Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meetng Minutes 03-03-2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes SPECIAL MEETING March 3, 2005 rd Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 6:06 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman, Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman, Pamela Hammer, Kathryn Hensley, John Knapp, Ed Lounds, Stephanie Morgan, Carson McCurdy, and Ramon Trias. MEMBERS ABSENT: Russell Akins 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; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; and Ms. Faith Simpson, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Grande 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 Grande wanted the record to show that Mr. Ramon Trias was absent even though he promised earlier that he would be in attendance. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Grande 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. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 2 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 Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: INCOM PROPERTIES, INC. RZ-03-046 Mr. Kelly stated that the agenda item was Incom Properties, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agriculture 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District. The subject parcel was located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Angle Road and Kings Highway and fronts on both Angle Road and Kings Highway. The parcel surrounds the commercial/industrial parcel at the immediate intersection. The Future Land Use for the property is Industrial, however several County maps show this parcel with a Commercial land use. These maps are in error. The Future Land Use was change to Industrial through Ordinance 03-027, a copy is in the packet. The parcel is 29.62 acres. The the recently changed Future Land Use designation and to allow for the development of an industrial park. The parcel is in an area surrounded by Industrial and Commercial future land uses to the north, west, and south. The residential land use and zoning found to the east will require that buffering between the adjacent uses be provided. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Steve Tierney, attorney represented the applicant and stated that the comments presented by staff were accurate. Seeing no one, Chairman Grande closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Hearn stated after considering the testimony presented during the public meeting including staff comments, the standards of review set forth in Section 11.06.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Incom Properties for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agriculture 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District, because it is in my mind obviously a good fit in that neighborhood with all the other Industrial, Light businesses and districts along Kings Highway. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: NH DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC PUD-04-025 Chair Grande stated that there were three NH Development agenda items and that the comments applied to all three. After the public meeting was published and noticed the applicant requested a continuance. Mr. Kelly stated that as the packets were being put together staff picked up a rumor that something was going on at the property. The applicant was called and he stated that it would be best to continue the hearings. Therefore, staff included a recommendation to continue the hearing in the packet that was sent out. He indicated on the map where the property was located. The parcel was proposed for a residential project that was more intense than the subdivision to the south and the Sands project to the north and west. The developer sent a letter dated March 3 (Exhibit A) indicating that the property was under contract to be sold. The petitioner was not present. However, the representatives of the buyer were present. Since staff heard that the site plan might not really go forward, they did not spend anytime reviewing it. He stated that if the petition was withdrawn, they could bring it back in the future, but would have to pay a new fee; while a continuance was to a date certain. Ms. Hammer felt resentful that the residents came out to speak on the application and then things happen to jerk them around. y were to start over eel so disenfranchised, and that this was trying to be shoved through when they were out of town. Ms. Morgan said she agreed with Ms. Hammer. She was not ready to hear anybody because she had nothing on the project; she had didn hearing it. Chair Grande asked staff to address specific situation, normally when a continuance was requested, the application package was part of what they received and theoretically even though the first attempt at a continuance was almost a rubber stamp, they had a full package to look at and mad Mr. Kelly responded that he had spoken to Chair Grande on Tuesday evening and they had different recollections about what had happened in the past. He had checked with each of the other planners, including planners who were no longer on staff and they could not recall ever sending a site plan when there was a recommendation of continuance. The continuances that happened most often had come about after the packet was gone out or during the meeting and at those times the board always had a package. If he had a memo that said recommend continuance and a big thick site plan package, he was not sure what he would do as a commissioner when he received it. He was not sure how much time he would spend with the package. He made the call based on the information he had. He apologized to the board members if he had put them in an awkward position by not providing them with a site plan. Chair Grande asked staff to go through what the options were. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Kelly stated that the options were opening three public hearings, because they had to be opened before they could be continued. When they were opened the practice had been to allow those members of the public who could May to speak to the site plan and to provide you with input. Since there wasnt a site plan presented, and the residents had strong feelings about a site plan that they had been shown, he was d never see that site plan again and the residents had the right to speak and the chairman got to control the meeting. Ms. Young stated that their first option was to continue it to a date certain, the petitioner had requested the Mato determine what date they wanted to continue it to. The second option would be not granting a continuance. Mr. McCurdy stated that historically the board had always continued a request or when a petitioner was not present. Thewhat they were dealing with and could not make any kind of a rationale decision and were really wasting time. Mr. Trias stated that it appeared that one of the issues was that the date certain on the future meeting and that some people may not be available for M valid at this point. His preference would be to postpone this even further, perhaps to December, perhaps February, 2006. He could not support a May date. There was no information to make any formal opinion believe they had a valid application before them since any information. The May date seemed to be something that was in preference of the developer but not in preference of some of the citizens, he would support a later date, a date that everybody should be available. Chair Grande asked legal counsel if they had an option of not having the public hearing. Ms. Young responded that they had noticed the public hearing and thought that assuming that they were going to continue it to some date to be determined, to do what the board would normally do, which was open the public hearing with the explanation that the application would be continued to a subsequent date. Anyone who would not be available at that date, that they would have the opportunity to come and speak tonight, but with the understanding that the board did public. The third option was to deny the request. Ms. Hammer requested that if it is to be continued to have it continued to December. She had asked some people in the audience when would was told after Thanksgiving, before Christmas. She wanted the public to be here and give them a Mr. McCurdy said that he had letters that had been written by the residents and felt representative letters just as well. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Lounds stated that if they continued this to a December date, whatever, with the idea that if the transaction went through, it would null and void the whole thing. Then they would be presented with a new option at some later date. If they opened the hearings and these people got he had. for or against, because know what the options were. Mr. McCurdy agreed. Chair Grande responded that according to legal counsel technically, because this was noticed as a public hearing, they had no choice but to open the public hearing. Mr. Trias stated that since the applicant was not have an application before him, it indicated that the application was withdrawn. Ms. Young a formal request to withdraw, the request received spoke to a continuance. Mr. McCurdy left the hearing at 6:45 Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Lee Dobbins with the law firm of Klein and Dobbins and represented Marsten Real Estate Group explained that Marsten Real Estate Group had contract to purchase the property from NH had asked them to not go forward with their development approval because Marsten was planning on going back to the drawing boards and resubmitting completely for NH Development to continue with their plans. Marsten does plan to meet with the neighbors and he requested that the get with him to exchange their contact information. Craig Mundt, resident on North Hutchinson Island and President of North Beach Association which represents about 2,400 residents on the island. Mr. Mundt showed a copy of the Enclave plans and asked the people who were present and opposed to the present plans as they were submitted to the Growth Management Department to stand; all the residents stood. He briefly went through the process of the item being scheduled for the meeting. He stated they were all there, but Equity Ventures was not. What he heard last Friday night was that this agenda item had been granted a continuance, he was concerned that some people would not be heard in May for a variety of reasons. But most importantly, seasonal residing patterns otherwise known as e confusion about which was the real date for the hearing. He knew the board, staff and commissioners understood the procedures clearly, but staff needed to look at what had happened from the viewpoint of people who infrequently or never dealt with planning and zoning matters. A postponement may mean to them no meeting tonight, and they couldHe asked why d it go ahead, why was it postponed. He had confirmed with the county attorney that the developer could withdraw until the public notices were made, then only the Planning and Zoning Board by vote he assumed could grant a continuance which P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 7 was their prerogative after ascertaining certain facts. Rumors flew and were fed by such things as the developer sending emails to more than 20 key people on the island informing them that the County had granted a postponement. He read from the e-mail that went out to many of the people on the island: March 3 hearing on the proposed development in order to handle some issues reply which grants the postponement. I just wanted to let you all k He had spoken to Mr. Danzanzki, the developer earlier and he explained about a potential buyer for just the undeveloped dirt at the site and today wawere the reasons for the delay. In his letter there warowth Management Department. In e-mail they said they needed to handle some issues with the site plan, they discussed tonight for whatever reason. Mr. Danzanzki had also stated that if the property was not acquired by the end of April, he would proceed with the County permitting process and plans as submitted. Mr. Mundt stated that he