Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-09-2004 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING December 9, 2004 rd Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Russell Akins, Charles Grande, Vice-Chairman, Bill Hearn, Pamela Hammer, John Knapp, Kathryn Hensley, and Carson McCurdy, Chairman. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Lounds and Stephanie Morgan, with notice; Ramon Trias without notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Ed Cox, Growth Management Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant Growth Management Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Diana Waite, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Ms. Faith Simpson, Administrative Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman McCurdy called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission 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 Chairman 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 Planning and Zoning Commission. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission has specific questions. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 1 The Planning and Zoning Commission 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 Planning and Zoning Commission members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2004 Hold till January 6, 2005 meeting as there are corrections to be made by the court reporter. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 2004 Motion to Approve by Ms. Hammer with corrections. Seconded by Mr. Hearn. All were in favor . P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 3: MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2004 Hold till January 6, 2005 meeting as it was not included in the packets that was mailed . P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 4: DOUG PHILLIPS FILE #CU-04-010 Mr. Kelly This is the application of Doug Phillips for Conditional Use permit to allow the operation of a child daycare facility in an existing church educational building at the Oleander Church of God in an I (Institutional) Zoning. The Oleander Church of God is located on Oleander Avenue at Kanner Drive which some of you may know used to be Tangelo Drive. It runs just south of the railroad tracks on Oleander. It is 2.3 acres; Conditional Use is for daycare are permitted in Zoning. The surrounding zoning is RM-11 (Residential Multiple-Family 11 du/acre) to the east and ID (Industrial) to the west generally and the land use pattern would be the same residential all around it to the east. A mix of single-family, duplex, triplex, homes and industrial uses to the west including a trust plant and couple of small industrial parks. Staff has reviewed the petition, finds that it meets the Standards of Review, the child care operation is currently being run with 42 students. The Code Enforcement Division has cited the church for operating the facility without the Conditional Use Permit. This petition is an effort to clear up that violation and to allow for up to 80 students in the future. Staff is recommending two limited conditions, one would be the hours of operation, 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday; the second condition would limit the enrollment in the daycare facility to 80 children. Staff does recommend approval. Mr. Hearn asked if a perimeter fence around this property between the residential and the daycare center was required. Mr. Kelly responded yes. Mr. Doug Phillips stated that they had lost their house in the hurricane and were currently living with people from the church. The address on file was 14. He stated that the initial complaint was that a fence be put up to separate their playground from the residential house just to the north of their property. Upon compliance with that Code Enforcement discovered that they did not have an occupational license. In their files, four years ago, the previous pastor had applied for occupational license and in the process he was told that to their attention they immediately made strides to be found into compliance. They operation for almost four years with the daycare and would like to continue to be in operation. They had city water, but also had well water for the sprinkler system. They were however, still on a septic system. They currently had 42 students enrolled prior to the hurricanes. They anticipate having 80 sometime in the future. All of their licensing comes through the Church of God organization. Chairman McCurdy opened the public portion of the hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments and the Standards of Review as set forth in 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 Doug Phillips for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a child daycare facility in the I (Institutional) Zoning District because it is consistent with the area and a necessary business. I would also include a single condition that it be demonstrated that it is fully licensed, plus the two conditions that are recommended by staff. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 5: FRANK W. & SANDRA F. LAGANA FILE #RZ-04-027 David Kelly This is the petition of Frank W. and Sandra F. Lagana for a Change in Zoning from the IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning District to the RM -5 (Residential, Multi-Family 5 du/acre) Zoning District. This is one of those that is hard to find because it is almost out in the middle of nowhere at the moment, but a number of things are happening around it. It is located on the east side of the extension of Lennard Road, approximately ¼ mile north of Prima Vista Boulevard on u head up that way to look for it, you development of a residential community which will be known as Lennard Trails. That proposal has only its entrance and one building on this parcel and I included a small scale site plan in your packets. What I would like you to be able to see from the drawing here is that Lennard Road runs north and south on the extremely western portion of the site plan. That will be the future alignment of Lennard Road. It is not yet there and in fact, the right-of-way that the County is any sense to try to construct Lennard up into that point yet because it would go nowhere. The County is working with that other owner and trying to figure out how to get that property so we can ultimately connect Lennard from Prima Vista up to Kitterman to the north. What we have is but this grey area down here is an approved project. It is approved in RM-5 called Prima Vista Commons and the intent is to come through that parcel, connect at this point, go through the parcel which is outlined in green, there is one building on that parcel, but to move forward into the remaining parcel which is already zoned RM-5 and proposed for that development. Most of the zoning out there is RM-5, this development was approved as an RM-5 development and the intent is to just take this area which was previously mined and is IX because of it, change the zoning to RM-5 to complete the link to go through to that development. then is just for the roughly five acres from IX to RM-5 to complete the link to develop the larger project. Staff has found that it is consistent with RM-5 and with the Land Development Code, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward it to County Commission with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Kelly stated that once the mines were done and reclaimed they typically got the IX zoning off of them. He also stated that there was no road into the property at this time, there was right-of-way going by to the front, but it was pointless to build a road until it could go somewhere. The developer was participating in a joint agreement in the area to construct the roadway, it was just premature to construct it. The petitioner was not present. Chair McCurdy stated that standard procedure when the petitioner was absent was not togo ahead. Mr. Grande asked if the project had an agreement with the project to the south which was an existing multi-unit residential rental area to allow all of the construction traffic and the heavy usage through that residential area to actually facilitate the construction of this project. Mr. Kelly responded that was his understanding and they would verify it right down to the legal documents through the site plan approval. Ms. Hensley asked that at sometime where it was appropriate, staff shared the draft plan with the proposed timeline for the Lennard Road extension from Easy Street down to Port St. Lucie Boulevard so they could put that in concept. Mr. Grande said that since the petitioner was not here he was concerned about the construction methodology since the major part of the development was not going to come back to the Board because it was not going to require a rezoning. Without being able to question the owner or P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 7 owners about how they intended to build it they would be dooming the existing development to the south to all of that construction traffic through their local street. Even though that was not enough for him to reject the application, he wanted the petitioner to explain that and explain the agreement with the owner to the south or what that relationship was before he approved this. He suggested putting off the hearing until the owner could come in and make his presentation. Mr. Kelly stated that staff had planned to schedule an additional meeting on January 6 and if they were to continue this hearing, a date certain was required. Chair McCurdy stated that they would continue the hearing to January 6, but would open the public portion to allow people that were present to speak either for or against. Traditionally when they had done that, allow them to speak next time at the next meeting. Chairman McCurdy opened the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Bratt who lived at 7550 spoke against the petition. He felt strongly about the location of the property, it was hard to find because it was an area of natural beauty, an equestrian area. The residents had not been given sufficient information on the matter to present any form of objection. To him hearing that the developer was contributing funds towards the road sounded like bribery. He was also uncomfortable that the distribution of the notification had been very minimal. There were people who lived one road away from him who hadno notification at all. He was uncomfortable also to hear that this was a gateway to a much larger project. They had being proposed to support, or what those buildings were going to look like. What was the proposed ownership status, were they going to be owner occupied? On the map it stated that this was a part of the savannahs. His understanding was that the savannahs was a protected area for natural beauty, for wildlife. He has to return to London on business and would miss the next meeting. He needed to see an overall proposal in comprehensive terms because he couldwas. He said that by hearing what was being proposed and forming an idea of the number of new residents that was suggested