of any provision of the Development Code. 2. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for this site plan, the applicant shall be required to submit to the County a final tree mitigation plan that indicates the location of all trees preserved and relocated and details the number of inches of trees removed. If the mitigation credit does not exceed the tree mitigation criteria, the applicant will be required to provide a means for satisfying the remainder of the tree mitigation criteria. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this site plan, the developers shall provide St. Lucie County with a management plan for all areas of protected upland preservation areas as shown on the project site plan that are to be covered through the creation/establishment of a Conservation Easement over all areas. Upon the developer turning the property over to the HOA/POA it shall be the responsibility of the HOA/POA to maintain the conservation areas. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit to St. Lucie County an annual monitoring report demonstrating compliance with the above conditions. The requirement for this report shall begin on the anniversary date of commencement of construction and shall continue on that date until two (2) years after the completion of the development. 5. Prior to the issuance of any Land Clearing Permits for the Oakland Estates PUD Site, the developers shall clearly delineate all areas to be preserved and/or protected. Delineation shall be by either the placing of silt fencing, safety fencing or similar type of materials. Flagging shall not be used except to guide the installation of the fencing materials. All land clearing activities shall be in accordance to the specific conditions/standards outlined in the Land Clearing Permit. 6. The developer shall as part of the construction of this development provide for the construction of a weather shelter, or other similar structure at the main project entrance or provide an designated access from the property to Eden Road at the recreational center for the purpose of providing for a central pick-up and drop off location for any school bus P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 9of 19 stops/demand response transit or other like transit activity that may be caused by the development of this property. Chairman Hearn stated that on page nine (9) of the staff report it shows that the applicant was requesting preliminary and final approval. He questioned if that was correct. Ms. Snay stated that was an error and that the applicant was only requesting preliminary approval. Chairman Hearn stated that he went out to the subject property and saw the oak hammock on the eastern portion of the property, which would provide a great buffer. Chairman Hearn questioned if the applicant or their representative were present. Mr. Bill McCain, McCain and Associates, stated that he was there representing the applicant, but the applicant was also there to answer any questions if necessary. He continued that their stormwater analysis and design conditions were provided by Hayes and Sawyer. Mr. James Long stated that he is a resident of St. Lucie County and was proposing the PUD to preserve the Oak Hammock and also to limit the driveways. He stated that their homes would have a community pool with restrooms and would be landscaped around the perimeter. He asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve his request. Mr. Lounds questioned if the northeast corner of the project would be common area. Mr. Long confirmed that was correct and that it would be accessed through the internal roads. Mr. Lounds questioned if there would be access to Palomar Drive or Kings Highway. Mr. Long stated that they had originally wanted to have access onto those roads, but after discussions with the surrounding neighbors they decided against that and would have only one access off of Lakeside Drive. Ms. Hensley stated that she was pleased that the applicant was working with the school board and urged the applicant to keep an open mind to accommodate the needs of the community. Mr. Lounds questioned if this additional density would require the school board to add more pick-ups along their route for these students. Ms. Hensley stated that since it was a private community, they would not have any pick-ups on those private roads. Chairman Hearn stated that he felt having a shelter in the community near the Oak Hammock would be a good idea. Mr. Long stated that the school board had suggested that but he was concerned about a shelter being located on a road that has a 35 mile per hour speed limit. Mr. Kelly stated he did not believe that the buses would go to Palomar at this point in time. Ms. Hensley stated that was correct, but bus routes do change each year. Mr. Akins questioned if the plan could change since this is only a preliminary approval. Ms. Snay stated that the final approval would go directly to the Board of County Commissioners and must the same as originally presented to them in the preliminary stage. Ms. Hammer stated that some residents had questions about flooding issues in Lakewood Park with regards to Canal # 4 and questioned if the applicant was going to address those concerns. Ms. Snay explained that the lakes in Lakewood Park are part of the stormwater retention areas and if they are kept full they do flood during heavy rains. She continued that now that some of the lakes have been capped that should help to alleviate some of the flooding issues. Ms. Hammer questioned where the discharge location for this proposed development would be. Mr. McCain stated that discharge would not occur until after a storm passes and would be into that canal. He continued that they have been working with Hazen and Sawyer and that the canal peaks at a 22.6-foot elevation. He stated that their site would take water from the canal into their lake until the canal recedes back to a 21-foot elevation, so nothing would discharge off of their site. Ms. Hammer questioned how big the lake would be in their community. Mr. McCain stated it was a 3-acre lake. Ms. Hammer questioned the discharge rate of their lake. Mr. McCain stated that it was 1 inch per 24-hour period, both ways. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 10of 19 Chairman Hearn stated that this development would have the backs of their homes facing the fronts of homes in Lakewood Park, which is out of character for the neighborhood. Mr. McCain stated that they would have landscape buffers to act as a barrier. Ms. Hammer questioned how high and wide the buffer would be. Mr. McCain stated it would be 15-20 feet wide and 2 to 4 feet high. Mr. Lounds questioned if they would use the dirt from excavating the pond as fill for the lower lying lots. Mr. McCain confirmed that was correct and that they were doing that to minimize the need to import fill. Chairman Hearn questioned what the prices of the homes would be. Mr. Long stated they would range from approximately $179,900 to $249,900. Chairman Hearn questioned if they would be federally subsidized. Mr. Long stated that they would not be. Mr. Trias stated that he is glad the features of this proposed development are out of character for the neighborhood. He stated that he felt the drainage issues were also addressed. However, he stated that this plan does not fall into the proposed Master Plan for that area, which is a village. Mr. Grande entered the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Trias approved of this plan. Mr. Trias stated that he did having an isolated development was not ideal and this proposed plan was a better design but still not what is best for planning and urbanism. Mr. Akins questioned what the distance was between the homes. Mr. Long stated it was 10 feet. Mr. Akins stated that having homes that close was also out of character for Lakewood Park. Mr. Grande questioned the depth of the backyards. Mr. Long stated 82- 85 feet. Mr. Grande asked what the front setbacks were. Mr. Long stated 15 feet. Mr. Grande questioned the percentage of lot coverage. Mr. McCain stated it was approximately 15-20%. Mr. Grande questioned the footprint of the house on the lot. Mr. McCain stated approximately 60-65%. Mr. Grande stated that it is important not to change the character of the neighborhood or increase density. He commended the applicant for presenting a PUD but stated he felt the plan needed to be laid out more like the surrounding area and closer to the lot coverage and dimensions of the RS-4 zoning. Mr. McCain stated that their proposed plan has lots that are larger than most of those within Lakewood Park. He stated that to make the plan more like the area they would need to have each of the driveways exiting on to the roadways, which the public stated they did not want. He also stated that their proposed homes are larger than most of the homes in the area. He stated that they had to work the plan around the Oak Hammock and also worked continuously with Staff and the public to propose a plan that met every ones needs. He advised that the road right-of-way and canal were never dedicated to the County and are owned by the applicant. The applicant agreed to buffer the project and have their lake help accommodate the stormwater from Lakewood Park. Mr. Trias questioned if the applicant had considered stem wall construction. Mr. McCain stated that the applicant had considered that but ¾ of the Oak Hammock would have to be removed and the applicant did not want to do that. Mr. Trias stated that he Mr. Grande stated that if the plan were more consistent with the existing layout of Lakewood Park, which would be approximately 38-42 sites, it would be more reasonable. Mr. Long stated it would not be possible to make their development like the surrounding homes because some are trailers, some wer area is blighted. Mr. Grande questioned why the applicant was proposing to block off their project from the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Long stated that the site was designed around leaving as much of the Oak Hammock as possible and not putting driveways onto the main streets, as requested by the neighborhood. He also stated that the development will be self contained and he was paying for the entire infrastructure to limit the impacts to the existing areas. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 11of 19 Chairman Hearn stated that the preliminary site plan does not preserve as much of the Oak and Palm Hammock as he would like and questioned if the entrance would be across from Lakeside Way. Mr. Long confirmed the entrance and stated that they exceeded their tree mitigation standards by approximately 200 inches. Chairman Hearn opened the public hearing. Clair stated that she was a resident of Lakewood Park and was concerned about the flooding issues in the area. She stated that if this project is developed it will impact the drainage on an already flooding canal. She also stated that the swales are already overwhelmed when it rains and adding Portofino Shores and Emerson Estates has only made the problems worse. She advised that adding this project will not help the flooding issues. She also stated that she was concerned about the density of this project and the projected 61x82 lot sizes. She stated that having lots that small was not consistent with Lakewood Park. Mr. Carl Banker, resident of Lakewood Park, handed out a copy of 2 maps. He stated that he went to the Board of County Commissioners on several occasions to make them aware of the issues regarding flooding and stormwater in Lakewood Park. He stated that he did not want this project approved and felt the Board needed to handle the existing flooding issues in the area before approving any more projects that will affect their lakes and stormwater retention. Ms. Julie Orben, resident of Lakewood Park, stated that when Emerson