Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-28-2004 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Local Planning Agency REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 28, 2004 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Knapp, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Akins, Mr. Trias, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Hearn. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Morgan, Mr. Grande, Mr. McCurdy, and Ms. Hensley. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Ms. Katherine McKenzie-Smith, Assistant St. Lucie County Environmental Resources County Attorney; Amy Mott and Vanessa Bessie, Division , Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Planning Technician; Ms. Faith Simpson, 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 Mr. Akins. 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 6:07 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS / DISCLOSURES: 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. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 1 of 16 The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has specific questions. The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. There were no announcements or discussion. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 2 of 16 Agenda Item 1: Stanley Klein File No. CU-04-011 Mr. Flores gave staff comments regarding the petition as follows: Stanley Klein, This was an Application of for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of Landscaping & Horticultural Services (Commercial Plant Nursery) in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District for 2.26 acres of property located on the West side of Oleander Avenue, directly south of 6001 Oleander Avenue and north of 6007 Oleander Avenue. Landscaping and Horticultural Services are allowed as conditional uses in the AR-1 Zoning District subject to conditional use approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The subject property is vacant at this time. Provided that the proposed conditional use, the operation of a commercial plant nursery (landscaping and horticultural services), is done in accordance with applicable laws and best management practices, this activity is not anticipated to have any negative effects upon any adjacent lands or interests. The Location of the property is on the West side of Oleander Avenue, directly south of 6007 Oleander Avenue and north of 6009 Oleander Avenue. s Zoning District is AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre). Future Land Use is RU (Residential Urban). Parcel Size is 2.26 acres. Proposed Use is Landscaping & Horticultural Services (Commercial Plant Nursery) Surrounding Zoning are AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) to the west, north, and south. RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/acre) to the east across Oleander Avenue. The general existing use surrounding the property is vacant and residential. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to 5 limiting conditions: 1.The applicant must retain a minimum 20-foot buffer along all property lines so as to not encroach on adjacent residential properties. Said 20-foot buffer shall have an 8-foot wall as required between residential and non- residential uses. 2.The applicant may obtain letters of release from the adjacent property owners to support a waiver from the Board of County Commissioners of the 8-foot fence requirement between residential and non-residential uses along this property line. 3.The applicant must obtain a waiver of the 8-foot fence requirement from the Board of County Commissioners or provide for the fence along the property lines. 4.The removal of any native vegetation shall require a Vegetation Removal Permit issued by the Environmental Resources Division. 5.Only plant material grown on-site may be sold. Adjacent neighbors have submitted a petition indicating their support of a waiver from the 8-foot wall requirement (Exhibit A). P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 3of 16 Mr. Kelly stated that in the AR- operation it was to establish the ability to grow plants on site, and of course, they would have to be sold. But to bring others on site and open a either wholesale or retail outlet Chair Hearn asked for clarification of the Residential Estate 1 Zoning District versus the Residential Estate 2 District. Mr. Kelly stated that in the Residential Estate 1 District landscaping and horticultural services were conditional uses, they were not in the Residential Estate 2 District. Mr. Klein gave testimony that he resided in Port St. Lucie, he wanted to plant some trees on the p any traffic or potted plants; he would grow some palm trees in the ground and in three or four years sell them. After he had some palm trees in the ground, seedlings and he was told he needed to get permission for what he was doing. Mr. Lounds asked him if he was okay with these five conditions. Mr. Klein responded that he was okay with them. He had already received letters from his neighbors that they would prefer to see the palm trees than an eight foot fence. Mr. Knapp question staff if he were to sell that property later, would that zoning stay for the new owner who would be entitled to more of a nursery operation than what Mr. Klein was looking to do. Mr. Kelly responded that the conditional use would go with the land, the new owner would have the ability to continue with the operation, but he would be bound by the same conditions. Chair Hearn opened the public hearing. Sheila Morocco who lived directly across the street from the Klein property stated that Donna Rhodes who lived in Fort Pierce and travels that road 4-5 times per day and over the last seven years