had told Mr. Danzanzki that he felt the public had a right to be heard once noticed, and his response was, recommendation to the board was to discuss it tonight and if the property sold, Mr. Danzanzki could withdraw in the future. He stated that he first became aware of the Enclave project last fall when he was asked to attend a presentation from Barney Danzanzki and his team. He subsequently attended another meeting in January. He had been talking with select residents as far back as last March; and he would repeat all that I heard as there were representatives present who would cover their thoughts. But as the project became more widely known in the neighborhood, more and more people became concerned. The developer spoke many times of the high quality of their project, so at the January meeting he asked if he could have the name and location of one of their other developments so he could go and see it for himself. It was then that he was told that they had not done any residential work, but had done commercial. He to see that work either. If Mr. Danzanzki easiest way possible. If there was no particular obligation, Mr. Danzanzki to the residents and staff, then the residents and staff had no particular obligation showing special privilege or favoritism to him either, other than to follow code. That he thought that gave the board the right to vote the applications up or down, and forward it on to the County Commission with the reason for the recommendation. He understood it was difficult to do, but entirely within discretion. It was a better day in St. Lucie County and the electorate constituents were being heard more than ever. He thanked the board for their time and. He reminded the neighbors that the land was zoned commercial, and that left a host of alternatives that could be considered and to be respectful of the board while they had their deliberations. The developer was asking to put P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 8 91 units on 8 acres on North Hutchinson Island on a small commercial site in the southeast corner of the property. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Mundt if it was his opinion representing the homeowners and such on North Hutchinson Island that they opposed this particular plan or any residential that went in there. Mr. Mundt speak for everyone, but thought the density and what appeared to be a lack of green space was not acceptable. They may meet the technical specification for the green space allowed, but it seemed like an intense project. Everything around it was, they had averaged it out, it was about 4 residences to the acre. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Mundt if he was not opposed to a well planned residential development, it was this particular densed project that he was opposed to. Mr. Mundt responded yes and thought other people would concur with that. Mr. Trias asked how many stories was it, and if the parcel north of it was single-family houses. Mr. Mundt responded that there were three floors, on the ground floor there would be parking underneath the building, one unit on the first floor and then six units on the second and third floors for a total of 13 per building, seven buildings, 91. Yes, on the three sides it was single- family residences surrounding it. Across A-1-A towards the beach several 100 feet from the property were some high-rise buildings. Vice-Chair Hearn asked Mr. Mundt, what he would like to see the board do tonight. Mr. Mundt responded that his preference would be to have a denial; he wanted to send a message to the developers that if they took up staff time, the ciand the they ought to be present to take their project forward and defend it. He wanted the board to send the project back to the drawing boards. If the application was denied, he could bring it forward again. He could make another application and go through all of the process again and if he was successful in his sale, there would be a new applicant and a new process anyway. Vice-Chair Hearn asked him to clarify if he was asking them to deny the application, the project itself, or deny the request for continuance. Mr. Mundt replied that the board had had their public hearing which had been noticed and was required and had the option to deny or approve the project. He felt they should deny it and send it forward to the County Commission. Ken McDonald, who resided in Sands Lake, stated that he was a was only here three months a year. He wanted the board to deny an extension and everything right now and send them that message, no, he had played his game, he couldn this group and citizens and that he should start all over again. This would send a message that when he caa more reasonable project and not P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 9 high density and to make it a beautiful area. It was so nice and why jam it up. The idea that developers were using now, the only way theywas because they people, so they could have affordable homes. What they saw were the affordable homes being $400K - $500K townhouses, which was not affordable homes, it was actually just another way of conning the people so that they could put more together and make a lot more money. It was pure greed, and had nothing to do with caring about greenbelts or anything. It was how much money they could jam in their pockets. He knew everyone knew what he was talking about because it was going on. He thought it had gotten to the point where you really had to stand back and say enough was enough. It had gotten to the point where it was happening all the time instead of once in a while. This was a chance that people could stand up and let their feelings be known. That would send a good message to developers as a whole too. Maybe there would be some nicer developers around rather than people who did shoddy workmanship and charged high prices. Bill Medina, who lived at 3223 South Lake U Circle, Apt. 8, and President of the Riverside at the Sands Condominium represented 24 unit owners. He was also the director of the Sands Community Association which represented 140 units and addressed the board