Estates was approved it put Indrio Road at the maximum capacity allowed and this project will only transportation impact report did not show the capacity of the road as exceeding acceptable standards if Emerson Estates approval put the road at the maximum capacity. Ms. Snay stated that the traffic engineer stated that it is acceptable and as per the Land Development Code this project meets those standards. Ms. Orben stated that the local fire station cannot handle any more homes and questioned if this project was reviewed by the fire department. Ms. Snay confirmed that the fire department is on the review committee and had reviewed the site plan and the applicant addressed any issues to their satisfaction. Ms. Orben also stated that they should consider lowering the speed limit on Palomar Drive so that the applicant can have an exit at that corner rather than all of the traffic existing onto Lakeside Drive. n provided by Hazen and Sawyer and question their reports. She also stated that Lakewood Park Elementary School is already at capacity and with the law for smaller class sizes; this project will only make the situations worse. Mr. Lounds questioned if Ms within Lakewood Park and is concerned that adding more homes will only make matters worse. Chairman Hearn stated that he believes the problems have existed in Lakewood Park for years and the residents are frustrated that nothing has happened to alleviate those issues. This project would only exacerbate the problems. Mr. Mark Dickerson stated that he has lived in Lakewood Park for 10 years and also owns an out parcel in the middle of the neighborhood. He stated that he does not feel having a buffer is appropriate because he wants to see his neighbors. He also stated that he feels this plan is a developer wanting to get a piece of land for a cheaper price and then increase the density to make a huge profit. He stated he is against developing the land to this extent. Ms. Eileen Novak stated that she has lived in the area since 1979 and has been there to see all of the many times the area has flooded. She stated that she feels the houses in Lakewood Park are already crowded together enough and does not feel having a development like this is appropriate. She stated that she is also concerned about having only one exit out of their community onto Lakeside Drive. Mr. Greg Kauffman stated that he is a Lakewood Park resident and is against approving this type of development because it is not compatible with the surrounding area. He P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 12of 19 continued that the preservation of the Oak Hammock is a wonderful thing but having birms and a landscape buffer is not. He also stated that having a community like this makes it seem like it is a gated community, which does not make is part of Lakewood t he is concerned over only having one way in and out of the development. He also questioned if the applicant did a regional study of traffic in the area because there are many existing problems in the area. He stated that this developer should also take into consideration the North County Charrette and the goals and compatibility with that proposed master plan. Mr. John Gallo stated that he is a realtor and has been working in Lakewood Park for 4 years. He presented pictures to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the northern, southern, eastern, and western views from the subject property. He continued that the applicant is not requesting the maximum density and that this type of development would add tax dollars to the County. He also stated that this community would be surrounded by mobile homes, duplexes, and some very old homes that are less than 1000 square feet. Chairman Hearn questioned what the subject property last sold for. Mr. Gallo stated that it sold for $375,000 over a year ago. Mr. Sal Magnano stated that he bought his house for $67,000 five years ago. He continued that his home is valued at $130,000 now. He stated that there are some people around that area that do not take care of their homes and hopes having a development like this come in would encourage them to. He also stated that this development would help to increase the property values in Lakewood Park, which is always a benefit. Mr. Jon Dennis stated that he lives on Hibiscus in Lakewood Park, but owns the property that is on the corner of Green Dolphin and Eden. He stated that the drainage is already failing throughout Lakewood Park and is concerned this will only cause more problems. He advised that his is against increasing density and would like to see this project denied. Chairman Hearn closed the public hearing. Mr. Bill McCain stated that the applicant is dedicating ½ of Hummingbird, ½ of Eden, ½ of Palomar, and all of the canal right-of-ways to the County with this project. He also stated that they would be retaining their stormwater on site, so there would not be any additional discharge, therefore actually helping the flooding issues. He advised that the density within Lakewood Park is 4 dwelling units per acre with ¼ acre lots. He stated that their proposed development is 3.95 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the density of Lakewood Park. He also stated that they have met all of the requirements of the Land Development Code, have worked continuously with County staff, and also have worked with public to address any concerns. He stated that Mr. Long has had several meetings with the fire department and has agreed to have each of his units installed with their own automatic sprinkler systems, which was approved by the Fire Chief. Ms. Hammer questioned how this project has a density of 3.95 dwelling units per acre if their side yards are only 10 feet wide. Mr. McCain explained that the density is an average after accounting for the 35% open space standard, and the conservation of the Oak Hammock. Ms. Hammer questioned what the average lot size would