being implanted in an existing community; it was going to be a death sentence to the existing community, it was going to split the community, it was going to destroy the equestrian nature of that community. He urged the Board to defer this petition until such a time that the residents had full information, had been able to assimilate that information; put forward an argument, a defense, get a lawyer, whatever it took. Mr. Kelly responded that there were 13 pages of people who were notified. Florida had laws which required before a developer was able to develop, he must ensure that all necessary services were in place and they often required a developer to run water and sewer lines, construct roads. We had recently required developers to make payments over and above for schools, to make sure that items were in place so that when the residents got in those buildings that the services that they needed were there. The parcels bordered on the savannahs, but they were not in the area owned by the State. They were privately held. There was zoning on them and the land owner had some rights that ran with that land. T he had not really been able to look at a site plan and in those projects that were permitted by right. A site plan of this size ultimately goes to the County Commission, but that was an action that took place after the zoning and the zoning was what they were about that evening. Chair McCurdy stated that the ownership of the property was going to be Fee Simple. Mr. Grande felt that residents who live in the rural areas were not aware of what the future land uses were in this area and what the zonings were in this area. The people who were there now should have a good sense, and the people that were moving there, or are considering moving He felt that the County should organize something to inform people about wha Mr. Kelly stated that they would re-notice this petition, he would review the maps and see if they could go out a little bit farther. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Grande stated that because of the sensitivity of the subject, he would ask staff to check for any homeowner or civic organizations in the area and to send one or two extra notices to the organizations. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Grande, I move this hearing be continued until January 6, 2005. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion to continue passed with a vote of 5-1 (with Mr. Knapp voting against). Ms. Hammer said that she had to leave due to a prior family commitment. She wanted staff to get back to the Board regarding the conference in Miami at the end of January. She was interested in attending the workshop. There was a discounted rate if there were five individuals from the same county attending. Ms. Hammer left the meeting at 7:07 p.m. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM 6: VINCENT BARONE FILE #RZ-04-035 Mr. David Kelly This is a petition of Vincent Barone for a Change in Zoning from the CO (Commercial Office) to the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District. The location is 356 Midway Road which is immediately east of the fire station on East Midway Road. The parcel size is 1.83 acres. The purpose of the requested change of the stated purpose is to allow for retail nursery including lawn and garden supplies. Staff finds that that petition is in an area where it makes sense. In fact the future land use for the area is commercial and we really have very little problem with the change from CO to CM and would recommend it. The bigger issue is that this parcel is the subject of a code enforcement complaint. I have spoken with code enforcement and in fact I problem and we talked at some length this afternoon and the issue really is that he wishes to run a landscaping contractors business. He also does irrigation contracting. He buys pipes, he loads it up in the morning, he takes it out, and he installs sprinkler systems. Those are issues that are not allowed in the CN Zonin the other part of the business bout other alternatives for the other part of the business. But without going through all of those details we would recommend the approval of the CN Zoning. Mr. Grande asked if all of Germani Drive was Commercial. Mr. Kelly responded yes. Mr. Vincent Barone of 3382 SE Eastnell Road, Port St. Lucie; the property is 356 E Midway Road. They wanted to go to Commercial Neighborhood. They had a few complaints from an individual. They had spoken to some of the homeowners informing them of their intentions to clean up the place, to have a nursery, they were going to put landscaping in the front, also a privacy hedge. They have been in Port St. Lucie since 1988, theyThey had28 people working for them who lived in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County. They paid their taxes. Whatever they had to do to be good neighbors, they were willing to do it. They helped the people at the fire department clean up their facility after the storm. They were accused of dumping their stuff from work outside. When the police officer came, he saw that they were cleaning up not only the fire department, but their facility that was damaged by the storm. Any trash that they had, they took to the dump and paid for it. In short term or long term plans, this was going to be commercial and they fell right in line. They didn of the county. Mr. Grande asked if there was an operation currently running there and if it was in compliance based on the current zoning. Vincent Barone responded yes. Mr. Kelly stated they were not in compliance