Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-20-2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING January 20, 2005 rd Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 6:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Russell Akins, Charles Grande, Chairman, Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman, Pamela Hammer, Kathryn Hensley, Stephanie Morgan, and Carson McCurdy, John Knapp. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Lounds and Ramon Trias with notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Ed Cox, Growth Management Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant Growth Management Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Faith Simpson, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman McCurdy called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Chairman McCurdy wanted the record to show that Mr. Ramon Trias was absent even though he promised earlier that he would be in attendance. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman McCurdy gave a brief presentatio 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. 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 January 20, 2005 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: ELECTION OF CHAIR Chair McCurdy asked for nominations for Chairman. Ms. Hammer nominated Mr. Grande for Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hearn Seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. Chair McCurdy said since there was only one nomination, he asked for all those in favor and the motion passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote. Mr. McCurdy asked Chair Grande to proceed from this point. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR Chair Grande asked for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Ms. Hammer nominated Mr. Hearn for Vice-Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. McCurdy Seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. Chair Grande said since there was only one nomination, he asked for all those in favor and the motion passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: BAY PORT ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE #RZ-04-021/PUD-04-015 Mr. Flores stated that this particular item and also Agenda Item 3 which is also Bay Port continuation until the March Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Chair Grande Mr. Flores Yes, sir. Chair Grande Do we need a motion to continue that? Ms. Young You need to open the hearing and take any comments from anyone and let me check and see what that date would be. The letter says March 17. th Ms. Hammer Excuse me, I thought we were going to go to the 4 Thursday of every monthso ndthth move to 2 and 4 Thursday, the 4 Thursday being our regular meeting and if we needed an nd extra one, the 2 Tuesday night and then out late again Thursday night for us. rdstrd Vice-Chair Hearn I have to agree, I know the 3 week of the month, 1 and 3 Commission meetings at night we get home at close to midnight and then go to work the next morning and then we look forward to a P&Z meeting later that week and whatever else we have th in our life, I would feel more comfortable with the 4 th Chair Grande Does anybody have a problem with the 4 Thursday as the standard meeting night? Mr. McCurdy Could we ask staff how that works for them? rd Mr. Kelly Tuesday and the rd 3 Thursday fall in the same week thrd than not. Traditionally this board met on the 4 Thursday and it was moved to the 3 Thursday some time back. Late in the year there were a number of conflicts, Thanksgiving and Christmas, it was always and during that period of time we held one meeting for those two months early in December and combined them. The workload and the number of petitions probably preclude has a terrible problem with any particular night, but I guess the message that we have to work around. th Chair Grande It appears that we have no objection and no conflict with the 4 Thursday, is that right? Ms. Hammer Mr. Kelly went through one time and there were three or four meetings in the year that if we moved it we would still have two in the same week, so. rdth Chair Grande Tuesday and the 4 Thursday can be in the same week. rdth Mr. Kelly The 3 Tuesday and the 4 Thursday fall in the same week if the month starts on a Wednesday or Thursday. Vice-Chair Hearn Would it confuse things too much if we held our P&Z meeting on a different nd week than the 2 night County Commission meeting? Is that going to be too confusing for ndrd everyone? If the 2 night commission meeting falls in the 3 week, then we would have the th week, we would have the rd P&Z meeting in the 3 week. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 4 Ms. Hammer I think it would be better if we were consistent on and th the 4 Thursday, because it would really help in December; if you look at the November thnd Thursday, we would do the 2 , then it will give us two jammed up and December, if we have our special thnd meeting on the 8 instead of on the 22 Christmas is as we did the last time. Ed Cox, Growth Management Director I request you let us do this offline, we will consult with you Mr. Chairman and come back with a recommendation. Chair Grande s fine, is that okay with the rest of the board. Ms. Hammer Except we have to continue this one application to a date certain. Ms. Young I would suggest that you go ahead and set it and then if you want to change it at the rd February meeting you can do that. If you set it to the 3 unless you change your meeting. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Grande closed the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Morgan, I move that we continue the Bay Port Agenda Item No. 2 to March 17, 2005. Seconded by Ms. Hammer. Approved unanimously. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 3: BAY PORT ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE #RZ-04-044/PUD-04-038 Vice-Chair Hearn Could staff tell this board briefly how this property is going to be accessed Mr. Flores Well the Bay Port PUD (Planned Unit Development) and PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development) are accessed off of Midway Road. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Grande closed the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Morgan, I move that we continue the Bay Port Agenda Item No. 3 to March 17, 2005. Seconded by Mr. Hearn. Approved unanimously. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE #RZ-04-041/PUD-04-014 Mr. Hank Flores that this was the application of Gentile, Holloway, -1 (Agriculture, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Jenkins Road South) Zoning District. The subject property is approximately 90 acres in size and is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of proposed extension of North Jenkins Road and Floyd Johnson Road. The applicant is proposing a residence development 328 units consisting of 232 single-family lots and 96 townhouse units. The proposed project maintains 35% of the project area in total common open space, lakes contain approximately 19 acres, there is a 1¼ acre recreational area, and 10 acres of additional open space. The remainder of the project consists of those areas designated for residential development. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning district and preliminary planned unit development site plan are compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area. That this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Land Development Code, is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Conditions may be forwarded to the Board for their consideration as a part of the final approval. Vice-Chair Hearn asked what was the future land use of the surrounding areas in the residential areas, specifically. Mr. Flores responded that it was Residential Urban which allowed up to five dwelling units per acre. made the presentation. The land use of the surrounding area as well as the existing property allowed up to five density units per acre. The property had the potential of 450 units and they were proposing to develop only 328 units, a reduction of about 122 residential units that would not be built on this property. They were asking for a PUD, and would mix the unit types on the project. Some of the positive aspects oThey would construct Jenkins Road from the current point that it terminated right now which was approximately ¼ mile south of the Floyd Johnson Road and then they would nce which was about midpoint at the property. This was a great advantage and benefit to the area, because they would be actually constructing that road and providing the additional right-of-way for that road as well. The project was also providing the additional right-of-way that wa transportation program which was a 30 foot portion on those portions of the Floyd Johnson Road that were within the property boundary so that that road could be developed later in its established 60 foot right-of-way section. Some of the things they did with the site plan in regards to, meeting their open space requirements, in the townhouse development, they required to have a landscape buffer around the entire areas that were adjacent to other residential areas and the roadway. That buffer area was a 15 foot buffer that circulated the entire townhome area. They also, while not specifically required as buffer area, added a 20 foot landscape buffer around all the single-family residential development, around all the property boundaries in the entire project with an exception of the front area, where they extended it to a larger open space along Jenkins Road. This allowed the single-family lots that were adjacent to some of the other properties that eventually maybe developed later at the densities that were consistent with the area to have a greater separation and they would be landscaping that with a hedge material that would be maintained at approximately 6 foot in height; they would also provide canopy and palm trees to make a complete landscape buffer around the perimeter of the project. They would provide an entry feature with a gatehouse that would also allow for a turnaround in case there was a mistake going in there. They took great strides in the development of the plan to ensure that most of the single-family lots were not back to back, but were on an amenity, such as a buffer area or a lake tract that was within the development. They had provided only one access point on Jenkins Road with an emergency access point in the area, they were rededicating the 30 foot right-of-way just down in the corner of the townhome area, for emergency access only, in case there was a need for that in the future or at any such time that needed to happen there. They also provided a recreation area internal to the project, a street tree lined entry boulevard, sidewalks throughout the entire development, pedestrian connections, and crosswalks. They met all the minimum separations that were required for and by the code for the townhome units. They were not asking for any separation waivers in there. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Akins asked what were the targeted price ranges on the units. Mr. Gentile responded that they would start at around $200K+ for the townhome units and $275-$300K for the single-family. Mr. Akins stated that he had not seen a response back from the school board in regard to the project and inquired if they had had any communication with them. Mr. Gentile responded that they had not had any specific conversation with them at all. Ms. Hensley suggested very strongly that they got in touch with the school board as soon as possible as it would be essential for them to go forward that they had something in writing, an agreement with the school district in a favorable manner. Mr. Gentile responded that they had all intentions of cooperating with whatever their needs were and what they may request within reason of the project, similar to other projects like this. They would do so prior to the County Commission review of the preliminary plan. He also stated that they had a number of discussions with the Fire District. Mr. McCurdy asked what was their actual time frame for completion of Jenkins Road. Mr. Gentile responded that they typically requested that they be able to continue with their development on the site at the same time that they were doing Jenkins Road and that they would not obtain any CO (Certificate of Occupancy) on any building product in there until Jenkins Road right-of-way was completed up to the entrance way, including the utilities. They were going to bring the utilities all up in there as well to that area from Orange Avenue. Mr. Akins inquired if there was an Annexation Agreement with the City of Fort Pierce. Mr. Gentile responded that they did. He reiterated that they were negotiating with the Fire District for their needs as well. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Greg Denison, 5960 Floyd Johnson, stated he was not against the development, but that the two- story condos would be right at his bedroom window and that would be invading his privacy. He was also against the road right along the side of it. The developer had not spoken to him before and he had gone to the County a month ago to get a copy of the plan. He had one home in the middle of the property. Michelle & Dean Kubitschek, stated they were building a house at 6400 Floyd Johnson Road and had a few questions. They wanted to know if a traffic study was done on Jenkins Road, because it was a very narrow road right now and they understood they planned on widening it, but between them there was an average of 10 cars that went right now. If the project was for 328 homes, there were two cars per family; there was one way in and one way outthink that would be feasible with buses and construction vehicles going down there, also police, and fire. They wanted to know about the water and sewer out there, if they planned on putting well water or they were going with storm drains and regular utilities. They had bought their property four years ago, for their children to be able to grow up They wanted to buy horses and raise sheep out there. If they rezoned this to PUD, they would be unable to put any type of livestock out there. They were concerned about anyone going down Floyd Johnson Road, it was a dirt road and if they had a lot of vehicles going down there that jeopardized their there playing or doing anything Right now they could ride their bikes down the dirt road. The lot out there ran three to six acres and it enabled the families to have plenty of room and space, so it created just a nice open environment. They knew they were n inevitable, what they were looking to do was to maintain it like the quality of lifestyle that they were looking for when they came into the area. He hoped that he would have more than a 20 foot space between his property anHe asked if their current zoning of AG-1would change since this was being changed to a PUD. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 8 Chair Grande responded that their zoning would not change. Mr. Kubitschekwhere they were it was a low lying area, it held a lot of water, to the point they had to keep bringing in dirt; he wanted to make sure that he did with flooding from their property onto his property. Chair Grande clarified some of the points brought up; regarding water and sewer, the development would be served by Fort Pierce Utilities so the development would not be built without city water and sewer. He asked staff to give an update on their review of the traffic impact for the development. Mr. Flores responded that the applicant had submitted a transportation impact report, that was reviewed by Scott Herring of Road and Bridge Department and their conclusion was that the analysis showed that roadway link ran the side of the project top rated at acceptable levels of service with the proposed residential development. Mr. Kubitschek stated that there were a lot of canals going up and down that road and another concern was cars entering in the canals. William & Christine Talley, 6320 Floyd Johnson Road, stated that their concern was that there was an existing ditch that ran in the back, if they covered that ditch up, they would have no drainage; he didned to. He had his own pond, but didn going into it either. He also had the same concerns that were previously stated. He wanted to know if there was some kind of zoning between the five or three units that they could build and at different zoning. Chair Grande responded that they were requesting a Planned Unit Development zoning, Planned Unit Development did future land use in the Comprehensive Plan for that particular piece of property. Ms. Tally felt that it was crowded for one entrance for people to go in and out. Chair Grande explained to them the function of the board. Mr. Tally asked the developer, if they were to proceed forward with this project, what time period were they looking at. Chair Grande stated that since the developer was signing an Annexation Agreement with the utility supplier which was Fort Pierce Utilities, they were assuming and agreeing to being annexed into the City at such time as the City became contiguous to the property. Unless you had signed away your annexation rights in exchange for utilities, the City would not be able to annex you involuntarily. Ms. Hammer said that was as the law stood today. There had