be. Mr. McCain stated they would be 62x85. Ms. Hammer stated that in Lakewood Park their lots are ¼ acre lots with an average lot size being 80x125. Mr. Lounds questioned if the applicant would be able to have more units on the property if not required to have open space. Mr. McCain stated they would get approximately 3-5 more lots under a standard grid design. Chairman Hearn questioned how many units he could get on the property if they did a layout more like Lakewood Park. Mr. David Kelly stated that it could be approximately 80 units. Chairman Hearn questioned if that would be possible with the preservation area for the Oak Hammock. Mr. Kelly stated that the preservation of the Oak Hammock would not be required under development through the straight zoning. He continued that under a PUD they are required to maintain open space, tree preservation, and a stormwater retention area, which are not required under straight zoning development. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 13of 19 Mr. Grande stated that no matter how the property was developed the drainage and flooding issues would still exist. Ms. Hensley stated that in the past the Planning and Zoning Commission and the public have asked that developers not move to the west for development. She stated that this is an infill project, which is what they have asked for in the past. She continued that the plan may have some slight design issues but have met all of the requirements of the County, as well as the requests of the community. She also stated that the developer should talk to Mr. Marty Sanders about possibly donating money for the School Board to the schools greatly and is an infill project. Mr. McCain stated that he would discuss donations with Mr. Sanders. Chairman Hearn stated that if there is too much infill it destroys the character of a neighborhood. Ms. Hensley stated that she feels open space is a necessity and this project has it. She stated that she could not disagree with the merits of the project. Mr. Trias stated that the community should expect quality and neighborhoods designed with basic urbanism ideas. Ms. Hammer stated that she is not in favor of infilling just for servicing them. She continued that it needs to be compatible with Lakewood Park and the existing flooding issues need to be a concern. Mr. Grande 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 deny the application of James T. Long, Skyline Building and Development, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Oakland Estates) Zoning District because the PUD plan, as presented in the application, would not be a positive addition to the community. It would be inconsistent with the surrounding community and is totally unjustified for this parcel in this area. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. inconformancy around some areas. He stated that he feels this company has brought some good ideas to this and satisfied their drainage needs. Mr. Grande stated that this property coming forward as a PUD is the right thing; however the design of the PUD is wrong. He continued that it should be brought back to them as a PUD again but with a revised, quality design, and consistent with the neighboring community. quality deserved by the County. He stated that the developer of this property could come back with a revised plan that is more compatible with the community that could be approved. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 6-1 (with Mr. Lounds voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 14of 19 AGENDA ITEM 5: OCEAN FOURS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FILE NO. RZ- 03-047 & PUD-03-030: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of Ocean Fours Development Corporation , for Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development approval for a 27-unit single-family residential subdivision to be known as Lone Pine Subdivision and a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District. The 16.7-acre parcel of land is located on the west side of Citrus Avenue, between Midway Road and Saeger Avenue, approximately 1,116 feet south of Mallard Court (North Fork Estates entrance). The subject property is designated with an RS (Residential Suburban) future land use designation that allows a maximum density of 2 du/acre. The proposed project is at a density of 1.69-units per acre. The project is designed with a central roadway system that loops throughout with one central access point for entrance and exit. The access point into the project is located on Citrus Avenue. The closest county arterial roadway to the proposed connection is Midway Road to the north. Based upon a review of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, th 6 Edition, the estimated vehicle trips generate as a result of this development will be 270 trips, based upon the 27 units of single-family detached housing. The St. Lucie County Spring 2003 Traffic County does not include Citrus Avenue within its current counts. However, the spring 2003 Traffic Counts includes the connecting link of Midway Road. Midway Road, in the vicinity of the Citrus Avenue Connection, has a current level-of- total of 1,681 of committed trips for a total of 19,781 trips. The total capacity for this roadway link is 33,200 trips. Therefore, there is a remaining capacity of 13,419 trips, of which this project will require 270 trips. This assumption is based upon all traffic is going to the north to Midway Road. Based upon this there is sufficient capacity within the vicinity of the site to accommodate the proposed project without significant degradation of the level of service. At this time, no offsite roadway improvements are required as a result of the proposed development. Citrus Avenue is a substandard county roadway that has one-lane of paved surface. In order to provide for expansion of the roadway surface an additional 30-feet of right-of-way along Citrus