saw nothing but snarls, weed, whatever; now there was a beautiful Chair Hearn closed the public hearing. Ms. Hammer stated, after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing including staff comments as revised and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 St. Lucie County Land Development code, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Stanley Klein for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Landscaping and Horticultural Services (Commercial Plant Nursery) business in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District because it will be an enhancement to that area as per testimony of the neighbors and will not be a blight on the community. Mr. Akins seconded. Upon a roll call vote the Motion approved with a (6-0) vote (with Mr. Grande, Ms. Morgan, and Mr. McCurdy absent), and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 4of 16 Agenda Item 2: Armortec Concrete Plant File No. CU-04-013 Mr. Flores gave staff comments regarding the petition as follows: This was an Application of Armortec Concrete Plant, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a concrete manufacturing facility in the IH (Industrial, Heavy) Zoning District for 3.61 acres of property located at Lot 5 of the Midway Industrial Park. The applicant has applied for the requested conditional use in order to operate a concrete block manufacturing facility from the subject property. This activity is allowed as a conditional uses in the IH Zoning District subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Application of Armortec Concrete Plant, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a concrete manufacturing facility in the IH (Industrial, Heavy) Zoning District. The Location of the property is Lot 5 of Midway Industrial Park, Phase I. The Zoning District of the property is IH (Industrial, Heavy). The Future Land Use of the property is IND (Industrial) to the north, south, east, and west. Parcel Size is 3.61 acres. Proposed Use is Concrete Block Manufacturing Facility. Surrounding Zoning is IH (Industrial, Heavy) to the west, east, and south across Orange Avenue. The general existing use surrounding the property is vacant and industrial. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. He explained that on the site plan there was a label for future Jenkins Road Extension, Chair Hearn opened the public hearing. was okay with it. or or against, he was curious where they were going to get their materials from; were they going to batch their own concrete or have somebody bring it in to them, and were there going to be a bunch of trucks coming in and out of there. Ken McAllister, Armortec responded that it was a concrete batching facility, raw materials. They would be doing the same thing as their Matt Stone. It was also the same product being used for the FEMA projects, such as at the Indian River Project. Basically concrete block operation, wet/dry cast. There would be a lot of trucks, aggregate sand and cement. The vast majority of their product would be Armortec Erosion Control for channels, lakes, rivers, streams; they also made standard building blocks like Rinker. Mr. Lounds asked what kind of traffic they anticipated daily. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 5of 16 Mr. McAllister stated that they were looking at 3-5 trucks for raw materials and probably depending on the job, like the FEMA job would take about 10-15 trucks per day, just to handle that one job. It would vary depending on the time of year and the projects. Most of that traffic would be in the morning and off and on during the day. For the FEMA job most of the traffic would go out right down Midway straight out to the Indian River Project. But the raw materials would come in by truck off of I-95. Mr. Knapp asked if there was a turning lane on Midway Road where the trucks were going to come in and out. right turn. Mr. Knapp asked if there were plans for the County to put in a turning lane. Mr. Kelly stated that there was a whole project to look at the design of that roadway and the greater project. Mr. Lounds asked if there was going to be a traffic light put up across from Rinker to help control the flow; there was good business in the area, also a good place for an industrial park, but the more traffic added to the park and other areas, those turn lanes would become important. Chair Hearn closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds stated, after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing including staff comments as revised and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Armortec Concrete Plant for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a Concrete Manufacturing Facility in the IH (Industrial, Heavy) Zoning District because I think this is a good location for this plant, I think it is well placed in the area. I do make a comment on my motion that the County Commissioners be aware of our comments concerning the turning lanes on Midway Road, not to penalize Armortec, but to let them know that we feel like as this industrial park increases, that is going to be a particular need. Mr. Trias seconded. Upon a roll call vote the Motion approved with a (6-0) vote (with Mr. Grande, Ms. Morgan, and Mr. McCurdy absent), and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 6of 16 th Agenda Item 3: South 25 Street LLC (Oak Alley) File No. RZ-04-022/PUD-04- 019 Mr. Kelly gave staff comments as follows: th The application was for South 25 Street LLC., for Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the project known as Oak Alley and for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Oak Alley) Zoning District. th The Location of the property was on the West side of South 25 Street, immediately north