been attempts to introduce legislation so that if you got surrounded, they could annex you without a vote of the people; right now there had to be a vote of the people that would be annexed. Chair Grande stated there was only one other possibility and that was annexation by the State Legislature. Mr. Tally stated that they were currently AR-1 zoning and allowed to have their animals, he was also in the trucking business, and allowed to park his trucks and trailer there; if they annexed it, more; and that was not right. Mr. Gentile addressed a few of the questions that were brought up. The timeframe was stipulated on the plan that was provided to the County. They anticipated commencing the project within 18 months of getting the final site plan approval and would be completed within five years. Regarding the drainage issue, right now the project was a grove and it had in semblance of a drainage system on it based on the agricultural use, however, when they go in with a development such as this, as shown on the site plan there were a number of retention lakes. They would be improving the drainage from what was there now and would ensure that all the drainage water that may have come off the site previously would be maintained on site per the P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 9 requirements of the state, as well as the County Engineer Department. They would be cleaning that water through their swale and lake systems and then discharging it to where they were required to discharge. In reference to property, the majority of their open space was around that parcel, substantially more than the 20 foot around the other single-family homes to ensure that he was buffered from any impacts from the development and again that wouldbe landscaped. There was a single-family unit that was back to the back, but they had actually put their largest open space area buffering the multi-family to the east of that parcel so that there would be no impacts or anybody looking from that unit into that parcel. All the other parcels were backed up to single-family units. They were providing that 20 foot buffer, but there still was a setback on each lot to the unit itself which increased that area in the back; they designed it to have all the multi-family units backing up to a road which was the Floyd Johnson Road and not backing up to any of the residential tracts that were along that road as well. They hadput single-family behind those residential units. Jenkins Road would be built according to County standards and typically when they did a construction project such as this, their equipment was on site and stayed there to do the underground utilities and internal road systems. At the same time they would build and create the proper lane age and right-of-way from Orange Avenue all the way up to the entrance. They had provided a traffic statement that met the concurrency requirements and provided for service levels acceptable to the County and engineer and was also stated in the report, they were meeting all of the other land development regulations with the preliminary plan. He believed the canal that was spoken of was along Floyd Johnson Road which was actually not within their property boundaries. They were providing for an additional 30 foot of their land to the right-of-way and that canal was on the south side of that road that was there now. They would not be impacting that, touching it, or doing anything to that road. He anticipated that they would improve the intersection at that point there and not really continue the road. The whole purpose of their entrance and the construction and expansion of Jenkins was to have the traffic not impact the people along Floyd Johnson, but to go down to Orange Avenue, where it should be going and then out to I-95 or back into US Highway 1 or those areas. Mr. Akins questioned if there an old irrigation canal that ran down the south end of the property that bordered between their lots or their acreage and the proposed development and did they have any idea how the lack of that canal was going to impact the existing homeowners. Mr. Gentile responded that there maybe an irrigation canal for the groves that was inside their property that would not be there any longer. They would take all that drainage internal to the the location think that would impact them, because it was basically an irrigation canal. If there was drainage coming from those lots into the property, it would be addressed in the drainage permit when they filed that for the final site plan approval. Vice-Chair Hearn asked when was the property purchased. Mr. Gentile responded that his clients had entered into a contract about a year. Ms. Hammer stated that this project seemed like de-ja-vu with the name Emerson Estates in the back of her mind. The drainage could be affecting the folks who had been there before. She was sensitive to a two-story looking down into a one-story property. When people bought out in this area and it was zoned AR-1, it was their choice if they were going to have five acres and one house or three acres and one house. There was a certain expectation when you go into an area that if the existing zoning was one house per acre, that there was going to be some consistency around you. When she looked at the future land use, that future some day in her mind was not today. They talked about 328 units, with AR-1 they would only be entitled to 90 units, so we would be increasing the impact on schools, fire, roads, etc. three and one-half times more than id it do for the community, other than aggravation with the traffic and so many more people. What benefit did the County get by giving the applicant three and one- She was blown away by the traffic analysis that there was no impact on the dirt roads; with 328 homes times 10 trips per day per