Avenue, between Midway Road and Saeger Avenue, is required to be obtained by the County. As part of the site plan review process, the applicant agreed to dedicate 15 feet of right-of-way adjacent to Citrus Avenue for these future roadway improvements. The Fort Pierce Utility Authority will be providing water to the project, sewer will be provided through septic systems. The applicant and staff received confirmation from FPUA that the installation of the municipal lines to this segment for the proposed project has been completed and there is a meter in place for this project. The internal design of the project will allow for a looped system, which should lower the development costs of the project. The proposed project is compatible with the character of the area and with the surrounding land uses. The property located to the north and east is being utilized as pastureland and groves, to the west is vacant land that is located within the floodway and to the south are single-family residential lots. Further to the north is the Northfork Estates subdivision; this subdivision was approved at a density of 3 du/acre which is higher than the requested 1.69 du/acre. The proposed project as a low intensity single-family development is consistent with the existing residential units along Citrus Avenue, south of Midway Road. moving the subdivision layout to the east in order to lines and roadways outside of the 100- design has incorporated the existing land features in order to preserve environmentally sensitive area onsite. County Land Development Code. In addition, to preserve additional trees on the site, the applicant has indicated that a deed restriction will be placed on the individual lots for this subdivision that will require the individual lots to satisfy the tree preservation requirements of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The proposed project site contains two wetlands (0.24-acre wetland along the western property line and a 0.04-acre wetland located within the northeastern portion of the site. The proposed project will preserve the larger 0.24-acre wetland and mitigate for the removal of the 0.04-acre wetland. The total onsite mitigation will be 0.48 acre and include enhancement of wet prairie wetlands and transitional wet prairie wetlands. Maintenance activities will include treatment and P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 15of 19 removal of all exotic and nuisance vegetation. Monitoring will take place over a 5-year period from the conclusion of all initial maintenance activities and any necessary planting activities. The site contains a large strand of Brazilian Pepper located along the easternmost property line. As part of the site design the exotic vegetation must be removed. The applicant has incorporated the stormwater lake feature within this disturbed area. Overall 5.86 acres of the site (35.09%) of the total site has been set aside as open space. In addition, the site design incorporates a number of existing trees within the open space areas. As part of the site plan process, the developers and staff worked together to redesign the site to preserve onsite vegetation within its natural state and to locate the lot lines in a manner which establishes the buildable area away from the existing trees. This proposed change in zoning and the accompanying Planned Unit Development site plan is consistent with the existing and proposed uses within the area. The property located to the north of the subject property is currently utilized as pasture land. Further, to the north is the Northfork Estates subdivision which was developed at an intensity of 3 dwelling units per acre. The property located to the east is currently being utilized as an active producing grove. The property to the south was previously subdivided into individual residential home sites and the county through the Environmental lands program purchased the property to the west. The proposed low- density single-family residential project is considered to be consistent with the existing and proposed land uses within the area. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit 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 subject to the conditions found in your report. Mr. Grande questioned if this applicant could have a grid development concept with the existing AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning & RS (Residential Suburban) Land Use. Ms. Snay stated that this area was previously platted with a single property owner so they are considered non-conforming lots of record. Chairman Hearn stated that the current zoning on the property is AR-1 and questioned how they were calculating having 27 units. Ms. Snay explained that the future land use allows for a density of 2 units per acre and since the parcel is 16.7 acres, and the request is for a PUD, the 27 units are allowed. Mr. Trias stated that he felt this plan was isolated with no connectivity and does not follow any large scale planning ideas. Chairman Hearn questioned if the applicant or their representative were present. Mr. Al Brodeur, Thomas Lucido and Associates, stated that he represented the applicant. He advised that the applicant wanted to save as many trees as possible on the property and shifted his entire project to the east to preserve the western area and use as open space. He also stated that the applicant wanted to maintain a rural feel as well as saving the trees. He stated that the project has cul-de- sacs because with the standards that needed to be met for roadways they would not be able to develop the property. He also stated that the applicant donated 15 feet on Citrus Avenue to help the County need their estimated 30 feet for road widening. Mr. Grande questioned that if FPUA was providing utilities for the project was the applicant required to sign an annexation agreement. Mr. Brodeur confirmed that the applicant was required to sign an agreement