of Canal No. 102/Devine Road, south of the Palm Lake Gardens PUD. The Zoning Designation of the property is AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre). The Proposed Zoning of the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development Oak Alley). The Land Use Designation of the or property is RS (Residential Sub-Urban). Parcel Size is 70.56 acres. The Proposed Use for the property is 57 detached, single-family unit residential subdivision (gross density of .84 du/acre) with a 2.13 acre (3% of gross land area) non- residential component (max. 15,000 square feet of building) to be developed as Planned Development project. The Surrounding Zoning of the property are PUD (Planned Unit Development Palm Lakes), I (institutional) and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) to the north; AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) to the south; RF (Religious Facilities), I (Institutional) and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) to the east; AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) to the west. The Surrounding Land Uses are RS (Residential Suburban and PF (Public Facilities) to the north; RS (Residential Suburban) to the south, east and west. Bordering the project site to the north is the Palm Lake Garden residential community, the Bible Baptist Church of Ft Pierce, Happy Hearts School/ Pre-School and the Spiritual Path Center. Along the properties south parcel line, lies a 100-foot FP&L easement that runs the entire length of the south property line. South of the subject parcel is NFSLRWCD Canal No. 102, and Devine Road. The areas south of Devine Road are predominately single- th family residential on variable sized lots and parcels. To the east lies South 25 Street, and east of that are the Winding Creek S/D, and the Faith Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce. To the west of the site is Christensen Road, which has a few large lot residential tracts located along its frontage. Mr. Trias asked where exactly was the non-residential component. Chair Hearn asked staff if the residential density of the property included the property that was going to be used for commercial purposes. Staff responded yes with just over two acres being the commercial property. Chair Hearn opened the public hearing. Bill Blazak, Senior Project Manager for Culpepper & Terpening, presented Oak Alley for a preliminary Planned Unit Development approval. He introduced the project development team - Haze Henderson with Houston Cuozzo Group, Paul Izzo, EW Consultants, environmental consultant, and Bobby Klein with Klein and Dobbs. Mr. Blazak went through the PowerPoint presentation. (See Attached Exhibit B). Oak Alley would be developed at 40% of what was otherwise permitted by the County. The Oak Alley development density was consistent with the current zoning density on the property. The master site plan and drainage was to canal the structure it goes through and P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 7of 16 some of the surrounding areas. The Oak Alley site was not in the hundred year floodplain. The outfall would be in the North St. Lucie Water Controlled District Canal 102. Post development runoff would not exceed pre-development rates. There was one wet area, a non-jurisdictional area along the north property line that would be improved to the point where it no longer represented a local hazard. Long term maintenance would be the responsibility of the Oak Alley property owners association. Concurrency reviews, schools, they anticipated 21 new students, off-site school bus access and pickup with a weather shelter and that same pickup would also serve a purpose for public transportation in the future would be provided. The developer to pay the school district a sum of $490/unit to address the long term capital needs not covered by impact fees and th other ad valorem assessments. Roadways, within the four lane of south 25 Street to begin in 2005, no adverse effect on level of service capacity were expected. Roadway designs would provide for north bound left turn into the residential portion of the site and the non-residential area would be limited to right in, right out. No access was proposed to either Divine Road or Christensen Road except for emergency vehicle use only, which would be FP&L and the fire through the FP&L easement. There was one residential driveway connection on Christensen that would occur with this for a single lot that would be established. Utilities, water and sewer service would be provided by Fort Pierce Utility and the community was subject to future annexation in the City of Fort Pierce. No special requirements for the development of this project had been requested. They had contracted with Florida Archaeological Services for phase one review of the property. No archaeological sites were observed and the one house on the property had been determined by Florida Archaeological Services not to qualify for historical designation. The structure would be removed from the property. The hurricane set them back, as soon as they receive the official report, they would forward it to the County. Ms. Hammer asked the applicant to explain a little more about the house that would have the driveway from Christensen Road, would it connect through a pedestrian walkway. She also asked why on the plans the sidewalk was only on one side of the top cul-de-sac, ll the way around. Mr. Blazak responded that there was an existing home there now with one driveway. driveway connection there on that one lone lot, and it would not interconnect with the roadway system into the project. He also stated that there would be pedestrian trails throughout the whole entire length of the project along the FP&L