with his concerns on the was totally out of character with the surrounding community and would be completely incompatible to the area. In April he proposed a development consisting of 72 units in 7 buildings, he then increased that by 27% to its present configuration of 91 units in the same land area. That represented a density of 11.5 units per acre. Neither the April nor the present proposal was agreeable to the surrounding neighborhoods. The entire 70 acres of the development that the Sands Community Lakeside, had 4.3 units per acre, even if the 2-story development which was proposed back in April with 63 units, this development came out to 8.0 units per acre, quite an increase in the density of the surrounding area. To consider that when the surrounding areas came out to an average of 4 units per acre, 8.0 or 9.5 units per acre depending on the plan that you look and the current plan that he understood would have been in the packet for tonight would come out to 9.5 units per acre. He thought that difference in density spoke for itself. They wanted to see some control on growth management in their neighborhood. This truly was not growth management, this was growth going out of control in their development that they all lived in and loved dearly. He was a full time resident for the past 6 years. The change in zoning from commercial shopping center which was the current zoning on that piece of land and commercial vacation to a high density residential category threw out the past concepts of development. It would change the character and appearance of the area, forever, and in this case it would not be for the better. The small commercial development that they had was damaged by the hurricane and they lost two restaurants; the loss of the Radisson closed another two fine restaurants and with P. V. Martins gone, the island was in need of some kind of a restaurant and some kind of small business type of operation on the island. It would also help to relieve the traffic on the bridge, as people would not have to go off the island for some of the businesses that could serve their community. There were currently 3,100 units on North Hutchinson Island with another 600 in process or approved. That was a lot of traffic over A-1-A and the bridge. Another issue, he wanted to see the science and the calculations on the dry retention pond area. There were high ground water levels in the area, would they ever drain, would they ever serve the purpose described by Mr. Danzanzki as park area. He pointed out the dry retention ponds. The red lines that ran through there were sewer lines, water lines, and rain water lines that drain into the dry retention pond areas P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 10 throughout the whole community. With all the rain that collected there, normally that would percolate into the earth now fell on hard earth, asphalt or buildings. The black items were buildings in there. The yellow items highlighted were all the asphalted areas in that building. He tried to draw in some greenery to give a better perspective, but found that a little difficult to do. He igure out where the screeners were supposed to be. Regarding the dry retention pond, he thought the word itself was controversial, and he didn pond. The water flowed into the dry canal eventually and they were He didt. He wanted to be further educated on the concept of the dry retention pond. He wanted to see the scientific calculations that were entered into by the Planning Department to come up with the size and the depth and how much these retention ponds could hold. He appealed to the members of the board not to approve the application. He believed the island needed commercial development. Marty Reno of Sands II, stated that it seemed that the board was worried about setting some type of precedence when it sounded as if when there was no representative, no materials provided, the board should Chair Grande stated that they would either vote to give them a continuance to a specific date that had been decided on yet, or vote to deny the continuance. Ms. Hensley stated that if the board was concerned about breaking with historical procedures due process, they could give the applicant what he wanted, but make it to the next scheduled regular meeting which was in two weeks; at that time if his property was not sold, it was not really the problem. Then it was up or down. It was cut and dry, if he did The previous procedure was that if they were not here, it was continued, the request was continued. So if you chose not to break with the normal procedure, there was nothing in the law that said that you had to choose. If you chose not to break with that pattern that had been in process for many, many years, then there was an optios done much sooner. Mr. Lounds said that he appreciated what she was talking about and hoped that the folks out there understood too that they were charged with several things. One was to have an open forum in public hearing and that gave them all a chance to speak. The board also had in their process the right of the developer to present his case, up or down, good or bad. Then they had an opportunity as an advisory board to advise staff and advise the County Commission. Theyhad three things that they needed to do. They had traditionally in the past granted continuances when d the right to due process just like they did. Good or bad, right or wrong, the developer had that opportunity. He thought what they were reluctant to do was to break that tradition, break that democratic feeling. Ms. Hensley th brought a great point to it, they could do it up or down on the 17 which gave the opportunity for the developer to be there. If he didm. But residents to confuse reluctance to make that decision as a negative to what their comments were. He also felt that they had an obligation to uphold the rights of a developer. Mr. Trias commented that the point of this meeting was that they got to review publicly a project. They gothey listened to the applicant and residents. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 11 That was not what was going on there. This was completely inappropriate in any process point of view. He had no obligation before him. As far as he knew, it didWhat he knew was hearsay, basically people telling what other people were doing. It was clearly inappropriate, and found it very offensive. Ms. Hammer stated that when she suggested the December date it dawn on her to have something before the requested May date. She asked staff if they decided to continue to two weeks from tonight, would they be have the report that was being worked on ready to be sent to them next Thursday so that they could review for the next meeting. Mr. Kelly responded that staff would have them to the board. He reiterated that they would be looking at a site plan that probably didhad indicated that he did to proceed with the site plan, for staff to spend a great deal of time reviewing, proceeding with the site plan seemed odd to him, but ould be ready. Mike Rodriguez of 2600 Flotilla Terrace, Coral Cove asked the board what was the benefit of postponing the process. Did they honestly believe that the developer would come back with a plan that the planning board would agree on that everyone that came out would agree on all of a sudden. There was a reason they were all here. They basically knew whThey could fix it right now, deny it, move on, not waste anymore time. He had submitted in time, because of the rumors that it was being postponed, but he spoke with 90 residents of Coral Cove, of the 90 he spoke with 89 of them felt that the density was too high, their entrance was in the way, their way of life would be totally disrupted. The board could keep postponing it or just stop it right now. Chair Grande told him to give the petition to the secretary. Mr. Mundt said that he appreciated the offer to have better communications with staff, if they would get with them when they understood what may transpire or if they got any additional information. He pointed out that in two weeks time that evening was St. Pahis association had a large party planned; the attendance may be diminished somewhat. He felt it was unfair to the residents to be asked repetitiously to attend meetings at the convenience of the developer. The developer had four or five people and himself, a relatively small group that he had to put together, and they were paid to be at the meetings. The board members and residents were not paid to be at the meetings. Jon Rico, the owner of North Beach Pizza, derstand on Agenda Item Number 4 they wanted to change it from a commercial to residential, but he had a 10 year lease for North Beach Pizza, with seven years to go. He asked how the zoning could be changed without his consent. His restaurant was in the development. Ms. Young responded that he might have a private civil legal matter with the property owners with regard to the lease and what they planned to do at that point, how they planned to handle it, were they going to buy him out or whatever it might be. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 12 Shirley Burlingham, stated she was a resident of North Beach and had owned property there since 1983. She had watched the growth and the expansion of high rises and high density buildings. She was now watching the loss of their last hotel, restaurant and many other small businesses. They no longer had any hotels, restaurants, or beauty shops. have any schools, banks, banking facilities, ATMs, grocery stores, drugstores, pharmacies, laundry mats, churches, meeting halls, no place for wedding receptions, anniversary parties, conferences or special needs. They also had However, they had d four realty offices and one more trying to locate there. The County was expressing the need for less cars on Route 1, traffic was becoming a crisis. There was a need for smart growth. A neighborhood shopping center, community planning, less density an apparent. They had no alternative but to drive on Route 1 for their needs or go north to Vero. They also had they were thankful. The proposed development would give them 91 cars at one car per family. But most new developments gave two cars per family. They didn at that corner. They needed more facilities. They talked about shops, but small shops; specialty shops generally created sporadic sales. The residents needed every day facilities which created the nucleus of a well planned community. She asked about the rights of all those who supported the area with their tax dollars and their day to day needs. They wished to be heard and accommodated. They were the people who have lived there, still live there and supported the businesses located there. She felt it was time to call halt and ask for Charrette to North Beach, South Beach had many facilities and guessed it was time for the good folks on North Beach to be heard. Bob Emery, 220 Marina Drive showed what had been proposed by the developer. They would dump all their d blow Marina Drive to a 50 foot wide pavement, four lanes as it approached A-1- situation. It was a very dangerous situation, particularly during rush hours, morning and evening. He also showed pictures showing a relationship of single-family homes to the development. The proposed buildings would be 100 feet wide 150 feet long 35 feet high; there would be a few sticks sticking up with some vegetation, but as far as grass and vegetation around -existent. Seeing no one else, Chairman Grande closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Lounds moved that we continue this hearing to March 17, 2005 at 6 p.m. where upon if the developer does not show up, that would indicate to us his reluctance to continue this and would be an opportunity for us to discontinue this process. Providing we have the Motion was seconded by Ms. Hammer. She commented if there was anyone that was attending the party they could send an email ould copy the board on it. It would be best if they got it there in the next couple of days. The residents could also send a letter, that would also be copied to the board. She would support this because she kneshe clarified that she appreciated She thought that this P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 