stating that once the City becomes contiguous they would be required to annex. Chairman Hearn opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Long, a resident of White City, stated that they already have substandard roads and they cannot handle any additional traffic. He also stated that the residents have been requesting stop signs out there for some time and have never been successful. He stated that he feels this project should not be approved until the entire existing roadway and maintenance issues are taken care of. Mr. Nick Carone stated that he owns the property that is two parcels to the north of the subject property. He stated that he too has given 15 feet to the County but the problem is that everyone on the east side would need to give the 15 feet too but they have not. He also questioned if the applicant starts with septic tanks where the seepage would go since there is a wetland very close by. Mr. Barrington Brown, LBFH, stated that you can have septic with city water on a 10,000 square foot lot. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 16of 19 Mr. Kevin Browley, President of Ocean Fours Development Corporation, stated that he loved the rural character of White City. He continued that his development would have larger lot sizes with a large wooded area because he is preserving the trees. He stated that they are relocating 108 trees on site with 41 oak trees along the roadway to keep the rural feel. He also stated that their only option for developing the property required that they have cul-de-sacs, which is compatible with North Fork Estates. He stated that he would be more than happy to meet with all of the neighbors to discuss his plans. Ms. Hammer sug after he meets with the neighbors. Mr. Browley stated that he did not want to have his application tabled and requested to continue with the hearing. Ms. Kay long stated that having a development with this many houses out there is not in character with the neighborhood. She continued that the area is very rural and that there are cow pastures behind the subject property. She stated that this project does not fit in. Ms. April Row-Rodgers stated that she has grown up in that area and wants her children to be able to enjoy White City the way that it currently is. She continued that she is a fourth generation member of the family who has lived there and does not want the area overdeveloped. She also stated that the area is made up of homes on several acres and having ¼ acre lots that could be rented out was not compatible with the area. Ms. Cheryl Denmark-Row stated that she has concerns over the safety of Citrus Avenue. She stated that the road needs major improvements and adding more problems will only make the problems worse. She also stated that the developer should be working with the White City Improvement Club to be sure his plan meets their standards. Mr. Jim Totten stated that his two sons take the bus to school at a stop on Citrus Avenue. He stated that it is a dangerous road that is not maintained and adding additional traffic was not safe. He continued that he feels this project is too early and should wait until after the roadway is widened and maintain before submitting any plans for development. Chairman Hearn closed the public hearing. Mr. Al Brodeur stated that the developer has worked with the school district and would be putting a shelter off of the roadway on Citrus for the children waiting at the bus stop. He also stated that this project is within the Urban Service Boundary, provided an Environmental Impact Report and did not want to develop under the standard zoning because it does not allow for tree preservation and the applicant wanted that, which is why they submitted a PUD. Mr. Akins also suggested that the applicant table his request until he has had an opportunity to meet with the surrounding residents. Mr. Browley stated that he would be more than happy to meet with the neighbors and show them his plans and discuss why he has decided to do this, but did not want to table his request. Ms. Hammer stated that since the developer is going from a density of one unit per acre to 1.69 units per acre they should be required to demonstrate that their plan would be a substantial improvement to the community. Mr. Browley stated that he feels his plan is a substantial improvement to the community because they are preserving trees and the wetlands, providing an open space area for recreation and a lake to maintain the rural look and feel of White City. Ms. Morgan stated that she drove down the road and had to pull over when another car drove by because she was afraid she would end up in a ditch. She stated that she too believes the developer should have met with the surrounding neighbors before bringing his petition to them. Mr. Grande stated that he is against this petition because of forcing future owners to annex into the City of Fort Pierce in order to have water. Mr. Browley stated that there is nothing involuntary about buying a lot in his development and that he would make sure that the potential buyers are aware of the annexation agreements. Ms. Hammer stated that she feels those them to decide against buying. Mr. Lounds stated after considering the testimony presenting 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 Ocean Fours Development Corporation for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 17of 19 Development Lone Pine) Zoning District because think it is consistent with the Citrus Avenue can handle any more development in that area. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 18of 19 OTHER BUSINESS / DISCUSSION: The next scheduled meeting will be August 19, 2004. No other business or discussion. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted: ____________________________________ Dawn V. Gilmore, Administrative Secretary P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting July 15, 2004 Page 19of 19