Easement. Mr. Blazak said that it was only on one side of the street. He stated that on their corrected plan the sidewalk was on both sides of the street except at the entrance road because none of the homes or residence driveways backed-up to the entrance road. Chair Hearn asked the petitioner to make the corrected site plan available to the City of Fort Pierce for review before it would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners and they agreed to do so. Mr. Blazak said they had a public meeting and had noticed all the surrounding property owners within a 1,000 ft of the project and met with them and provided the same information to them with handouts and answered their questions one on one. There were eight residents that showed up, they were concerned about the flooding, trees, and wanted the cows to stay, they were told the cow nice project. Mr. Hearn asked if the Conservation Easement was going to be open to the public. Mr. Blazak responded no, that there would be specific guidelines for those 40 ft buffers between the homes so that they could not be removed as well. Ms. Hammer suggested that it be made very clear when someone bought the lot that the it talked about coming out of the development, how far down did you have to go in order to make that u-turn? P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 8of 16 Mr. Blazak responded that the u-turn was at Divine Road, about 500 ft. Ms. Hammer suggested that the developer have discussions with FP&L regarding their lines as they were putting together a package about what went wrong and what they needed to do and changes and were submitting it to the Utilities Commission at the State level. She asked about the size of the homes, square footage, price range, and would th there be a fair share contribution from the developer for improvements to 25 Street. Mr. Blazak responded that the homes would be 2,500 3,000 sq. ft., with a house sitting on a lot the price would be $400-500K; and they had no plans to contribute to the th improvements of 25 Street. Mr. Blazak said there was a concurrency approval from Mr. Marty Sanders of the school th board, he was in agreement with the contribution of $490/unit. He also stated that 25 Street would be widened to four lanes in 2005. Chair Hearn asked Mr. Blazak to explain the terminology, building envelope. Mr. Blazak explained that a building envelope was the area in which you could build a home in. He also stated that it was a gated community. Mr. Knapp asked if it was going to be a deed restricted community where there was going to be deed restrictions for the homeowners on what they could do. Mr. Blazak said that there would be strict architectural guidelines to ensure that the whole project and the uniqueness of the environment would be maintained. That the theme of the homes, the Florida vernacular with the soft roofs and everything else that carried through that to compliment what existed there today. There would be strict guidelines for building. Chair Hearn stated that this was a public hearing if anyone wanted to speak for or against the project. John Ferrick, read into the record a letter from North Fork Property Owners (Exhibit C). For himself he was in agreement with the project. John Owens, owned property directly east of the project and had questions regarding drainage, standards on house, what was going to be done with the u-turn. Ms. Hammer asked if it was this project where the wetlands were going to be corrected so that they would hold one and one-half time the amount of water. Mr. B pre because they were going to create storage in there. Billy Johnson, owned all the land to the west of the property on the other side and another piece that is to the south, almost to the middle, spoke in agreement of the project. Chair Hearn closed the public hearing 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 th approval to the application of South 25 Street LLC, for a Change in Zoning from AR-1 Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Oak Alley) Zoning District including all the proposed conditions and recommendations from staff. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved by a vote of 6-0 (with Mr. Grande, Ms. Morgan, and Mr. McCurdy absent) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 9of 16 There was a two minute recess. Chair Hearn polled the board to see if anyone objected to hearing Agenda Item 5 next. Motion by Ms. Hammer to hear Agenda Item 5 next. Seconded by Mr. Lounds. All were in favor. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 10of 16 Agenda Item 5: Single Family Homes in RMH-5 Zoning District Ordinance 04- 033 Katherine McKenzie Smith, Assistant County Attorney What the ordinance would do is allow an RMH-5 Zoning which is Residential Mobile Home Zoning District in the Land Development Code it would allow single-family detached dwellings to be a permitted use. Chair Hearn asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. Hammer asked if this was to place a mobile home back if it was destroyed or fell apart, were they going to put these little miniature things elsewhere as permitted use or just as a replacement. Mr. Kelly said he understood it to allow the replacement as she indicated, but not only replacement of those that were damaged in the storm, but over a long period of time replacement of any or all mobile homes in the RMH-5 District. His concern in the RMH- 5 District the minimum lot size was really consistent with single-family homes in their areas. The minimum lot size was 75 ft of width, there were mobile home parks zoned RMH-5 that had much smaller lots, not many cases the older parks and they had been Grandfathered in and he had a concern for trying to place conventionally real structures on 30, 