based on the current zoning and there were code enforcement actions going on at the site. Vincent Barone stated that they were in the process of purchasing the property and was scheduled to close on it on December 22. The previous property was destroyed and they had to either decide to go bankrupt, layoff 28 people, or make a quick move. They checked with this office to see if they could get a change in the zoning. They had a huge three-car garage to store all of their materials. They could not put up capital investment until they bought the place. There would be no structural changes to the outside of the building. It would be inside and all of the materials would be inside with the exception of trees, plants, flowers, and mulch. Chair McCurdy asked staff if that was going to work. Mr. Kelly responded no. The retail portion of the operation would be fine there under CN. Any portion of it that involved storage of materials that were loaded into trucks early in the morning to be taken out to another site for installation could not be there. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 10 Vincent Barone stated they would have to put that operation someplace else. Mr. Kelly explained that staff received an application that said it wanted to change CO to CN to have a retail nursery. Staff discovered the code violations well into the process. Mr. Barone would have to find another location to do the contracting business, but he would like to go ahead with the retail portion. Ms. Young confirmed that if the applicant was approved for CN the retail nursery part of it could continue. The contracting business would still be in violation under CN as it was under CO. Unless it was moved, that violation would continue and code enforcement would continue to pursue it until it was resolved one way or another. Vincent Barone responded that he understood. Chairman McCurdy opened the public portion of the hearing. Mr. James Thatcher of 102 Germani Drive spoke against the petition. His backyard was now parking lot. They parked 15 or 20 cars there. They started at 6:30 a.m., lighting up his whole house, his dog would bark get any sleep. He had pictures of dump trucks, bobcats, backhoes, loading lawn mowers, there was noise, banging chains. They had truckloads full of fertilizer back there. The law stated that fertilizer was supposed to be kept in open storage with a roof, they were all over the ground on pallets. They had wells there, the nitrate would go into the ground. This was not the place for that type of operation. They had poisoned his dog by spraying insecticide along the fence. He stated he wanted a 8 foot or 12 foot barrier fence up along the back of his property, if he was going to use the front lawn for a parking lot. After the storm he went in the backyard, palm trees were everywhere. Guys were on bobcats, backhoes running all over the place. He claimed that Mr. Barone did not have a nursery license, not registered with the Department of Agriculture, not supposed to be handling fertilizer, or have those chemicals. He had called every place he could get, they all said they hadThe fire department go out to inspect him, because they said that was a private residence, not until code enforcement told them there was a business there, they and inspect him. He renewed his license after he moved in there at his old address, down on Hoffman Road. But all of his industrial equipment was up on US Highway One where it belonged. Ms. Linda Kopp of 102 Germani Drive also spoke against the petition. In addition to the bobcats, backhoes, trailers, vans, pickup trucks there was also an old type garbage truck which he used to take out the palm trees and deliver them. A motor-home was also back there at some point. The materials were brought in, bags which she assumed that some were pesticides. They had a chain-link fence between properties which was sprayed. She had one pepper tree that was gone. They also had a number of palm trees, one palm tree turned all brown, but it came back. Everything on the fence, the vines and so forth, they all died, along with her dog. They went down at the tax collectors department on October 27, and asked them if he had an occupational license for 356 E Midway Road. He had an Occupational License which was renewed on September 19; he had falsified that document with his previous address, with the terms lawn care. The tax department explained to her that if he was lawn care, he dido have a license. Once he got into irrigation or whatever that step up was, he must have a license. He was called on the phone while they were standing there, the clerk called the phone number, the woman verified that they were at 356 E Midway, and that they did do irrigation. The owner of the company then called back and talked to the supervisor at that time and they were still there. When the supervisor got off the phone he indicated to her that do the irrigation, they contracted that out. She informed him that he would have to come back in on his occupational license form for renewal and relate that company to Controlled Landscape as a subcontractor. As of Monday, that had not been done. There were tires back there. She was in the back earlier and there wa of that palm tree was a pile approximately 4 feet high, approximately 3 feet wide that looked like fertilizer to her on the ground, not bagged. According to Florida Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency fertilizers as well as pesticides, had a regulated storage. For fertilizer must be, if it was stacked outside on cement pad, on pallets or asphalt, protected from the rain. She could no longer use her back porch; Jim had cancer, he had problems sleeping at night, he could no longer sleep in the bedroom, he slept on the other side of the house. Their whole lives had been turned upside down, whether he realized it or not. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 11 Mr. Hearn asked staff when was the application submitted, and what were the parking requirements for employee parking. Mr. Kelly stated that the parking requirements were based on the gross lease able area of the building, rather than on the employees. The application was received by the Growth Management Department on August 31, a few days prior to the hurricanes. Mr. Anthony Barone of 534 SW Sundance Trail, Port St. Lucie clarified some statements that were made. He said that they had all of their licenses, they had been licensed since 1988 in Port St. Lucie. They were licensed to do irrigation, and lawn care. As to the fertilization under code they were allowed to hold under 10K pounds of fertilizer. They were inspected and the fertilizer in question was stored inside the garage. They had less than 500 pounds. What the neighbor claimed was fertilizer being kept outside the facility, was nothing more than a pile of potting soil that was kept outside. operate the lawn care or irrigation business from the subject property. When they had looked at the property they were under the understanding that Neighborhood Commercial was what they had to do to operate all facets of the business. Now they were finding out different. The previous facility they were in lost the roof, had mold damage, and they could not operate out of the facility. They had no choice but to move. They were now going to rethink things and see what they needed to do. It was either throw in the towel or salvage their business that they had all worked very hard to keep. They had not sprayed any chemical along the fence. He was sorry that their dog died. He ve it was their doing that made their dog die. As to the parking of the cars, they never approached them that it was a problem, knowing now they would take some action to try to alleviate that. They would either have to separate the entities of the company and move certain aspects to another location or just keep the nursery at that present location. They had to see if it was economically feasible for them to do that. They may have to pull out of the sale altogether, they had to talk to all the partners of the company and see what they could work out. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Hearn - After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including 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 Vincent A. Barone for a Change in Zoning from the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District to the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District because it is not going to solve the issue of what he wanted to do there and I think it is going to be a severe impact on the neighborhood if this operation continues. Motion seconded by Mr. Knapp. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed for denial (with a vote of 4-1 with Mr. McCurdy voting against). P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 12 AGENDA ITEM 7: FIRST HAITIAN BAPTIST CHURCH FILE #RZ-04-040 Mr. David Kelly provi This is the petition of the First Haitian Baptist Church for Change in Zoning from RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) to the I (Institutional) Zoning District. The parcel size th is .43 acres. Location is 804 N 29 Street. These are two parcels, one on each side of Avenue th approximately 100 feet east of 29 Street. The parcel behind the church which will be a portion of the addition and a parcel across the street which will be for some accessory uses, the long run need that parking, but the requirements of the church are such that the physical space needs to be there. problem for them. They do wish to expand the church and that is what this is about. The request is from RS-4 to I. Staff finds consistency with the petition and recommends approval. We usually end up talking about an RF (Religious Facility) Zoning some in the discussion. The current church is zoned I, the request was to come in and zone it consistent with that, but through him about that when he is up here. Mr. Grande asked staff about when making a motion relating to this, even though it was an application for I and the motion being to approve RF without a voting down the I, how did that work. Mr. Kelly responded that they had generally indicated that RF was a subset of Institutional and that there was nothing in there that would not have been allowed in the Institutional, so they could just step down when they made the motion to RF. Mr. Grande also asked as it related to the two parcels being across the road from each other, although probably, technically, contiguous, but in the great scheme of things, were those two parcels or one. Mr. Kelly said that they road and would have been considered contiguous by their definitions. Mr. Alexander of 570 NW Ligon Circle, Port St. Lucie, gave his presentation on behalf of the church. They had been there since 1981 and the church was growing. They bought the first parcel that was behind the church. They were working with an architect who told them that they they went and bought the other one across the street. They were then told that they had to apply for a zoning change. Most of their members lived in thhave a problem with the neighbor and they had a nice plan to upgrade the building. They had about 100-125 members and trying to see if they could have a building that could accommodate 200 people. Mr. Hearn asked the applicant if he would be agreeable to the RF that would allow them to do what they wanted to do. Mr. Alexander responded yes. Chairman McCurdy opened the public portion of the hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of First Haitian Baptist Church for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District because it is consistent with the neighborhood and will allow the church to achieve its goals. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 13 Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 5-0). P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 8: HOME DYNAMICS LAND USE AMENDMENT - FILE #PA-04-010 Ms. Diana Waite provi Home Dynamics is requesting a change in Future Land Use Designation from Commercial (COM) and Residential Urban (RU) to Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use Designation. Residential Medium Land Use would allow a maximum of nine dwelling units per acre. The th property is located the southwest corner of the intersection of South 25 Street and Edwards Road. It consists of 35 acres. The proposed amendment is a modification of the app previous application for change in future land use designation to Residential High (RH) and Residential Medium (RM). That request was ultimately denied by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). I will note that the request that was denied by the BOCC was a modification of their original request to RH. By the time of the BOCC final adoption hearing the petitioner was requesting a combination of RH and RM which would have resulted in a maximum density of 369 dwelling units. Following that denial they submitted this application which will allow slightly fewer dwelling units, a maximum of 318. The applicant has also submitted a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application that is known as Frontera you have one of the conceptual plans in your package. That PUD application is still under review by staff, it will not be scheduled for any final action by the BOCC until after the land use is changed, if it is ultimately approved. Staff has reviewed the plan amendment for consistency against all elements in the Comprehensive Plan, it is particularly consistent with the future land use policy that require us to look at other uses within a quarter of a mile to ensure that there is a greater or same type of land use within a quarter of a mile. In this case we have commercial to the north on Edwards Road which would be considered a higher type of land use. We also have RM, which is th the Future Land Use that is being sought, on the northeast corner of Edwards and 25 Street; so it would meet that criteriareport and found it consistent. There th will be capacity available with the widening of 25 Street is completed. The applicant has provided a letter from the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) indicating that they do have th capacity and will be willing to provide services. The lines are currently located along South 25 Street. In closing, staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found it to be consistent with our local comprehensive plan as well as the state and regional comprehensive plan. The proposed RM Future Land Use Designation would allow medium density infill development in an area that has services to meet the demand of future development. Staff recommends that you forward the petition to the BOCC with a recommendation the application be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for further review. Mr. Grande disclosed that he spoke with a staff member regarding this petition. th Mr. Knapp asked if there was going to be an impact on 25 Street before it was widened. Ms. Waite responded that the transportation impact review, which was based on the concurrency management policies, stated that, if a road was programmed to be built within a three year period th that capacity is considered to be available. The construction of South 25 Street was scheduled to begin by the end of this year. Under the Land Development Code standards a Capacity was considered to be there and available if the road is going to be built within a three year period. Mr. Akins asked when would be the commencement date of this project, assuming everything went as scheduled. Ms. Waite responded that their site plan estimated February 2005 which was not going to happen because of the future land use amendment timeliness. If it is transmitted to the State, be an adoption hearing until after March or later and then following that there were other constructions permits that they would need to get. th Ms. Waite stated that if construction on 25 Street and construction of the project go forward at the same time, the project proposes an entrance point off of Edwards Road and they could utilize that for their construction entrance that could be a condition of approval on the PUD made at a later date. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, Attorney with Law Firm of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, 145 NW Central Park Plaza, Suite 200, Port St. Lucie, Florida made the presentation on behalf of his clients. With him were Mr. Mark Mathes of the Planning Firm of Thomas Lucido P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 15 and Associates, and Mr. Alejandro Delfino, representative of Home Dynamics which was the applicant. He broke the discussion into two parts. One focus on the land use amendment which was what was before the Local Planning Agency (LPA), but also touched on the PUD which was under review by staff and hopefully would be in front of the board next month. He focused on the land use portion. They were before this board not so long ago, the issues were essentially the same, they had modified it, they listened to the BOCC who listened to this board and they were back asking for a simple RM on the entire property. The property was essentially COM right now with a thin strip of RU which was essentially useless. The Planning staff and our consultants were of the opinion that this part of Fort Pierce and of the County did th acre tract of general commercial use. The fact that 25 Street was being expanded into a four lane major road, from far north of Fort Pierce down through Port St. Lucie and will continue to be a major north, south arterial, taking a lot of traffic off of US Highway 1 once those improvements were completedresidential up against a major thoroughfare, the County looked at factors such as major traffic impacts, major thoroughfares and transitioning where you have a higher density up closer to those major roads and then you ease back lower density as you get further away from those major roads. There is also future plan to four-lane Edwards Road. The major intersection of two major roads made it more appropriate for a higher density than necessarily a lower density. They felt that the residential would have less impact than the commercial on the neighborhood, there was less traffic impacts from residential, even at a higher density than there was from commercial. The traffic report that was submitted with the application supported that. There were sufficient urban services to support a higher density on the property; there was water and sewer that would be provided to the pro. They felt that they were was not withstanding just the future land use aspects, but the other aspects of the plan that looked for a mix of housing types in the County. There needed to be diversity in the community and places for people to find housing that meet their needs and wants and meet the market place. They felt they would help with the property values because it will show that people were willing to invest in the area, move into the area, and buy new housing. Home Dynamics focuses on in- fill developments, smaller parcels, less than the 300 or 400 mega PUDs. This was a 35 acre parcel and they were trying to fill a niche. They thought that the Land Use Amendment was fully compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and asked for approval and recommendation to the BOCC that they transmit it to DCA for further review. Their plan was to have the full package in front of the BOCC at the adoption hearing which would include the land use amendment, PUD, rezoning and site plan. Mr. Grande stated that this project had been consistently turned down, the message from the majority of this board and the BOCC had These units would sell at prices that would not contribute to the cost of servicing the units by the County. He had no problem with it being changed from commercial to residential, with the PUD in this area, but the density that they were asking for in exchange and the standard of the units e plan was inconsistent with the message that had been given to them before. Mr. Ferguson respectfully disagreed with some of characterizations. The last time it was before the board it had an RH component in addition to an RM component. The vote was 6-1 at this level; they went to the BOCC and the objection was not to the RM, but to the RH. They went back and changed it to be RM on the entire property. They lowered the number of units on the entire property. If the County had something between five units per acre and nine units per acre, maybe they would consider that, but they didnwas not appropriate for the property, in that location in the County, that close to the city. It was in his opinion that five units per acre would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it was currently written. The Future Land Use Map currently had the property as Commercial, County Planning Staff and the professional planners hired by Home Dynamics agreed that Commercial was no longer appropriate for the property. Everyone agreed that residential was more appropriate. Ms. Waite clarified the previous actions on the amendment. When it was reviewed by this board and recommended for denial, it was for a straight RH Future Land Use Designation and that would allow 531 units. Before it went to the BOCC, the applicant brought staff a proposal to P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 16 reduce the density by including a Residential Medium portion that resulted in a split designation that was only at the BOCC level. At the transmittal stage there was a split designation, by the time they finally got to adoption it was reduced a little bit more to 369. The Board ultimately denied a split RH, RM designation. like to mix the site plan and the speculation about how many units were going to be built. What we need to be evaluated at this time, is it appropriate to have Residential If it is appropriate to have residential here rather than commercial and at densities between five and nine. If this board thinks that it is appropriate, that the RM is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then they might forward a recommendation of approval. If the board thought that somewhere between five and nine dwelling units per acre is too