unit, that would be 3,280 trips per day on roads that now did Regarding the schools, even if they were going to pay another whatever per unit and another whatever for the fire, the impact on the schools would be increased by three and one-half times of what it was zoned for. That meant all the rest of us would have to pay for that and she was P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 10 sick and tired of it; of the developers getting the numbers, getting their money, leaving and the County left holding the bag for this. She would allowed of 90 units to 328 units. Ms. Morgan asked where was their firm located. Mr. Gentile responded that they were currently located in Jupiter, Florida and were in the process of developing an office here on Okeechobee Road. Ms. Morgan stated that she felt it was extremely important for the developer to meet with the school board and residents in the area. The project was located in Zone 1 and there was only one middle and high school in Zone 1 which were at their full capacity, if not over right now. Ms. Hensley stated that there were all kinds of plans, some of which had to be shifted, but they were at capacity at every school in the district and were having difficulty finding, acquiring appropriate acreage in order for them to proceed with the future building plans. Mr. Gentile responded that he understood and would take care of it. Vice-Chair Hearn stated he sympathized with the adjoining property owners. Somehow or another the County had done a poor job in portraying what could happen in their community. They all hang their hats on what the zoning is and they and somehow, staff needs to address that; so property owners will understand that zoning is today, future land use maybe tomorrow. He also had a problem with increasing density without some real substantial financial requirements from the applicant. He hated that the County gave away density; giving away the right to develop to put more burden on the local economy, the local taxpayers here. Mr. Gentile responded that they knew they had to pay for development. Vice-Chair Hearn responded that the impact fees being collected were one-third of what the consultant recommended they should have been five years ago. He asked if they were going to be building sidewalks on both sides of Jenkins Road. Mr. Gentile responded that they would be building the section that the County required them to build on that road. In their development all the roads would have connecting sidewalks, all the way out to Jenkins Road, ihe asked his engineer to describe the requirements of the County for that. Michael Grizoka stated that they had worked out with the County and the transportation group that they ultimately wanted a four lane section of Jenkins Road. They would build the inside two lanes and the median and the sidewalk on one side. They had met and had a signed agreement with the Fire District; they had elected that this was not in an area where they would like a donation of a piece of property, they were looking for a piece closer out west a little bit, but there was a financial contribution going to the Fire District. Mr. McCurdy asked the following questions, was it ll the way up to Angle. Had an engineering study been done on the site, which way did it drain, and where was the site currently having outfall. Was it their intent to have the southern property line, which would be the southwest property line that bordered the adjacent property owners, was it going to drain to the north and east into their lakes and then have an outfall to the east. Mr. Grizoka responded that it was his was to make the connection all the way to Angle Road. Currently there were outfalls both to the east and to the west into the North St. Lucie River Water Control District Canals. They were proposing a single outfall back to the eastern ditch on the opposite side of Jenkins Road. They had to hold their water a lot higher than the adjacent property owners and their finished floors would be a lot higher. They would have a perimeter berm along their site that would contain all of their water up to the 25 year storm event. Mr. McCurdy asked if Floyd Johnson was a County road. Mr. Kelly responded that it was. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 11 Mr. McCurdy asked if they planned to develop a portion of Floyd Johnson to their emergency access and egress on the southeast corner. Mr. Grizoka responded that it was not their intention at this time. The emergency access on the southwest side would be a gated access strictly for fire and emergency services. Mr. Akins stated that the existing property owners who spoke tonight had canals on the west side and south side of their property, was that on the south side of Floyd Johnson Road. Mr. Grizoka responded yes. Mr. Akins asked if that would not affect the drainage on the property on the north side of Floyd Johnson. Mr. Grizoka responded that the assumption that they had made and he did he heard it tonight that these properties apparently in their opinions was drained into the canals on top of the grove. From his experiences the grove properties were contained systems and Mr. Akins stated that there was some type of a buffer in the back of their property that had prevented any of their runoff to go into that grove canal. Mr. Grizoka responded correct. That was an assumption that he would have to go back and re- look at. But in his past experiences and from what he saw across to him that they were draining that way. Mr. Akins asked the following questions, if the canals spoken of were on opposite sides of roadways, where did they think they were draining. Had he walked the property, would hebe the point person for the drainage permits that would have to be obtained, and would the drainage permits and that permitting process