40, 50 ft wide lots in those parks. He felt there needed to be additional staff discussion about it before it got to the County Commission and possibly put some wording in it. Chair Hearn preferred having a concrete block structure or stick house replacing the mobile homes that already existed, because he would rather have a solid built quality home in place of that mobile home. Mr. Trias stated that his concern was that the building would be very small and probably those parks were not going to be mobile home parks anymore and they were going to be redeveloped as something else. He felt that if they encouraged the small scale infill, then they were not allowing for that transition to happen. Mr. Kelly said that damaged mobile homes could be replaced, but they had to be newer mobile homes that met code and more likely to withstand the events that they had seen in the recent past. Ms. Young said it was her opinion that if a mobile home was to be replaced with a concrete block home, even if the lot, even if the mobile home park was created at a time when perhaps the dimensional requirements were less, that with the new structure you would be changing that use on the property; the current setbacks would then apply. If the lot would not accommodate the requirements of Section 7.10 for RMH-5, then a home could not be placed there; however, another mobile home could be placed there. The separation requirements in an RMH-5 were not great, it was how wide did it have to be in order for the fire department to get through between the different structures. Joe Cissio, Plans Examiner II, St. Lucie County Building Department felt that the issue may should be addressed also with the fire department because there was going to be a certain separation required through the fire department between structure to structure requirements. Mr. Knapp stated he had some reservation voting for this. He understood there was a hurricane and people had things damaged and the people in mobile homes knew that that was possible. He had heard that a lot of the newer mobile homes that were purchased recently met codes and had not sustained as much damage as a lot of the older mobile homes. He was not going in and try to pass something to help a few people out here that could be evidently a long term problem from the mobile homes and the houses in the regulations on how it was going to work. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 11of 16 Chair Hearn said he would have a difficult time supporting this particular item without having specific lot sizes and setbacks and all that kind of stuff. sq ft lot size, 75 ft lot width, 30 ft roof, 25 ft setback, 15 ft rear setback, 10 ft side and 20 ft on the side corner. Those were the same dimensions as found in the setback in RS-3, RS-2, Residential Estate 2, -3 and RS-4. Chair Hearn asked if on a nonconforming lot, if a structure was over 50% damaged that structure could not be replaced. Ms. McKenzie-Smith responded that was generally true, but if there was a federally declared disaster, then the federal statutes might allow replacement of a structure, even Mr. Akins said that it was his understanding that the city had taken the position that any nonconforming areas over on the beach, if they were more than 50% damaged, they were not going to allow replacement. Mr. Trias said the replacement would have to meet current codes. Mr. Akins asked if this ordinance would allow for the option to replace an infill with either a permanent structure or a mobile home? Ms. McKenzie-Smith responded yes, Chair Hearn opened the public hearing. Jean Brennan stated she lived in Green Acres Subdivision. She wanted to replace her mobile home with a modular home or a CBS home. Mr. Cissio described the differences between a modular home and mobile home; a modular home was constructed under the Florida Building Code, it met all the criteria, 130 mile per hour wind zone that would be at I-95 or east. A mobile home was governed home, only meet 100 mph wind speed. The older mobile homes had no wind speed criteria to them at all. Chair Hearn closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt like Mr. Akin, now was an opportunity for to send a message to the County Commission that they did not want to have more mobile homes of the types that were in the past. Ms. Hammer said that in a conversation with Commissioner Lewis she had attended a meeting with a Mr. Wynne, and his testimony was that he could replace the mobile home with a cement block stucco structure at the same price as replacing it with a mobile home. If you could have a small cement block stucco home built for close to the price of a mobile home, then she would support going to a cement block stucco home, because it would be safer next time the County got hit. Ms. Hammer I move that we recommend approval with and please attach our concerns of this ordinance, changing No. 2 Permitted Uses Subsection C to Single- Family Detached Dwellings on conforming lots. Mr. Lounds seconded for purpose of discussion. Mr. Lounds asked what the motion and that change of permitted use C did to what staff was trying to get to. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 12of 16 up, if it was the intention to go to other lots, he thought the Board could deal with that. Legal staff was comfortable with the motion. Ms. McKenzie-Smith stated that mobile homes were heavily regulated by the federal government, and was recognized as a legitimate housing form and could not be completely gotten rid of; they had to meet the standards within the wind district. Upon roll call the motion was approved with a 4-2 vote (with Mr. Akins, Mr. Knapp against; Ms. Morgan, Mr. Grande, and Mr. McCurdy were absent). P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 13of 16 Agenda Item 4: Vegetation Protection & Preservation Ordinance 04-008 Amy Mott and Vanessa Bessie with St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Division summarized revisions made (Exhibit D). She also stated that once the ordinance was approved they wanted to make sure that they were in communication with the Property agriculture, they were going to have the information to hand out to them, as well as the information would be on their website. If there is a hazard on a property staff goes out to the property to verify what the hazard is, whether it could be pruned back to eliminate the hazard, they would recommend that recommend an insecticide method to cure the problem at that point. If it was truly hazard, diseased, they would allow it to come out and there would not be a fee on that. If they failed to get the Notice of Vegetation Removal, staff could tell by the condition of remaining debris that were left, neighbors, if nothing was left, staff could neighbors what was going on and what they thought about it. Most people had photographs of their property. If they found that somebody had taken advantage of the code and they had evidence of that, they would be taken to Code Enforcement Board and pursued as if they had cut down a healthy native tree. This ordinance affected everyone, Residential, Non-Residential, no matter what size the property was. This was strictly for the impacted, insect infested, diseased, hazardous trees. When they visited a property it gave them the opportunity to educate the owner about why natives were important, why non-natives were destructive as well as. It also gave them a chance to see if there was any wetland, Gopher Tortoises, any other endangered species or any other issues that might come up. If a pepper tree was removed and there was Gopher Tortoise burrows underneath of it, you would have violated State regulations. If pepper trees were removed in a wetland you would have violated State regulations. It also allowed staff to inform the owner of other agency regulations that were out there and the proper procedures that they would have to take. She went over the example sheets that was handed out (Exhibit E). Chair Hearn opened the public hearing. Bob Bangert who served on the Environmental Advisory Committee spoke in favor of the ordinance. A copy of their Minutes of their meeting held September 22, 2004 was provided (Exhibit F). A letter dated October 26, 2004 from Gail Kavanagh, Executive Vice President of Treasure Coast Builders Association was placed into the record as a request for delay in any decisions made (Exhibit G). Chair Hearn closed the public hearing. Mr. Trias 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 Ordinance No. 04-008. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon roll call the motion was approved with a 5-1 vote (with Mr. Lounds against; Ms. Morgan, Mr. Grande, and Mr. McCurdy were absent). P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 14of 16 OTHER BUSINESS / DISCUSSION: edule and a workshop in Miami scheduled for January 27-29 that was being presented by the local government commission and Penn State, it was supposed to be a smart growth workshop, multi- disciplinary audience of local officials, county, city, staff, landscape architects, developers, builders, planners, transportation, etc. see (Exhibit H). She wanted to know if the County would be willing to pay their registration. She wanted the schedule to be worked out to so that it did not conflict with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning order to work on them as soon as she got them. Mr. Stevenson said that the County had in the past paid for travel for P & Z members, and he would look into it. He also stated that he was aware of the aggressive schedule to finish the Charrette by September, 2005. They were to provide the staff with a calendar for all of those meetings and events but he had not seen it yet. He would be able to provide that information to the Board once they had a better idea exactly how many meetings and what schedule Treasure Coast was proposing. Staff would shorten the agenda and if they saw that there was going to be a particularly controversial long hearing, they would request a separate meeting for that. They had also to the fourth Thursday of every month. The reason being that would allow staff to not have two night meetings in a week that might run late. different places. Mr. Stevenson agreed, they were looking at additional staff very quickly which would help in getting the packets out early and enable revision of the staff reports and their formats. Chair Hearn said he would like to know what was coming up at the next meeting also. Mr. Stevenson replied that they would probably have a two month projection available, also later on online. It would be subject to change. To clarify the next Special County Commission Meeting is scheduled for November 15, not 18 as previously stated. Chair Hearn said he hoped before changing the Land Development Code to accommodate the North County Charrette, they would clearly define what their objectives were. The recommendation came out that we would give developers three credits for density transfers for every one they bought. That would be increasing the population in the County The next scheduled meeting will be November 18, 2004. No other business or discussion. P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 15of 16 ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Lounds made the Motion to Adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Trias. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Faith Simpson, Secretary Bill Hearn, Acting Chairman P&Z / LPA Regular Meeting October 28, 2004 Page 16of 16