Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 06-16-2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Special Meeting June 16, 2005 rd Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Pamela Hammer, John Knapp, Ed Lounds, and Stephanie Morgan. MEMBERS ABSENT: Carson McCurdy with notice; Kathryn Hensley with notice; Mr. Akins without notice and Mr. Trias without notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney: Ms. Sheryl Stolzenberg Planner III, Ms. Karen Butcher Bike/ Ped Coordinator; and Ms. Talea Owens Acting Administrative Secretary. 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:15 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Grande gave a brief presentation of the procedures as of what to expect for today 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 today. 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 2 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. Before was done by a new member filling in for this meeting, also known as acting Administrative Secretary, Talea Owens. Chairman Grande stated that there were no minutes added to the packets for the month, so the meeting proceeded to the first item on the agenda. In addition, Mr. Kelly announced that the first item, which should be the Transportation Element, needs additional work done in it. He also added that a table that was put in the packets amends right-of-way widths. He also added that the table was not advertised. The title of the ordinance does not list the table and the ad does not include the table. Mr. th Kelly reiterated that they would like to pull the first item out of the June 16 hearing. Agenda Item 1: Transportation Element-CPTA-05-001 Further presentation of will resume when all of the advertising is presented along with it. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff recommends that the first item be pulled from the hearing. Mr. Kelly continued, stating that some of the agendas were fixed. He added that some of the titles on the agendas had been swapped. Mr. Kelly clarified that second item on the agenda is the section on Sidewalks, Bikeways and the other item was to be included. He also clarified that the text on item one was incorrect. The correction is that the titles on both item one and two are mixed up. Mr. Kelly concluded that Scenic Highway would be heard next. Moving along, Mr. Kelly addressed to Chairman Grandeattendance at FPLDRC. He stated that at the meeting, Mr. Ferguson indicated that he might have a request of the Board. Mr. Kelly concluded suggesting the Board might wish to hear the request now rather than later. 3 Chairman Grande stated that if Mr. Ferguson was attending the meeting solely for the mentioned purpose, then the request of the Board could be discussed in the desired period. Mr. Kelly added that Mr. Ferguson was also present at the Meeting for another item, which was further in the meeting. Chairman Grande replied that it would be best to discuss the request of the Board now and get it over. Jonathan Ferguson approached the podium to speak and identified himself. Mr. Ferguson began by including informa previous day. He stated that the first formal discussion of the proposed FPL Power Plant for Southwest St. Lucie County was held at DRC on the previous day. Mr. Ferguson added that during the discussion, after Staff comments, he brought up scheduling wherein he requested through Mr. Kelly that he be given an opportunity to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission if they would consider scheduling a special meeting for the mentioned project. He continued stating that it is imagined that the mentioned project would engender a fair amount of discussion. He also added that they certainly do not want to take over most of a meeting when there are other projects on the agenda. Looking at the schedule, Mr. Ferguson pointed out that there is a current schedule for a regular P&Z meeting on July 21, 2005. Mr. Ferguson suggested, because of the critical time period for the project that would be subject to getting their responses back to Staff request of the Commission to consider a special meeting of July 28, 2005 regarding consideration of the FPL Power Project be granted. th Ms. Hammer stated that she would not be available on the 28 of July 2005. Chairman Grande stated that he feels that the request is reasonable from the perspective of the fact the topic is huge and controversial. He also added that the topic is worthy of a meeting with no other items on the agenda. Chairman Grande added that he does not understand why there is a need for haste. Chairman Grande reiterated that Mr. Ferguson rande He stated that this is the first step in a very lengthy process to get the subject project approved. It is the first step at a local level. Mr. Ferguson added that as was explained at the DRC meeting on the previous day, be submitted either late Summer or early Fall. Mr. Ferguson stated that part of the State certification process involves a land use hearing. He concluded that everything cascades in a way and if the subject project cannot be approved through the County in a reasonable amount of time, it will cause further delay. He also added that the scope of the project would engender a fair amount of review. Mr. Ferguson stated that given the caveat that they have gotten through the review, it then impacts all of the schedules down the line and ultimately it would impact when the project comes on line, which in turn would to provide service to their expanding customer base. Mr. Ferguson added that they were working back from when they hope to have the project up and 4 running which is 2012 and 2013. He included that it is imperative that they move at a reasonably rapid pace through the process of approval, not withstanding that a full review must be done first. Mr. Ferguson included that the issue is not something that can be delayed 12 months to 18 months as it goes out. He concluded asking that the mentioned date or a reasonable date soon thereafter is considered for a meeting to discuss the item. He also stated that if Staff is not ready to present the item before the Board, then the meeting will be cancelled. Mr. Ferguson requested that an agreement be made at the present meeting so that Staff can prepare the advertisement and post a hearing date on their calendars, wherein a reasonable date will be sought and aimed for in regards to the special meeting that was requested. Chairman Grande asked if Ms. Hammer had already indicated that she would not be th available on the 28. Ms. Hammer stated that she has made plans to attend a family commitment which had already been scheduled for six months. She added that she will not be present on th Thursday, which is the 28 of July or the first Thursday in August. Chairman Grande suggestion that they proceed to the subject meeting that was scheduled for the present hearings. He also added that he is in complete agreement about scheduling the requested special meeting as a separate, single agenda item meeting. He suggested that the Board would put the decision into the hands of the Staff and have them work up the right date and recommend to them whether or not it is approved or denied. He concluded stating that he expects a follow- next couple of weeks. Mr. Kelly stated that it will give them an opportunity to see how the review will go and ensure themselves for complete preparation. He added that he feels that Staff will work with the Board. Chairman Grande recommended that the special meeting is scheduled on a day of its own. Mr. Ferguson thanked the Board. Ms. Hammer asked Staff if there had already been other items scheduled for the August th 18 meeting. Mr. Kelly replied yes, however he is unable to identify the exact amount of items that had th been scheduled for the August 18 meeting. Chairman Grande added that he would like to leave the details of providing the information that Ms. Hammer inquired regarding the amount of items that had been th schedule for the August 18 meeting to an off line. Mr. Hearn announced that Mr. Knapp had arrived and he will be a part of the meeting. Ms. Hammer stated that before the meeting begins, she would like to commend Staff on the finest packet explanation and report that she has received in all of the months on the Board. She added that she is very pleased and happy with the report. She concluded and thanked the makers of the packet and included that their work is superb. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Hammer and moved along to the first item on the agenda. 5 AGENDA ITEM 1: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT-ORD-05-023: Karen Butcher, County Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator, presented this item. This item is a proposed text amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Grande intervened asking if the Board needs to vote on deferring the other item. Ms. Young stated that the other item was pulled. She asked Ms. Butcher if she had sought a date as to when it will be reviewed. Ms. Butcher replied, no. Ms. Young reiterated that a date had not been sought. She continued stating that they will re-advertise the item. She concluded that it will not be at the July meeting; however, it may be in the August meeting. Ms. Butcher started over stating that the item that is being presented is a text amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. She added that it recognizes language to identify Scenic Highway. Ms. Butcher continued stating that the County along with numerous citizens and other agency Staff has been working for approximately two years to receive Scenic Highway designation for State Road A1A and a segment of Indian River Dr. She added that visible manifestation can be viewed on the screen. Ms. Butcher stated that the request is to add language to the Transportation Element identifying the Scenic Highway Corridor. She also stated that it is a perimeter that is done through the Florida Department of Transportation. The purpose of the Scenic Highway Program is to preserve, maintain and enhance architectural, historical, cultural, recreational and scenic resources that St. Lucie County has. She concluded stating that the text amendment is a requirement of the DOT application in order for the State to designate them as having a Florida Scenic Highway. Ms. Butcher stated that Staff is requesting a recommendation to forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Butcher finished stating that she will be happy to answer further questions. Chairman Grande asked if anyone had any questions of Staff before the public hearing is opened. Mr. Lounds asked if roads could later be added on, in other designated