dense for this corridor or it should remain commercial, then they should recommend denial. Mr. Knapp asked how far the property from Fort Pierce was. Ms. Waite responded that the City of Fort Pierce was very close. She pointed out the general location on a map. Mr. Ferguson added that there were two things to be looked at with the City of Fort Pierce, where their actual city limits were, and where they had annexation agreements with properties because they had gotten utilities from FPUA and had been forced into agreements. For example, the commercial piece on the northwest corner where there is a gas station subject to an annexation agreement; the assisted living facilities were subject to annexation agreements and there were several other parcels. As soon as one of those parcels sort of touched the city, it was like dominoes, they were all going to come into the city. This property would be within the city limits probably within two years, if not sooner, because it would also sign an annexation agreement in order to get water and sewer. Mr. Knapp asked how big were the lots and what were the values that they were going to be sold for. Mr. Ferguson responded that they were a mix of multi-family units and zero lot line single- family homes, all of which would be in fee ownership. It was not a rental apartment complex, they were town-homes . It would be whatever the market value was at the time. Ms. Hensley stated that the discussion that would need to be had before the PUD came forward so that there was an understanding with the school district as well as with the fire district and ould be incorporated in the next packet that they saw. She also stated that having sat on several committees over the last few weeks that dealt with housing and homelessness and all that stuff that had been exacerbating recently, thought that this had the opportunity to fill a niche in the housing market that had suffered some damage in the inventory of certain categories, so the location of this project in regards to MPO meetings and local coordinating board meetings and a variety of other committees that she sat on, this did seem to be a practical application and a practical location for what was needed in the community in the very near future. The things that had happened in the last few months had drawn that closer to the front burner about the need for the variety of housing that was coming forward and that need was going to probably grow considerably. Growth in the community may not make everyone happy, but there was a need to provide for was also to be taken into consideration for a variety of homeowners. Mr. Ferguson stated that theoretically, if the PUD was approved as they were proposing it at 318 units they were prepared to write a check to the school board and fire district in the amounts of $152K and $49K, respectively, which would be in addition to their impact fees. Those werethe current policy fees in lieu of the land donation of which this site was not large enough for either a fire station or a school. They dirt until June 1, firs the year, if not, first quarter of 2006; so theytheir th infrastructure construction would be consistent with 25 Street. The plan as they had drawn it P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 17 and as required by traffic engineering standards, there were two entrances into the project, one th on 25 Street and the other on Edwards Road, there would be improvements that would include turn lanes. There were discussions with County staff regarding a bus stop for the inter-modal traffic, transportation asked for possible consideration on Edwards Road and there would also be th a school bus stop on 25 Street that would be coordinated with the school district as far as the location. It would have a bus shelter for all the kids in the neighborhood because just because idattend. Mr. Akins asked what would be the expected build out date, assuming they started the first Mr. Ferguson responded 18-24 months. Mr. Hearn asked Chair McCurdy if the property as it was now zoned Commercial had to be pretty expensive. Chair McCurdy responded that the value was dependent on the highest and best use. Zoning was not always concurrent with highest and best use and what they had with this property was a market that said the highest and best use in this property was not commercial. Chairman McCurdy opened the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Mitzi Wise of 3121 Old Edwards Road spoke against the petition. want low- income housing in her backyard. She didould help the value of her piece of property, or the community. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Knapp stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners transmit the application of Home Dynamics Corporation, for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from the COM (Commercial) and RU (Residential, Urban) Zoning Districts to the RM (Residential, Medium) to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review because I think it fits the area, that it is going to be inside the city limits within a very short time. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion was denied (with a vote of 3-2) with Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, and Mr. Hearn voting against. P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 18 Other Business Next scheduled meeting will be the special meeting on January 6, 2005. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Faith Simpson, Secretary Carson McCurdy, Chairman . P & Z Meeting December 9, 2004 Page 19