13 was a very special circumstance because it was on the island and there were more seasonal people on the island than any other place. The other reason that she would support the continuance was they had always granted a continuance when there had been a request and want to give, in case there was a denial in two weeks, the attorney another reason to come against the action of the board, because they haed them a continuance and they had always done so to everyone else. Vice-Chair Hearn stated that the applicant had asked for a two months continuation, in order to see if their sale was going to go through. From what he had seen of their plan, he would not vote for that plan in this area, regardless of when it was going to be held. When he joined the board he felt that he was looked at as somebody who was very cautious about what he allowed happen in St. Lucie County and in fact some folks have said that he was anti-development which was off the wall, but he was not anti-development and he heard yet it meant something different to every person that said it. He was going to vote against the proposal, because if he was the property owner, and he had an opportunity to sell the property to somebody who could bring a development in there that would be very needed and appreciated by the folks in that area, he would want to have that opportunity. Not that this was going to take it away from him, but he thought they were putting the developer in the corner by voting this in two weeks. He would prefer to have it done in December. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed 6-1 to continue to March 17, 2005 at 6 p.m. with Mr. Hearn voting against. Mr. Akins and Mr. McCurdy were absent. Chair Grande stated that the first of the three applications by NH Development would be continued to two weeks from tonight. The developer would be invited to submit whatever he chose to submit or he could send in a request to withdraw this particular plan entirely. Mr. Kelly said he would speak to the developer early in the morning. He asked if the developer was to request a withdrawal, would the board at this time indicate that they would accept such a withdrawal and he could notify everybody that it was just gone and possibly everybody could Ms. Young responded that she did submitted a withdrawal prior to March 17 that would be an indication that this board would accept that withdrawal. Chair Grande asked if it would make sense for them to make a motion to that effect now. They could put on the record that the consensus by the board was that they would approve a withdrawal if it was submitted. Ms. Young said they could do it now or at the end of all the petitions. That way they could let representatives know that a withdrawal had their folks come out. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 3: NH DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC PUD-04-026 This was a request for continuance by NH Development and staff recommended that it be continued to March 17, 2005. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Grande closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Lounds moved that we continue this hearing to March 17, 2005 at 6 p.m., where upon if the developer does not show up, that would indicate to us his reluctance to continue this and would be an opportunity for us to discontinue this process. Seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed 6-1 to continue to March 17, 2005 at 6 p.m. with Mr. Hearn voting against. Mr. Akins and Mr. McCurdy were absent. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 15 AGENDA ITEM 4: NH DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC PA-04-007 This was a request for a continuance and staff recommended continuance to March 17. Chairman Grande opened the public portion of the hearing. Joan S. Miller, President of Lakeshore at the Sands stated that she was also a real estate broker. She violently opposed the rezoning to high density residential. If it was going to be rezoned to residential, it certainly should not be high. It was commercial right now, it should be mixed zoning, possibly, but certainly not high residential. Mr. Trias asked staff if the board could take action tonight to approve, if they chose to. It was different than that of a PUD where a site plan was needed. Mr. Kelly responded that the Board had those options on all three. If there was a recommendation to not go to high density residential from this board, there was almost no reason in two weeks for the board to consider a site plan that went against that recommendation this evening. This would d that RH was too high. Vice-Chair Hearn asked staff what type of commercial zoning was currently on the property; was it Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Office. Mr. Kelly responded that it was Commercial, General and the future land use was Commercial. The change from Commercial to Residential High Density allowed up to 15 dwelling units per acre. ld be to deny the request. Vice-Chair Hearn stated that he would not favor a high density residential on the property. He also had some concerns about Commercial, General on the property given the location of the single-family homes nearby. There were some things that were allowed by right in Commercial, General that could be a huge impact on the quality of life to these folks that live nearby, so he would vote against the high density. Commercial, General was not something that everybody wanted in their backyard. Bill Medina, President at the Riverside at the Sands Community Association stated that he opposed the planned rezoning to residential medium or high. He believed that the area was strongly in need of some commercial development. He wanted the traffic to stay on the island and residents not having to travel over to the mainland to get for the normal everyday items. Closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that if he any condominiums on the beach. He dide high density that was already on the beach. He agreed with Ms. Burlingham, that they had lost a lot of the commercialism that was on the beach; it needed to have some commercial property. If this was commercial property now, in his P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 16 opinion it needed to stay commercial, they needed to have some restaurants, shops, and more facilities for the people on North Beach. Mr. Lounds - After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments and standards of review set forth in Section 11.06.03 of St. Lucie County Land Development Code I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency recommends that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the Change in Future Land Use from COM (Commercial) Zoning District to RH (Residential High) Zoning District. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously to deny. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 17 Other Business Ms. Hammer asked staff to maintain a list of communities with any duplication in names as this would present a problem for 911 calls in dispatching ambulances, fire trucks, etc. They needed to get a list from Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. Mr. Kelly responded that they do check for all streets formal process to do it for communities. They would work on it; when staff cities. Mr. Cox stated that there was a memo being distributed regarding a proposal to implement a workshop which had been discussed at a previous meeting. The proposed date was Saturday, nd March 19, in the Growth Management Conference Room, the 2 floor of the Civic Center at 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. with lunch being provided on site. He went through the proposed agenda. The second sheet was an open suggestion solicitation for additional items that they thought could be included or different manner of handling the workshop. It would be an open meeting of the public entity, the attire would be casual, the Growth Management staff would provide the logistical items so they didnthe Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Development Code. If they wanted to make a presentation, there was a Smart Board equipment available, if there were handouts, staff would need it in advance to make copies for the other members. Vice-Chair Hearn stated that he thought it was going to be on April 2. Mr. Cox responded that was correct, but it conflicted with an already scheduled White City thth Workshop; they tried to move it to the 26 but that was Easter weekend; the 19 became the next available date. However, the White City Workshop was now canceled so they could go back to April 2, if the panel preferred. Mr. Trias stated that even though he thought that Mr. Murphy, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Young were extremely competent professionals, he felt that this type of workshop would work better when there was some kind of outside person, sort of facilitator that was giving them some idea of what was going on. His preference would be to have some outside consultant or facilitator to add some new ideas to any kind of discussion that they had. The discussion needed to be in direct depth and with people that dealt with this issue on a larger scale. There was a need for new ideas and new vision. Mr. Lounds questioned if the County Commission would be a part of the workshop. Mr. Cox responded no, subsequent to this there would be an attempt to schedule a joint meeting with Board of County Commissioners. The idea was that the Planning and Zoning Commission would in this process identify several areas of concern, those areas of concern would then be shared with the Board of County Commissioners, work out an agenda of either correction or future vision. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 18 Mr. Lounds stated that he still felt from three or four years ago that there was a need to do some more study on a Kings Highway corridor more or less of what industrial land use and Kings . He asked if they could they do that at this meeting and take that message to the workshop with the County Commission. They had talked several times about the Kings Highway corridor from Okeechobee Road to Indrio Road and after what they did earlier with more industrial development he thought they needed to have a feel of where that particular zoning was going to be, because it would eventually affect the North Charrette and they needed to have a feeling from the County Commission as to their feelings. Mr. Cox responded that they could. Vice-Chair Hearn requested that there be an open question and answer dialogue, because there were a lot of issues with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code that he did understand. That would be beneficial to the board members to understand those issues, so when they came before them they would have a better understanding of what they were dealing with. Mr. Cox stated there was no one way of doing this, if they would enjoy having a facilitator, find someone. Ms. Morgan said she wanted to see this go ahead as they had asked for this for years and if a facilitator could not be found, to still go ahead. They did The board members went through the possible dates. Mr. Lounds requested that density transfers be part of the discussion at the workshop Mr. Kelly responded that they could lay all the concepts on the table and talk about what it was, but that the detail implementation of an ordinance was a discussion in itself. Chair Grande agreed that Mr. Lounds had touched on something which was probably one of the most important things that was going on in the County right now. He felt that the density transfers was important and wanted a half-an-hour to give folks an update as what the concept was. Mr. Cox stated that the Regional Planning Council representative would be in attendance and would be able to explain where they were in that process. The board agreed on March 29 at 12 Noon to 5 p.m. for the workshop. Next scheduled meeting will be on March 17, 2005. P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 19 ADJOURNMENT Ms. Hammer made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Faith Simpson, Secretary Charles Grande, Chairman P & Z Special Meeting March 3, 2005 Page 20