would they consider not just the impact of your development to the drainage on their property, but would it also consider the infill of that canal on the already existing drainage when they were going through that permitting process. Mr. Grizoka responded that they could have culverts underneath those roadways where they were draining as he had not gone into the analysis that far off of their property at this point and time. He had been on the property. He would be point person for the drainage permits. They would submit a permit application to the water district, South Florida Management District, and the County. One of the South Florida Water Management District criteria was they had to prove to them during the permit process that they were not adversely affecting any adjacent property systems, stopping or altering any existing historic flows without accommodating it. Mr. McCurdy asked staff if the proposed, potential and probable annexation of this parcel to the City of Fort Pierce, would that preclude the existing use of the neighbors who still had AR-1 Zoning and had not been annexed from having livestock. Mr. Kelly responded that if they were not annexed they could continue to have AR-1 Zoning and they would still be in the County and live by the rules of AR-1 Zoning; assuming that they were annexed they would be nonconforming uses within the City and still be able to do that. Ms. Hammer asked if an environmental impact report was submitted with this plan. She was -addressable environmental impact. What were the environmental impact problems, if any. She wanted to start seeing those as part of the report. Mr. Flores responded that an environmental impact report was submitted, but did were any environmental impact problems on the property. Mr. Kelly stated that by looking at the environmental report, the only thing were a number of cabbage palms that were scattered throughout the property. They were an environmental concern, but certainly they were addressable; they moved pretty easily. Mr. Knapp stated that he was concerned about the traffic study and the condition just to the south; he wanted to see at Jenkins P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 12 Road. He felt that ght to make it four lanes from the get go all the way north. Mr. Gentile requested a continuance to the February meeting in order to meet with the residents and go over their concerns, obtaining an updated traffic report, and look at the drainage issue. Vice-Chair Hearn felt that they had done their job and should vote now, and let the process of meeting with the property owners and addressing the other concerns happen before the County they spent this much time on each project that came along, they were going to be spending a lot of nights after midnight. He was in favor of moving forward with a recommendation of approval or denial. Mr. McCurdy agreed with Mr. Hearn. He thought they were imposing a lot on staff. They were an advisory board, the County Commission was where it happened they needed to be next time. He also had a concern about the construction of Jenkins Road while they were building the project; the residents needed to have some assurance that they were going to have access and egress without having major traffic problems. Mr. Gentile agreed and stated that they would definitely work that out with the engineering department. He also stated that whether the board acted tonight or not, they would still meet with the residents, make sure that staff had the updated traffic, and look at the drainage adjacent to their properties. Seeing no one else, Chairman Grande closed the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Hammer - After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, 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 approval to the application of for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Jenkins Road South) Zoning District because the impact on the immediately surrounding and balance of residents of the community and the negative impact does not out weigh any benefits that might come from the community. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Chair Grande commented that the application had come to them prematurely, he didn was complete. applicant had spent sufficient time in the area. He saw a tremendous number of potential conflicts that may or may not be resolvable, but he could not support the application at this point and time. Vice-Chair Hearn stated he was going to support the motion also, he thought it was a quality development in the right place, but the wrong time. s now. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a 6-1 vote to deny, Mr. McCurdy voted to approve. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM 6: NEWSRACKS ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY FILE #ORD-05-001 Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, Assistant County Attorney provi follows: Ordinance 05-001 would regulate newsracks size, location, and the number of newsracks on the public rights-of-way. Currently there is no regulation of newsracks on the County public rights-of-way. A few changes were made and handed out tonight, Exhibit , and she had a few other oral ones. We changed the ordinance to allow the number of newsracks in certain areas, if it is done in the modular system. Where you could only have five individual newsracks on a corner, if it was in a modular system, there could be six. The height for modular systems was also changed. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that on F(3) which was on the location of newsracks on Page 8 the written recommendation change would be on 3(a), would increase the amount of newsracks allowed if they were in a modular system. On the same page on the last unnumbered paragraph where it subject to the provisions set forth above, newsracks shall be placed parallel and then it said to and not less than 18 inches nor more than 24 inches from the edge of the curb; it was pointed out that did conflict with a previous position on the previous Page F 2(a) where it said there had to be five feet from the edge of roadway even though there was roadway and curbing that would still not give you five newsracks shall be placed parallel to the edge of feet, so staff recommended that it said roadway . So that would require that they have to be five feet from the edge of roadway. Vice-Chair Hearn asked if on a two-lane road, would that give a car enough room to get off the road and allow traffic to pass. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith responded that they ran it by the Traffic Department and they were comfortable with it. On Page 9 they added on G(2) to increase the size for modular newsracks and they also added modular newsrack shall exceed 54 inches in height, 8 inches in width or 24 inches in that depth . There would be testimony that modular newsracks, even though they function at 54 inches, that 61 inches would be better and staff was not opposed to that. Chair Grande pointed out a few corrections as follows, under the definitions on both bike path a rights-of-way and sidewalk, it said . Ms. Mackenzie-Smith responded that they would take out the . Chair Grande again on Page 6 (d) (2) in the middle of that paragraph where it said 30 day of non-renewalor non-renewal written notice of cancellation, it said and it should be . Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said that was correct. the applicant should be notified Chair Grande asked if on the top of that page in Number 6 within 10 working days did they feel that 10 working days was sufficient to turn that transaction around. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith responded that it was under the Public Works Department and she had meetings with the director of Public Works, they would do the permits like a driveway permit, so they would not go through the Building Department; and they felt that they could work with 10 working days. Chair Grande asked if there was a default, many of the ordinances indicated that if you did Ms. Mackenzie-Smith responded that no default was in there and it was not the intent that if they did, that meant P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 14 Vice-Chair Hearn asked if it would include state and county roads within the county. He asked about US Highway 1, as historically the State have the manpower to police illegal use of the right-of-way, parking, used cars, boats, and furniture for sale, on the right-of-way. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said it would include County rights-of-way, not State. She had to check to see if there was any authority for the County to regulate. Chair Grande asked on Page 7 under E Fees, the second half of the fee description seemed to indicate that revenues over expenses that were fee revenues over expenses would not remain at the County, but would be proportionately refunded. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said that should have been deleted, that was in another govern ordinance that they had looked at and felt comfortable deleting it; Engineering had assured her id the inspections and things. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Craig Mundt, North Hutchinson Island, did a slide show presentation showing Pepper Park on North Hutchinson Island before and after installation of the modular system. He applauded the gulation into this as far as standardization on color and size. He showed a slide of a modular type rack, it came up on the left hand side and appeared to be sections, the top seam, was 54 inches and the peak on the top was an additional 7 inches which brought -Smith was referencing and wanting to make a change in the draft ordinance. The purpose of this, was so as not to accumulate debris such as cups, papers, etc. They had designed it purposely so that nothing could be set on the top and sit on it. Also, they were about 25 inches wide in each section so the six units was approximately 75 inches in width and Ms. Mackenzie-Smith had proposed that the maximum width in the ordinance be 80 inches. The unit accommodated five daily newspapers and also 14 of the free type handout real estate magazine, so there were a total of 19 publications which were distributed in this and it was about 12 feet in length. He wanted the board to consider perhaps a greater size in length than the 80 inches that Ms. Mackenzie- Smith had proposed. Under that ordinance there would be a lot of the publications wanting to be in a similar location, it would force them to put multiple units in, if they could go to this on a little bit greater length, more publication would be accommodated, which would eliminate having multiple locations. He agreed that there should be some type of regulation on US Highway 1. He stated that the people at Scripps Howard agreed to contact all of the current distributors of publications on North Hutchinson Island to see if they would agree on a voluntary basis of going into this system, but he was not sure about the contact with the State to get that permission whether they had planned to do that or not. Chair Grande clarified that the configuration shown in the slide presentation would not be allowed, if this ordinance was passed as it was now. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said that in the Ordinance they would not be allowed to get that large, they would be half the size, three up, and three down. Bob Rossi, Circulation Sales Manager for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. He thanked Mr. Mundt for providing those pictures. Those racks were installed a couple years ago. Back in February, 2000 he contacted the publishers of the free publications which was the major problem out there with the blight and different colors. Scripps would install the modulars and the other publishers would maintain them, Scripps would charge them their cost. In lieu of that, three communities abandoned their rack ordinance, because they followed through with the program; the City of Stuart, Downtown Stuart; Fort Pierce and Vero Beach. He stated that Scripps would not object to the ordinance, but the smaller publishers would file suits citing First Amendment. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said that the ordinance was modeled after a case that had withstood the First Amendment challenge in the Gold Coast, Florida. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 15 Mr. Rossi recommended if there were locations that could be designated as blight areas, they could offer the same program. They could put together the same package. He would contact all those publications and do the same thing on North Beach, even though they. They had done that on South Beach, Seaway Drive was A-1-A and the State came in and paved the area. They would look at the whole County; any areas that were considered a blight area or a problem area, would be looked at. Ms. Hammer asked if they could make it a bit more aesthetically pleasing by having a little space between the two sets of them, instead of the massive wall of newspaper stands. Mr. Rossi responded that each city that they had worked with, Stuart, Fort Pierce, and Vero Beach each municipality poured the concrete pad in accordance with the dimensions that was given to them, so that was something that they could adjust to and it probably would have a better look to it. Vice-Chair Hearn asked if the ordinance passed, would it in any way interfere with what he was proposing to do. Mr. Rossi responded no, they would still look to do it, because it was more economical for them to have a modular unit. It would be easier to sell the idea if the ordinance was in place. The other publishers would hold off doing anything. There were some stipulations in the ordinance, as far as how many days, they would go to the maximum in the amount of days. Vice-Chair Hearn said he was not sure that he would want to support the ordinance with the limiting size, but if they could come to some consensu to do and put that in the ordinance and move forward. Mr. Rossi said that they would need to have someone coordinating the applications. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said that there could be an incentive at some location where they could only have five individual free standing newsstands, if they had the modular, then they could have six. Ms. Young stated that she understood there was an economy of scale doing a very large unit, but the units that were going to be along roadways, not necessarily up against the seawall or that sort of thing; staff needed to get very serious input and some discussion about how large you would want them along the roadway for sight and that sort of thing, it maybe a detriment to the line of vision for traffic and for pedestrians. Ms. Morgan asked if the other newspapers or publications, such as the Hometown News, Flashes, Auto Mart, Discovery, and Homeshow were notified about the meeting tonight. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith responded that they had been given at different points copies of the ordinance, there was no specific notice sent to them other than the publication in the newspaper. Vice-Chair Hearn need to approve the ordinance tonight, specifically, they could approve it conceptually and let the commissioners decide what they want to do. Ms. Morgan said that she thought that modular system looked fantastic, but she was concerned about Scripps taking over and also the other publications not being notified about the meeting; she felt that was unfair and potentially opening up a can of worms. She agreed that they should let the commissioners take care of it. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said that they had no objection if they wished to continue it and staff would then get notice out to everybody. Mr. Mundt pointed out that there was nothing that precluded any newspaper or publication from putting up their own dispenser, they dide program, the ordinance made that very clear. All it did was outline the standards that they had to meet such as color, not to exceed sizes and the placement. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 16 Seeing no one else, Chairman Grande closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Hearn 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 conceptually to the application of Ordinance 05-001 Newsracks on Public Rights- of-Way and move forward. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed (with a vote of 5-1) with Mr. Grande voting against and Mr. McCurdy absent. P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 17 Other Business Ms. Young stated that they had asked for a copy of a Conservation Easement at the last meeting and she had provided one they had done back in 2000. There was also a question about the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, she had tried to find out that information as far as the cost; it was a private bank. She knew that Bluefield was a freshwater mitigation bank; the County had a saltwater mitigation bank called Bear Point out on the island. The County sold what was called dual credits, federal and state permits were sold for $86K per credit. Next scheduled meeting will be the regular meeting on February 17, 2005. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Hammer made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Faith Simpson, Secretary Charles Grande, Chairman P & Z Meeting January 20, 2005 Page 18