Scenic Highway areas, to the subject area without a lot of added Staff or Commissioners problems. Ms. Butcher replied that a separate application would be done because of the new roadway. She also stated that they would then have to again come before the Local Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners with another text amendment 6 recognizing that Corridor as well. Ms. Butcher concluded that the process is a two-part application process. The first process that they had to go through had the State to determine whether or not if they were eligible if they met their basic criteria. The second part of the process was their ability to come up with a plan regarding their purpose. Their purpose goes far in detail as to how their committee has really taken the stands of preserving and maintaining things. Preservation includes removal of exotics, adding bicycle and pedestrian paths, potential traffic calming and things of that nature. Ms. Hammer questioned Ms. Butcher in regards to the fourth line on page two, under The posting of official the log signs are. Ms. Butcher explained that the log signs are logo signs, and she added that the misprint was actually a typo. She continued stating that DOT provides special signs to the county that identify the road as a Florida Scenic Highway and those will be put up by DOT every three to five miles along the corridor so that those traveling will be able to recognize that they are on a special road. Ms. Hammer replied okay, and she added that she thought that it was something that she did not know. Mr. Lounds asked for clarifications regarding information in the packets initiating that they are privileged to have two Scenic Roads in the County. Ms. Butcher clarified stating, no it is not privileged to have two Scenic roads in the county. She added that they are only looking at Stated Road A1A and Indian River Drive as one complete corridor, which is the way that the county has identified it. Mr. Lounds reiterates asking if the roads will not be two separate steps. Ms. Butcher replied right and she added that they have gone forward with it as being one application. Mr. Hearn inquired of clarification regarding which of the roads were the subject roads. Ms. Butcher clarified that it is both roads. Mr. Hearn asked how the total amounts of miles are calculated. Ms. Butcher stated that they calculate the miles beginning at the Indian River County line on State Road A1A. It comes down the North Beach and goes across the Causeway. She added that US1 is included because it is the only connection to the South Causeway. They continue to calculate the mileage down to the Martin County line and then Indian River Drive is included from Seaway Drive South to the Martin County line which comes up to just over forty-two miles. 7 Mr. Hearn asked if the calculation was based on an accumulative total. Ms. Butcher replied correct. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, she hereby moves that the Local Planning Agency of the St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of St. Lucie County for a change to the text of the Transportation Element as shown on the attached exhibit, because it will be an attribute and help to our community and something that we can be very proud Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Chairman Grande asked if there was any discussion and called for the roll call. Mr. Hearn stated yes. Mr. Lounds stated yes. Mr. Knapp stated yes. Mr. Grande stated yes. Ms. Hammer stated yes. Ms. Morgan stated yes. Chairman Grande stated that the application will be sent to the county commissions with a unanimous recommendation for approval. He felt it unfair to make a comment before the voting was done. He stated that he sits on the committee and he commented stating that a super job was done on the project. Ms. Butcher replied thank you very much. 8 AGENDA ITEM 2: ORD-05-016-STOP GAP ORDINANCE-NORTH COUNTY CHARRETTE: Ms. Heather Young presented this item. This is proposed ordinance 05-016, commonly called the Stop Gap Ordinance for the North County Charrette planning area. Ms. Young stated that under the proposed ordinance, Staff will have a postponement for the processing and issuance of applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments, amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas, or development orders concerning development in the North County Charrette area; If the proposed amendments and development orders would increase the density or intensity of development that would Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. The proposed ordinance would postpone processing such applications for a period of one hundred-eighty days from the date of adoption, unless the ordinance is dissolved earlier by the Board of County Commissioners. The ordinance does include an exemption for any public purpose project, which is required by a governmental entity, or any development, which is protected by an existing development order under section 1- 63-3233 of Florida Statue. There is also a waiver provision, which allows the Board to accept applications for a waiver and hold a public hearing to authorize the issuance of development orders for a specific building if the Board determines that based upon substantial competent evidence. This specific usury activity requested will not detrimentally affect the preparation implementation of the Growth Management regulations. She added that it will be competitive with surrounding land uses and it will not impair the public health, safety or welfare. She added that there is also a provision for the Board to make a determination that a property owner has demonstrated vested rights that involves a determination, following a public hearing by the Board. Ms. Young concluded stating that there is an appeal process to circuit court for anyone who is not satisfied with the results of the outcome. Ms. Young also stated that Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance as drafted. Ms. Young added that Nancy Strault, who is the Council for the Regional Planning Council, assisted Staff in drafting the ordinance and is present for further questioning from the s perspective. Mr. Hearn asked Ms. Young if the ordinance, as it is written, includes the areas that are called receiving that are outside of the area that is being proposed to be the North Towns, Villages and Countryside. He clarified that he was referring to the circled area at Indrio Road and US1 shown on the map. One of the speakers clarified that it is by nodding their head. Ms. Hammer asked if what they were referring to was not what was underlined in the heavy black line on the maps. Chairman Grande asked if they were sure of that. 9 Ms. Young stated that if there is a question about the map, perhaps they should wait until Mr. Kelly returns, because he is more familiar with the specific area. Chairman Grande asked if anyone had any other questions. Ms. Hammer asked Ms. Young questions regarding the second page of the ordinance, beginning Proposed amendments were st heard April 21 st should be, scheduled to be heard again May 21 Ms. Young replied yes. Ms. Hammer continued asking about the correction of dates. She stated that the next one Hearing on the proposed amendments will be scheduled before the Board in July of Ms. Young stated that she believes that it will be August because it serves reference to the Board of County Commissioners. However, the dates will be updated. She also stated that she imagines that this part of the ordinance was drafted sometime ago and the dates were not updated. Chairman Graclauses that have dates that need to be updated. Ms. Young stated that they will make certain that they are corrected. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Klein stated that Mr. Kelly had come in and he asked if the Board wanted to have the discussion. He added that it was important. Mr. Klein introduced himself. He is Bobby Klein, from the law firm of Klein and Dobbins. He stated that the two things that had been raised are what he wanted to talked about and he believes that there is some confusion. Mr. Klein stated that depending on what Mr. Kelly says, there will be clarification, one way or another. Mr. Klein stated that he could present his thoughts on the matter if the Board cares to hear them. Mr. Klein stated that he thinks that the answers that they heard at the present hearing represents the confusion that a lot of them have been struggling with and even looking at the problem. His personal belief is that the ordinance purports to include more than it should. He thinks that it implies that it should include the bigger area and he thinks that, that is absolutely wrong. The advertisement is very small. Chairman Grande asked if Mr. Klein stated that this was confusing. M TVC Element stands out clearly. He continued stating that, that is a representation and he referred to another map for better representation. He stated that the map is a 10 representation of a map that he had copied from the TVC Element. He concluded that everyone is familiar with that. The whole ordinance when read, based on his recollection of the very first ordinance, talks about the TVC. However it now talks about the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the Land Development regulations that are being prepared by the Regional Planning Council and that are coming forward as part of the North County Charrette. He added that they all know that, that is the TVC Element because they have been dealing with that a long time. The whole impact is the TVC Element. When it is all said and done if and when the TVC is en the area in blue (which he pointed out on the map), which is the idea of the element and the exhibit. He concluded stating that, that is where the land uses will be changed. That is where the concern rests, with regards to what the ordinance is supposed to be addressing. He stated that there might be other people that are going to address whether or not they should have the ordinance, wherein he will not be speaking on their behalf. Particularly, he feels that the confusion needs to be clarified that the ordinance itself should be drafted and the exhibit which is attached to it should designate that the area of impact is the area where the TVC Element or the Land Development regulations are going to apply. The reason that he feels so comfortable in saying that is because he has spoken with Nancy and he was with Mike Busha, executive director, as late as yesterday morning and Mike is very comfortable with him quoting this to the Board. It was never reiterated that he had spoken to Mike regarding the Stop Gap ordinance and his comments can be collaborated if the Board cares to collaborate on them. Mr. Klein stated that the fact is, when the drafting of the ordinances and all of the items that it attempts to protect against or address are in review, overall it all talks about the TVC Element. He concluded that he feels that it should be limited to the Cross-Hatched area only. Mr. Klein also concluded that he is available for any questions. The Board waited for Mr. Kelly to help clarify and clear the confusion. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Klein. He also addressed the question that was discussed when Mr. Kelly stepped out. The question regarded the maps that came with the packets. Chairman Grande pointed out that there is a heavily outlined area on the map, which is the entire area including some of the receiving area over in the US1, Carter Avenue area and the Cross-Hatched area. Chairman Grande reiterated that the question is, does the text of the ordinance relate only to the Cross-Hatched or does it relate to the entire area which seems to have been implied. Mr. Kelly stated that it appears to him that the subject area is the Crossed-Hatch area. Mr. Kelly also put the map up for visual review. He pointed out that he has been doing a little comparing in the blue area (on the map) that Mr. Klein presented. He added that the area is identical to the Cross-Hatched area and he feels that it is easier to see on the display. Mr. Kelly put the Cross-Hatched map, back up for review. Upon display of the Cross-Hatched map, Mr. Kelly pointed out the similarities between the maps and the reasonableness of the interpretation. Chairman Grande asked if there were anymore comments. 11 Ms. Nancy Strault introduced herself and stated that she was assisting Mr. McIntyre in drafting the ordinance. She added that it was always their intent that it be the TVC area. She stated that she was unaware of who had done the mapping and attached the exhibit. However she feels that Mr. Klein is correct. She stated that she made attempts to contact Mr. Mike Busha for clarifications and confirmation. She concluded that her recollection on the intent regards the area where the Comprehensive plan amendments ought to be. are any questions about whether or problem that comes up sometimes is that both areas are referred to as the TVC area. Ms. Strault stated that they need a map that clearly shows the TVC area. Mr. Kelly stated that the outlined area was the North County Study Area. Mr. Kelly added that when they went into the Charrette, they had a bigger area and they identified it primarily for context. The map states that the Cross-Hatched area is the TVC Element Boundary. Mr. Kelly also stated that the larger area defined by the black boundary on the map was the area that was studied at the Charrette. Chairman Grande asked if it was safe to assume, for the present discussion, that it is the Cross-Hatched area that would be impacted by the ordinance. Mr. Kelly stated that it was clearly his assumption. Mr. Hearn stated that he is still concerned that in the text of the Towns, Villages and Countryside Element there is reference to the receiving sites as being outside of the Cross-Hatched areas. Mr. Hearn clarified that the subject area is the Cross-Hatched area and not the circles of the receiving area. He stated that until they questioned that, he really was not sure, and he feels that that was a very important part of the discussion. Chairman Grande referred Mr. Kelly to clarifications on page three, section two, Applicability the North County Charrette Mr. Kelly stated that he was relying on what may have been an earlier draft, which used Mr. Kelly reiterated that one of the areas was included as the study area, because there was a need to get outside of the boundary and understand the context of the whole area. Given that the words that are present in the packets are consistent with the larger boundary on the map, he feels that comments should be made to the Commission regarding the boundary. However, given the fact that there is a presentation of two documents that have common wording, it is difficult to assume anything else. Mr. Kelly commented saying maybe he would have used the Cross-Hatched area. Mr. Hearn pointed out that on page two in the middle of the page; it describes which is attached to the 12 sure that the discussion is in regards to the Cross-Hatched area only. Mr. Hearn also added that the three or four circled areas should be excluded. Mr. Hearn stated that it talks about the North County Charrette area and that could be interpreted to be the whole area or the Cross-Hatched area. Mr. Kelly stated that he sees the confusion and he added that they were all confused at the moment. Mr. Hearn stated that it is a matter of deciding that they are only discussing the Cross- Hatched area. Mr. Kelly stated that it is completely within the Boardof responsibility to recommend to the Commission which ever of the areas that is believed to be the right area. Chairman Grande stated that he would agree with that comment however he had been waiting to hear their attorney jump in and comment. ing to say. She also stated because of the confusion, she feels that the intent was, as Nancy had spoken, to that TVC area. She also stated that there should be a recommendation to the Board. The recommendation should be limited to which of the areas that they decide is the preferred one, whether it be the North County Study areas as identified on the map or the TVC Element areas. Chairman Grande suggests questioning of the feasibility. The third alternative they may choose is to pass the issue along with a recommendation one way or the other with a request that the Staff and the Regional Planning Council get together between the present meeting and make a determination as to what exactly they meant to put in there. Ms. Young stated that she feels that there is a guarantee that, that will happen. Chairman Grande said okay. Mr. Lounds asked if they can assume for the purpose of the discussion and the ordinance that direct focus will be on the TVC Element Boundary only. He also asked if it eliminates the confusion of the area of Lakewood Park and the areas east of that, which may be affected by this. Mr. Kelly stated that it would eliminate any confusion, but as review is done and there is talk about the ordinance, maybe further discussion should be held until after the details are discussed in order to see what the implications are in each of the areas. Mr. Kelly added that after the details are dealt with, it will be easier to talk about what is believed to be the boundaries, given the implications of the ordinance. 13 Chairman Grande stated that he thinks that, that is a fair recommendation. Chairman Grande asked if there are further questions for discussion. Mr. Klein stated that the discussion seems to be going one way, and then it flips back to the other, which was part of their confusion. He also stated that when you look at what the recitals said it was going to do, they were fine with the fact that it referenced, it got off target at the Charrette area. At the Charrette area, it started talking about the bigger area. Unfortunately, it creates another problem. When you look at the newspaper ad that was given for review, it is not clear. Mr. Klein reiterated that it was very clear that the Cross-Hatched area is standing out. When you look at the dark line on the map and Cross-Hatched area. Mr. Klein suggested that if there is any indication that this is expanded beyond the Cross-Hatched area, that there may be a defect in the advertising. Mr. Klein also added that people who should have gotten notice or understood that this may have affected them, were unaware. Mr. Klein pointed out that when you look at that blue map, there is a big legend on top of a lot of property that seems to be included now in the other black line. Mr. Klein concluded stating that if someone had been working off of the subject map, and is aware of the TVC area and looked at the newspaper ad, which showed the Cross-Hatched area and was never a part of any of the discussions, would never know to be here at the present meeting. Chairman Grande asked a question regarding the description that Mr. Klein gave regarding people receiving notices. He stated that he feel that this is something that calls for mail to people within five- Mr. Klein interrupted stating that that was his exact point, in which they only had the newspaper article, which was given for review at the meeting. He also stated that it is not clear at all, in terms of providing clear identification. Mr. Klein added that if you look at the State Laws, it talks about clearly identifying the property to be addressed and he does not believe that this does. He also stated that rather than sending this forward with a recommendation as to options, given the fact that there appears to be defects and confusion, Staff should go back and straighten it out and come back with a ordinance that has the text in it and then the issue can be dealt with. Mr. Klein concluded stating that that will be his recommendation. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Klein. Mr. Hearn stated that he has a question for Ms. Young. He asked if they could move forward with the issue at the present meeting, having a motion and a second and a roll call stating that they are only talking about the Cross-Hatched area before entering into the discussion. Ms. Young asked if he meant before they take a consensus vote to see if that is 14 Mr. Hearn replied correct. Ms. Young stated that she thinks that they could and as far as the notice goes, she feels that the Cross-Hatched area is visible and at least the ad that she saw which flashed upon the screen. She concluded that if that is the area that they are limiting the discussion to, then she thinks that the notice problem will probably be resolved in regards to that portion. She also stated that if that is the consensus that all the members understand that they are talking about, she would not have a problem with going forward with that. Mr. Hearn that, he will make a motion that this Board considers that the discussion tonight is exclusively to the Cross-Hatched area and to the other area which is not include the dark line that includes the North County Study area. Mr. Hearn concluded hopefully, that will clear up any confusion that anyone in the future would have about the present discussion. Ms. Hammer seconded the motion with the following additions: She stated that she would like to have the map annotated as exhibit A and also dated for future preferences. Chairman Grande asked if the updates were acceptable to the motion maker. Mr. Hearn replied, yes. Chairman Grande announced that a motion and a second had been made. He also asked if there were any discussions. Mr. Klein asked if the ordinance itself is to put a postponement on any new development in the TVC area that is talking about. Chairman Grande replied that it does not refer to the TVC area that they are talking w development at density greater than the existing entitlement and anyone who wanted to develop at their current entitlement would not be impacted by the ordinance. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Kelly for clarifications. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Young clarified what Chairman Grande had said as correct. Mr. Klein stated that his question regards the area inside the box, which is the study area. Mr. Klein stated that there was mention of receiving areas and other areas in the study area. Chairman Grande confirmed that there was mention of receiving areas and other areas in the study area. 15 Mr. Klein stated that he is wondering if that area is left out of the discussion. Mr. Klein also added that there is notion that if that will have an impact on the actual TVC area itself, there might not be something left there or it may alter something in the TVC itself. Chairman Grande stated that he suspects that that was part of what was behind suggestion that we actually go through the hearing, have their discussion and see if anything there takes them closer to a decision or leaves them with the possibility of moving it forward with the actual area to be designated on the way. Chairman Grande added that he suggests to Mr. Hearn, with consideration to his motive for trying to delineate it at this point, hearing further input from the present hearing and considering a number of options that can still be used to create a conclusion based on what is heard throughout the hearing and their subsequent discussion. He also spoke against a motion that sets the delineation at this point, prior to the hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that it is obvious and clear to him that the area outside of the Cross- Hatched TVC Element Boundary is not what is being discussed. He added that he finds no intention of stopping development in the area that is not Cross-Hatched even though it is in the study area. He also added that he would like to vote the motion either up or down. Chairman Grande added that it has been made and seconded; therefore it will be voted upon. Chairman Grande also asked if there was further discussion on the motion before roll call is made. Mr. Lounds asked if the motion is that they discuss only the Cross-Hatched area. Mr. Hearn stated correct. Chairman Grande asked that the roll call be made. Mr. Lounds replied yes. Ms. Morgan replied yes. Mr. Knapp said no. Mr. Hearn said no. Ms. Hammer said yes. Mr. Grande said no. Chairman Grande announced that the motion carried 4-2. Chairman Grande stated that the remainder of the discussion is limited to the Cross-Hatched area, which is their assumption as to what is being passed forward. He also added that it is subject to correction by who ever is presenting it to the County Commission. Chairman Grande asked if there was anybody else that would like to comment. 16 Mr. Jonathan Ferguson stated that he is here on the behalf of a property owner in the TVC area D. R. Horton. He stated that they asked them to take a look at the ordinance and provide them with their comments. Mr. Ferguson stated that their hope is that the ordinance is not passed. However, if the Commission wishes to pass something then they request consideration of additional language. He added that he had provided the chairman with the original copy of a letter from Noreen Dryer that proposes that language and he also added that there are additional copies. Mr. Ferguson stated that it is a relatively simple addition and they think that it is consistent with the spirit and intent that the County Commission has been expressing all along during the process. Mr. Ferguson also added that it will temporarily allow any project, whether it is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Zoning Atlas, or request for development order, to go forward and be processed and reviewed by Staff if it is consistent with the principles and intent of the TVC Element. As the Board well knows, there has been an unofficial slow down of review of projects that were deemed inconsistent with the North County master plan. This is more formalizing of that effort. It is their feeling that their client and others that may be inclined, that are willing to work toward implementing the goals of the North County master plan, be allowed to do so. They also request that they be allowed to work with Staff and not be penalized with further delay of the adoption of the TVC Amendment and the implementation ordinances that will follow. They respectfully request that the Board considers adding Paragraph B of Section 2, which would allow those types of projects to at least be considered and go forward with continuance of the review process. Mr. Ferguson concluded stating, ultimately it is well known that the final decision rests in the hands of the Board of County Commissioners and they can evaluate whether or not if they consider the request as being consistent with the TVC Element. However, Mr. Ferguson continued that it should not penalize someone who is willing to put in the effort to try to achieve those goals now, rather than simply waiting. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Ferguson for his statements. Paul Dereldi, a land use attorney with the law firm of Greenberg & Torg approached the podium to speak. He stated that he represents the property owners within the TVC area. He also stated that he would echo the sentiments of Mr. Ferguson, in terms of the ability to move forward with projects that are consistent in the spirit and intent. He stated that he was going to speak on if that in fact was what was intended in the waiver provision in Section 3, which he stated was a little unclear to him. He allow the Board added that he was not really sure what that statement was aimed at or whether it was meant to be a development order for a specific project. Normally if someone was going to do a Comprehensive Plan or rezoning, which would fall within the definition of development order in chapter 163, it would not be done for a specific building but for a project or building permit. Mr. Dereldi concluded asking for clarifications on what was meant to be within the perspective of the waiver provision. 17 resent and she will speak on behalf of that question. Ms. Young stated that it seems to her that it would be a specific project, considering that the subject is a little bigger than a building itself. She reiterated that Nancy was involved in the drafting of the ordinance and she indicated that the interpretation was not incorrect. Mr. Ferguson asked if an applicant could come to the Board and request approval for a waiver to process a site plan, rezoning land use plan amendment within the framework of the waiver provision. He also asked if the Board thought that the waiver was consistent with the spirit of the TVC which would otherwise affect the implementation of the TVC. Mr. Ferguson concluded asking if they could allow approval to move forward, through the waiver. Ms. Young stated that that is her understanding. Chairman Grande agreed that he too thought that that was what Section 3 states. Mr. Hearn asked if it would be proper to change Chairman Grande stated that he would be more inclined to change the word to Mr. Hearn agreed. Chairman Grande asked if it makes sense to the legal staff. Ms. Young stated that she agrees that that will work because it goes on to say, added that she had already made that note to change. Mr. Mark Mathes, with Lucido and Associates approached the podium to speak. He stated that he wants to bring a little context to the agenda item. Mr. Mathes stated that about five years ago, he represented a project on Indrio Road for a land use amendment, to bring it within the Urban Service Area and to increase its density. He added that at the time, they were denied by the County Commission. Mr. Mathes stated that that was one of the few examples that they had that encouraged them to create the subject plan. Mr. Mathes recalled the testimony heard at the former County Com the property owners to do years ago. Mr. Mathes added that they are still probably a year and a half from full implementation of the subject hearing. He concluded stating that he understands that there are laws in place or that can be put in place to put development orders and more terms on development for important public planning purposes, wherein he added that this is certainly one of those. Mr. Mathes stated that he encourages the Board to act quickly, because they have been in an unofficial type of war term for about five years. Mr. 18 Mathes concluded that he is looking forward to working through the issues that are in place on the TVC ordinance and moving forward. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Mathes. He commented that he thinks that the five year old initiative that he referred to, was in the former days, known as the Indrio Corridor Study as oppose to being slightly different. However it did affect the same area. Mr. Dennis Murphy, a senior project manager with the firm of Culpepper and Terpening, approached the podium to speak. He stated that following all of the lawyers is easy because most of what he was going to say had already been said. However, he pointed out from the perspective of a planner, he questions whether or not the ordinance is of a real necessity at this time given going on in the real world. He answered that it is not a necessity. Realistically, if you look at what is coming through the pipeline for looking then at the time element as anything coming down the pipe that is going to conflict with what is in front or has any realistic chance of approval. He concluded asking why they are there in the first place. He asked that a couple things be looked at. Mr. Murphy stated that he has a question tied into the boundaries of the TVC area, concerning facts stating that it include properties which lie inside of the Urban Service Boundary. County Commission most recently at their workshop of past Monday made it very clear that they were not going to impose any He concluded stating that if you had a certain land use entitlement on your property; you have that land use entitlement and it was not going to be taken away from you, as a part of the program. Mr. Murphy indicated that there is no need for precluding anyone from their entitlement rights in which the Board stated would not be taken away. Chairman Grande stated that he does not understand where the entitlement rights will be taken away. Mr. Murphy used an example to explain what he was saying. He stated if he has a piece of property that he wants to develop and he wants to do a PUD on it, regardless of the zoning, it is an existing entitlement right under the land use plan. He asked why he would be stopped. Mr. Murphy included the fact that it had already been said that they were going to conform as close as they could to the inherent policies of the TVC Element. Mr. Murphy again asked why the developer should be stopped. He added that it seems as if they are taking away or denying the ability to proceed forward with the project or with the plan, particularly inside the Urban Service Boundary. Chairman Grande stated that he would like to get a clarification from the legal Staff at this point. He also added that he thinks what they are saying is, you can move forward with anything that you are currently entitled to, inside or outside of the Urban Service Boundary. The only thing that they are saying is, until the TVC is resolved, one way or 19 the other, they will not increase your entitlements. Chairman Grande asked if his understanding was correct. Ms. Young stated that that was correct. Chairman Grande asked what was exactly being taken away. Mr. Murphy stated if he is entitled to a PUD approval or review, which is a change of Chairman Grande intervened stating that he does not understand why Mr. Murphy would be entitled to that. Mr. Murphy stated that he is entitled to apply for it because it is a land use entitlement to his property. He added that he has the ability to come in and work with it, wherein it is Mr. Murphy added that if he has the ability to have the land use entitlements, why they should be taken away. Mr. Murphy concluded that that was He stated that they would strongly encourage that they be allowed to proceed with their projects inside of the Boundary line. Chairman Grande asked if there was some difference between that and somebody inside of the Urban Service Boundary who has a current zoning entitlement of one per acre and a future land use that says five per acre. Mr. Murphy stated that he was saying that if he had that condition, yes he should be able to come in. He added in particular when it is consistent with prior statements of the Board both recently, within the last ten days and with some cases regarding properties where they specifically authorize development activity to take place on it with the Chairman Grande stated that he would agree with Mr. Murphy if that is the concept that Mr. Murphy intervened stating if it does disallow then he has an objection to that part of it. He added that the other part of it that he has a problem with is the definition of development permit under the County. He stated that when you reference the development permit, you could construe that to be a single family building permit. He stated that pulling the boundary line Cross-Hatched area has probably eliminated the biggest problem of Lakewood Park and Holiday Pines etc. However, there are still other areas whereas if they are not "twique" a little, it could lead to getting waiver requests for every individual building permit that may come in Pantherwoods or some of the other developments that are out in that area. Development permit as defined by the Development Code includes building codes. Mr. Murphy added that the present wording basically shuts everything off. 20 Chairman Grande stated that those are already platted and entitled. Mr. Murphy stated if it is a vacant lot or a vacant parcel of land and a guy wants to put a single family home on there, it is not allowed under the subject plan. Mr. Murphy added that he may be interpreting the plan too strictly. Chairman Grande stated the he does not recall seeing that information anywhere. Mr. Hearn stated that he feels that there is a little selective interpretation of the document. He feels that it is clear to most folks that the intent of the ordinance is to stop any PUD applications from coming forward at this time. He also added that Mr. Murphy may have interpreted that as losing one of his entitlements, wherein he agrees because technically he is. However, he feels that that is the purpose in the ordinance. Mr. Hearn also stated that it appears to him that the ordinance is saying if you have two units per acre on your zoning, that you can do any of that that you want to. However, he interpreted that it does not allow developers coming in with a PUD to ask for more right now until the ordinance is finished. Mr. Murphy stated that that is one way of interpreting it. He also added that that is the concern that he would have. He also stated that the interpretation runs counter to some of the previous statements that were made by the County Commission. Mr. Hearn stated that a general term was used in entitlements regarding how it is interpreted. He also added that the purpose of the ordinance needs to be cleared up. Mr. Murphy added that they can all agree on one thing. He stated that there is some refinement of the language which needs to take place. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Murphy. Mr. Michael Houston, with Houston Couzzo Group, approached the podium to speak. He added to the discussion that Mr. Murphy had prior. He stated that they have a project that is in process and probably has been in process for approximately eight months to a year. He stated that it is within the Urban Service Area, yet they believe that it meets a lot of the desired goals for the TVC. Mr. Houston stated that based on their reading of this, it appears that they would not be able to continue with it, even though it was about to come to the Board. He added that they have had their second Staff report and they were about ready to make presentations to the Board. Mr. Houston recalled one of the earlier comments that was made from one of the attorneys, and commented on it. He recalled the statement wherein they had asked in good faith, that they could move forward and present their petition to the Board and the Commission, wherein they will decide if their petition is consistent with their goals as it relates to the TVC. He stated that it would be inequitable for them to have spent as much time as they have, and to be as far in the process as they are and essentially be stopped before they are given an opportunity of presentation of their petition to the Board. They have not come up with a suggestion for 21 the added language; however, it may just be a difference between projects in process with Staff reports that have not made it to the Board yet. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Houston. Mr. Hearn stated that he had a question before Mr. Houston left the microphone. He asked if the mentioned project is in the Cross-Hatched area. correct. Mr. Hearn asked if he had preliminary approval or anything on it. Mr. Houston stated that they do not have preliminary approval or anything on it. He added that they have a land use designation of nine units per acre, in regards to the They also have an existing zoning of approximately two units per acre and a PUD that is proposed in between the two, approximately closer to seven, however, it does many of the things that the TVC is looking for, connectivity and all kinds of things that can be mentioned. He concluded that they pretty much would have to wait at this point until that gets adopted. Mr. Houston stated if the wait is done in a short period of time, then it would be fine. However, they have some concurrency issues that they have to deal with. Mr. Houston concluded that his concern is that it could go a long time. Just as importantly, it may allow you to use a project that is coming in, to ask how does this work with what the TVC is proposing. He concluded saying, an important distinction is that it is inside of the Urban Service area. Mr. Hearn asked if his particular project that he was talking about, includes open-spaced countryside. Mr. Houston replied that it includes open-space, a preservation percentage and it is on Indrio Road. He added that it has a buffer that can be considered, Countryside. He also stated that most of the property along Indrio Road is existing trees and they will be talking about the tree preservation program. He stated that it is interconnected and they are proposing a road to the South that does not exist today, to create more connectivity. This is the south east corner of Indrio and Kings. He reiterated that they have other issues that they have to deal with on traffic; however, they will deal with those. He added that they would like the consideration of their petition. He also added that it is not a new application or a move of the Urban Service line is it, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, not a Land Use Amendment. He clarified that it is a zoning request. comprehending the issue in the same fashion. He added that this was referred to as a Stop-Gap measure and contains a sunset provision within it and exceed one hundred and eighty days. Ms. Young added that chairman Grande is correct. 22 Chairman Grande continued stating that it may be significantly shorter than that; however he feels that the likelihood of it being longer is low but possible. He stated that he is under the impression, considering he may be interpreting it incorrectly, that the goal of this is t yet. He stated that he is not sure what anyone, including himself and the County Commission, could use to evaluate a project. He added that he suspects that the Charrette area will be better built out, in the long run. He added that it will be better built out if as many projects as possible are held to the standard once it is defined, as opposed to what is guessed it will look like in the future. Mr. Houston stated that he appreciates the comment. He added that he thinks that there is more to that. He also stated that the issue that he has a little concern of is the fact that the TVC was generally written as a discussion of an Urban Service Boundary. He added that it was written to talk about, as an alternative, the study that was done beforehand. He added that they are inside of the urban service area. He added that there was a question in the early stages of the TVC whether or not it would even be included inside of the Urban Service area. The Stop Gap is one hundred and eighty days, but it also has the ability to be extended. The adoption of the LDR for the TVC is still in process. The Staff at the Regional Planning Council is working quickly; however, it could still be a very long time before that is adopted. He stated that he had been corrected. The correction is that they have been in the process for eighteen months on the mentioned project. He concluded that it is not unusual to identify and establish a cut off date, as compared to the debate of delay. He added that he heard that they were still debating whether or not if an application can be done, what type of application can be done, as well as whether or not if a PUD is considered an application or straight zoning. He stated that it is not a straight zoning, but it is a PUD. He added that it does fall under that area. He concluded that he would like the Board to at least consider something that allows that to go forward. He added that it is not many projects, and it certainly is still a yay Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Houston. Mr. Houston said, thank you. Chairman Grande asked if there was anyone else who would like to comment on the Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. subject. Mr. Knapp stated that the term is only for a hundred and eighty days and it could only be counted only for sixty days. He added that they are looking at a maximum of an eight month type period. He asked if his statement was correct. Ms. Young stated that that was correct. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions. 23 Mr. Lounds asked if Mr. Kelly could draw in the Urban Service area for them. Mr. Kelly stated that the Urban Service Boundary cannot be seen, however, it is on the map that Mr. Klein provided. He pointed out the Urban Service Boundary on the map that Mr. Klein provided. He stated that it runs along Emerson Road and it comes out a little, above Indrio Road. He voted the discontinuous island out at the interchange. In General, the Urban Service Boundary is along Emerson and further down into the area of Pantherwood, it moves to the west in the island. Mr. Lounds asked if it comes up the northern side of Pantherwood to I-95, and goes down I-95 to about half way of Panther wood. He continued asking if it proceeds back to Seminole. Mr. Lounds stated that he gets lost when he comes down this way from the hash mark that is presented. at Emerson and it has the same alignment all the way down. Mr. Kelly pointed out the whereabouts of Seminole on the map. Mr. Lounds stated okay, and he asked Mr. Kelly to direct the pen, which Mr. Kelly was using to point out places on the map, towards the south. Mr. Lounds told Mr. Kelly to stop directing the pen when he reached an intersection. Mr. Kelly stated that at the intersection, there is an airport and Immokalee follows. Mr. Lounds clarified that his point is that he is trying to get a feel for where the Urban Service area is. He added that there are rules and regulations, which are specific to the Urban Service Boundary that they have talked about, around the North County Charrette and the TVC. He stated that he has a problem with the fact that they are going to limit folks inside of the Urban Service area. He added that they have asked people to make specific needs inside of the area to build out, stay inside of the Urban Service area, and present their petitions inside of the Urban Service area, all under one set of rules. Mr. Lounds stated that now they are going to hamper, the privileges that the people living inside of the Urban Service area have and separate it from outside of the area that really had a more dealing with the Charrette. Mr. Lounds reiterated that he has a problem with limiting people that are inside of the Urban Service area. He added that these people have in past time, come to the Board under the Urban Service area Guidelines and asked for PUDs or developments, and now they are being stripped of their rights. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands where Mr. Lounds is coming from. He added that he also understands that there was a project that kind the Urban Service Boundary. Mr. Hearn added that they felt that they could have done a better job. He added that he feels that this was the whole purpose. He also stated that a project that is worthy of a waver, certainly can apply for a waiver on this. He added that he liked that part of it. Mr. Hearn stated that if it is really a good project and it fits within 24 the TVC guidelines, then it certainly should get a waiver. He concluded that he is thinking that if they do not have the Stop Gap ordinance, it will lead to a circus of requests trying to get it done before the TVC is enacted. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with Mr. Hearn. He also stated that he understands that the buck stops at the County Commission and if they do not want it to go forward, it will not go forward. He stated that some of the hash-marked areas that Mr. Houston spoke of, Highway-Taylor Road area is out of the Charrette paths that are there, or he is sure that the hash-marks would have included Taylor-Dairy Columbus felt when he set sail, not knowing where he was going. He added that it is where they are going but they are headed. He stated that he understands the need to have everyone singing on the same sheet; however he is not sure if the way that it is being done is the correct way to do it. If they limit the ideas that come before the Board or the Staff, then they may be missing some opportunities for an alternative, where in there are some alternatives for the issue, however, they have not been found yet. Mr. Hearn stated that he agrees with Mr. Lounds. He added that he also has to think that as the Board well knows that what they think really does not matter much in the end. He continued stating that they are not there to make any decision, other than to give an opinion. Mr. Lounds asked questions pertaining to the sections. He asked Ms. Young if to have a waiver is a matter of applying through the process of staff and letting it come before the County Commissions for a waiver. Ms. Young replied that that was right and she added that it would require a public hearing. Mr. Lounds asked Ms. Young how long she thinks that that would take. Ms. Young replied a little less than a year and a half. She added that there will be advertising for at least fourteen days. She stated that by the time the application is in, it would probably take about four to six weeks. Mr. Hearn asked if it does not have to come before the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Young replied no, it is just before the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Lounds if he was finished. Mr. Lounds said yes. 25 Chairman Grande asked if there were any other comments. Ms. Morgan stated that she received the updated agenda in her packet at the present meeting. She added that she is totally confused by it all. She added that Mr. Klein brought up a good point with the ad and it has Carson McCurdy as the Chairman. She stated that she does not know if it has anything to do with it or not. Chairman Grande stated that if it was under Carson, then it would be a lot less confusing. Ms. Morgan agreed stating maybe if it were under Carson; it may have been a lot less confusing. However, she is totally confused about it and she feels that it needs to go back and then come back to the Board. Chairman Grande stated that he would suggest that any other circumstance, he would agree with those comments. However, he does not agree with the particular ordinance. The first reason is that he does not think that anyone should confuse supporting the Stop Gap measure with supporting what they know of as the TVC, so far. He added that he thinks that it is a good thing to have the Stop Gap in Place as quick as possible so that g to the TVC, by having approved something in the interim. The second thing is, again, it is a Stop He concluded stating so they are not putting anything in that is not already entitled and they are not stopping not already entitled. From his perspective; he would support this, should it be put to a motion at the present hearing. Chairman Grande asked if they have a motion if there are not other comments. considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the Stop Gap ordinance for the North County Charrette because he feels that they need to get the Charrette area done before approval is granted to all PUDs. He added stating very specifically, just the TVC area that was voted on earlier. Chairman Grande asked if there was a second to the motion. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion, noting that there are waivers available for projects linking to the TVC Element. Chairman Grande asked if there were any comments to be made on the motion. Mr. Lounds asked if the suggestions that were made will be included in the motion. 26 Chairman Grande replied that they were not included in the motion. Mr. Lounds replied that he will not be voting on it. Chairman Grande replied, okay. Ms. Hammer asked what the wording was regarding. Mr. Lounds explained that his concern was the wording on the waiver. He pointed out that it was on page three. Chairman Grande replied, okay. He also asked if it was okay with the person who seconded the motion. Mr. Knapp replied yes. Chairman Grande stated that he thinks that the attorney had already made the decision pertaining what was going to be moved forward. The roll call was made. Ms. Hammer said yes. Mr. Lounds replied no. He stated that the reason being is because he think that it is a necessary piece of ordinance and the County can stop it at the County en he would have voted for this, but not on a short period of time. He added that he feels that it is a waste of effort and energy. Ms. Morgan replied no. Mr. Knapp replied yes. Mr. Hearn replied yes. Chairman Grande replied yes. Ms. Hammer stated that although it was not included in the motion, however, the map will be marked A Yes Chairman Grande stated that he needs a moment to count the votes and come up with the total. He stated that the motion passed 4-2. The ordinance will be forwarded to the 27 County Commission with a recommendation of approval as amended at the present meeting. AGENDA ITEM 3: VERO VISTA-PA-05-002: Mr. Kelly stated that the next couple of things that they will be looking at contain three large scale plan amendments and a small scale amendment. He stated that they deal with the small scale plan amendments more routinely. He stated that they do not deal with the three large scale amendments often. He added that he was not sure if everyone on the Board has been through a large plan amendment. Mr. Kelly stated that Sheryl Stolzenberg will be presenting the scale plan amendments. Mr. Kelly stated that Ms. Stolzenberg wants to make some comments to the Board about the standards for amendments, before the hearing begins. Mr. Kelly stated that rather than trying to do it for each of the items, they thought that it might be a good idea to take a few minutes and talk in general. Mr. Kelly added that he appreciates their comments about the packets. He stated that Karen Butcher had done her own packet and Sheryl Stolzenberg did the four plan amendment packets. He added that when they get a compliment, he should further pass on and let the person who did the work be recognized. He concluded that Sheryl will come forward and speak on the behalf of her work. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Kelly. Ms. Sheryl Stolzenberg stated, for the benefit of the people who are not familiar with the state law that governs comp plan amendments, she wanted to briefly explain what they have to look at, in addition to their own comp plan. She stated that there are regulations that have been issued by the State Department of Community Affairs, as well as the state laws that have been passed by the legislature, which is essentially what this boils down to. In Florida Administrative Code, which is issued by the Department of Community Affairs, the rules instruct in subsection 9J-11.0061B as to what local governments have to look at. In addition to providing the state with maps that show the proposed future land use of the subject property and maps showing the present future land use designation of that property and the abutting properties, local governments also have to provide the state with information showing the existing land use of what is there now on the subject property and the abutting property, because local governments must also consider impacts on what is there now. This is because long range planning is exactly that, and there is always the chance that something may be approved in a premature fashion and cause an impact which was not intended. Local governments also have to look at a description of the availability of and demand on sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, traffic circulation and recreation, and this is not concurrency analysis. At this stage, governments are looking at 28 whether or not they have to amend the comprehensive plan in the other areas, whether they want to make the land use change. She added that the important aspect of the whole matter is the fact that it is a comprehensive plan and it has to be internally consistent by state law. Therefore, if it is decided that there is a land use change that is desired, there must also be the ability to verify that they are making whatever changes that might be needed to the other parts of the Comprehensive plan and Capital Budget etc., in order to provide the services. Ms. Stolzenberg added that they have to look at information regarding the compatibility of the proposed land use amendment. She stated that it does not only regard the land use element objectives but those of any other affected element, such as the Conservation Element, for example. She stated that the last two points speak to the requirements of 163.3177 of Florida Statues, which states that the coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan should be a major objective of the planning process and the elements of the comprehensive plan should be consistent and economically feasible. She concluded stating that this is definitely something that the state looks at very closely so they take this into consideration every time they analyze a plan amendment. Mr. Hearn asked a question regarding who was it economically feasible for. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that it depends on who is providing the service. She also stated if it is the local government (for example) that is providing the sewer or water, then they have to be able to demonstrate in their Capital Improvement Element and in their Water and Sewer element how they are going to provide it. She added that because it is a long range plan, it is not concurrency. They do not have to point out a present line. However, if the community decides that it wants to make a land use change in an area where they have not previously planned to have that much development, then they have to update the Water and Sewer master plan and make the changes so that by the time the applicant is ready to build, they will have services available. She stated that if it is not the county that is providing the services, but it is a private utility, then the utility needs to be able to change their plan or the applicant will end up doing that. She concluded stating that in some fashion they have to be able to change plans and have available facilities by the time someone comes to them for actual development approval, at which point concurrency becomes an issue. She reiterated that at the present stage, they are not dealing with concurrency but they are strictly dealing with planning. She concluded stating that if there are not sewer lines where they decide where they want something that needs a sewer line, then they need to start talking about who is going to do the plans to see to it that there is a sewer line. She concluded stating that that is basically what the state is asking them to do. Mr. Hearn stated that he basically asked that question because they have been under the same regulations, statues etc. with development projects that they have approved in the past. He stated that they have millions, and millions of dollars that they are not able to account for today. He concluded clarifying his reason for asking the question. 29 Ms. Stolzenberg stated that some of these costs are obviously costs to a developer also. She stated that as long as they can indicate that it is the developer who is going to do this, and however they assure this, then that is acceptable to the state. She concluded stating that it is not necessarily just a public expense; it is that they have to be able to identify how the expenses will be born. Chairman Grande stated that if they take the Vero Vista application and look at the second page, at the bottom of the headings it reads: of concurrency document hat the requirement is for a concurrency deferral affidavit. He asked if they could thoroughly explain exactly what the deferral affidavit is. Mr. Kelly stated that the affidavit is an effort to get something in the public records in their files, which the developer has signed so that he knows concurrency is being deferred to a later date and that this is not a concurrency review. Mr. Kelly stated that they want to be very clear at every stage until they have done concurrency, that they have not promised any public services at all. He added that the deferral is simply their effort to put something into the file, if the developer acknowledges the understanding terms. Chairman Grande asked if they were not waiving any concurrency required. He asked if Mr. Kelly intervened stating that they were asking the applicant to acknowledge that they have not committed anything. Chairman Grande stated that at this point, it will be looked at in the future. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Kelly. Chairman Grande stated if there were no further questions, then they will proceed to the application. Ms. Stolzenberg presented this item. She stated that the first application before the Board for Land Use Amendment is file number PA-05-002, which is the application of Vero Vista Center for Change in Land Use Designation from Commercial to Mixed Use. She added that it was for a forty-six acre parcel which was located approximately one-eighth of a mile south of the St. Lucie-Indian River county line, on the east side of US 1. She reiterated that, as they were required by 9J-11 of Florida Administrative Code, they looked at surrounding Future Land Uses, Commercial to the north, south and west, and Residential Urban at a density of five dwelling units per acre to the east. Concerning the surrounding uses, the actual uses on the ground, there was an office building with storage to the north, vacant acreage and miscellaneous agriculture such as sales of ornamentals, and two single family homes to the east. She also added that there is a vacant restaurant to the south and the west, there was a variety of uses. The uses included a retail store, vacant commercial building, bars, gas stations, more vacant acreage, a mobile home park, a motel and a home for the aged. 30 She stated that they looked at both availability of and demand on sanitary sewer solid waste, drainage, potable water, traffic circulation services, not in terms of concurrency but in terms of whether a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be needed to any of the mentioned services. She added that it had shown that the needs could be met without a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She stated that as far as consistency goes with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff felt that it supported and furthered the Land Use Element because it met the intent statement of the Mixed Use Land Use and also it supported a number of objectives and policies. She stated that Objective 1.1.5 directed development to where services were planned. She added that it met the requirements of Policy 1.1.5.3, which must be looked at when considering an amendment, making a finding that the property is adjacent to or no more than one quarter mile from same or greater land use and that the property lies within the Five Year Capital Plan or is otherwise provided for, for services, which it is. She stated that it is consistent with Objective 1.1.7, which directs future development and redevelopment to areas that have the appropriate designations and are consistent with sound principles. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that they looked at how it supported and furthered the Transportation Element. She added that this is another policy that has to be looked at whenever a Land Use Amendment is considered. She added that the Transportation System shall be reviewed in coordination with requested Land Use Changes and reports on impacts shall be provided which is Policy 2.1.1. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that an impact statement was provided and it indicated that possibly traffic could be reduced. She stated that this was reviewed by the Road and Bridge Staff who indicated that until an actual formal application for a project is actually provided, they that at the Land Use stage, it did not appear to cause a problem that will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She stated that they also looked at how it affected other elements, in particular, the Conservation Element. She stated that they noted that there is an area that the County has identified that has protected species including the presence of Lakela Mint and the applicant also provided an environmental assessment statement. She stated that there is a conceptual site plan that goes with this and it indicates a Preserve will be a part of the final plan. She stated that the actual development plan will be required to identify the Preserve and a management plan and any necessary deed restrictions, when it comes in. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that at the time that she wrote this, it was given to her to understand that the petition was located within the North County Charrette area. She added that it was within the study area but it is not within the TVC area, therefore it does not appear to be effected by the Stop Gap ordinance as she understands it at this point in time. She concluded, stating that the Staffis a recommendation that the petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that it be transmitted to the State for adoption. She added that they also recommended that the County considers that a developer agreement is entered into it at the time of adoption of the Land Use, in order to ensure that the Preserve is an actuality. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Stolzenberg. Chairman Grande asked if there were any questions. 31 Mr. Hearn asked how much land is involved in the Preserve area. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that they do not have a definite handle on that. She added that there was an application that the County had made at one point to acquire some of the land and they still have the grant money but the owner was not interested in selling it to the County. Therefore, it has become a part of the discussion when the development proposal was actually submitted to work with the applicant and the environmental department to get the Preserve identified as the County wants it to be identified. She concluded that all they have from the applicant at this time is the conceptual plan. She also added that there is not a statistic that states how large it is going to be or how much it would include. She added that at the land use stage, with a conceptual site plan, you really are not able to bind anyone to anything. She concluded that this is why she suggested, for consideration only, the use of a developer agreement. She added that it is something that you enter into and it is more binding. She stated that it can expire and so on, but it can give a little bit of a measure of security that you cannot have at the Land Use stage, because a conceptual site plan is just that. She stated that it is a very nice illustration but it is not something that is binding on anyone at the Land Use Stage. Mr. Hearn asked another question regarding the Preserve Area. He asked if there was any data available that showed that the Lakela Mint could be transplanted. He asked if it was scattered over a two acre parcel and you could condense it to a smaller area by transplanting it, is the information available. Mr. Kelly stated that it appears that that Mint grows at a specific elevation on the Dune or the Historic Dune. He added that only on one side of the Dune have they had some efforts to transplant it. He stated that he is not sure if they have been terribly successful with any of them. Mr. Kelly stated that they had the folks over from the middle of the state in Lake Wales trying to transplant some. He added that he does not think that they had great success. He concluded stating that he is not sure if they can count on transplanting as a method to save it all. Mr. Hearn stated that his purpose of asking that question is if they can consolidate it on the same site, rather than move it to another site, which may or may not be a successful transplant. He added that he was not suggesting that they move it off site, but the plants are moved closer together so that they do not take up too much space, such as clustered housing and so forth. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not know. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that she thinks that this is part of the discussion that they get into when they are actually doing the plans for the development because at that point, the applicant and County have to bring their experts in and state the terms for operations. She added that there needs to be something of a buffer around the area where the concentrations are, to protect them. She concluded stating that the actual size and so on would be something that would have to be spelled out correctly, as a part of the development approval. 32 Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of the Staff. Mr. Knapp asked what the density per acre on the Mixed Use High Ridge, for Residential Chairman Grande asked if the question relates to the specific application, and not overall limits. Mr. Knapp replied yes. He added that it probably relates to both. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that this is actually a difference between what is the high of the density of the Mixed Use allows. She also stated that what the applicant is saying is that they will limit themselves to, in the language that they are saying that they are going to include. Chairman Grande stated if the pattern could be explained a little, it will save a lot of time. He stated that they are talking about forty-six acres, but the Residential portion of the overall development would be a lot less than the total forty-six acres however the number of units are fairly high. Mr. Knapp reiterated that he wants to know how many units could be put there. He asked if the zoning is changed, then how many units are allowed in the forty-six acres. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Klein can assist with further help. He also gave a brief summary of what the Comprehensive Plan stated in regards to the discussion. He stated that in Mixed Use areas, there are sub-area maps for each of those areas that divide the Mixed Use areas into high, medium and low intensity areas. He added that the proposal being discussed is for this to be a high intensity area. He stated that the Comp Plan Residential units, there are between regulated by floor area ratio. Mr. Kelly used an example stating that General Commercial would be allowed at a floor area ratio of 1.0. He clarified that that means if you have an acre of ground, you may have a full acre of Commercial floor area. He added that you cannot do that and have parking, therefore it requires multistory buildings. He added that floor area ratio is a measure of floor as compared to land. He added that it may include multistory buildings. Mr. Kelly concluded stating that for the non- residential components, they are regulated by floor area ratio. He stated that the residential is regulated five to fifteen in this case. He addressed a question that they had from DCA last year regarding the fact that if all of this was done, you could have very intense development. Mr. Kelly stated that at that time, their response was that they would not allow them all to happen on the same acre. He stated that they would divide the project into half residential and half commercial. He added that they would apply these individually into those areas. Mr. Kelly stated that maybe that is context for what Mr. Klein would explain. 33 Chairman Grande asked if what Mr. Kelly was saying pertaining to the Mixed Use high zoning, is that the portion that is allocated for commercial sub-area maps are used as an entitlement for residential. He continued stating that conversely if you are using up to fifteen for residential, what you are doing is, as you fill in that residential, reducing what is left for commercial. Mr. Kelly replied yes. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Kelly. Mr. Hearn asked a question pertaining Mixed Use High Ridge. He asked where the word from. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that that is its name. Mr. Hearn asked if that was the name of the project. Ms. Stolzenberg clarified that it is the name of the project. She added that each of the Mixed Use areas is one. Mr. Hearn asked if this is the same applicant that is planning to develop Coconut Cove. Mr. Klein replied, no. Mr. Knapp stated that he is not clear on what Mr. Kelly went over. He addressed the statement saying that they are requesting to go to Mixed Use High intensity. He asked if he was correct. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that that was correct. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that that is the allowable density within that particular land use Mr. Knapp intervened stating that he understands what the applicant is saying. He stated that they were just asking to approve it to the five to fifteen. He asked if that was correct. His question was in regards to the change. Mr. Knapp stated that they were saying that they were approving something that the applicant is telling them that he is going to do. He stated that they are actually being asked to approve the five to fifteen per acre. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Klein replied no. Ms. Stolzenberg replied no. She stated that the applicant is voluntarily restricting by language that would be put into the Comprehensive Plan on the map stating that he will limit himself to a lesser number of units than he would be able to do under this category. 34 Mr. Klein stated that it might be good it they were allowed to go through the presentation. He added that they might be able to put some of this in context. Chairman Grande stated that they will go through the presentation; he just wanted to make sure that they get any questions of staff out of the way. Mr. Klein responded that he would appreciate that. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Klein. Chairman Grande Chairman Grande asked if there were any other question of Staff. opened the public hearing. Mr. Bobby Klein, a representative of the applicant, approached the podium to speak. He stated that he is from the law firm of Klein and Dobbins. He stated that he represents the applicant, Vero Vista LLC. He stated that he has Cyndy Snay from his Staff with him. He also stated that Mike Houston and Dawn Gilmore from Houston Cuozzo Group are also present on his behalf. He also stated that Adam Kerr and Jason Matson from Kimley Horn are present at the hearing on his behalf and that they are responsible for some of the traffic aspects. Mr. Klein clarified that he is a lawyer who represented Coconut Cove LLC, which is the entity that is the applicant and developer of the Coconut Cove project. He stated that Vero Vista LLC is a separate entity and it is the applicant being discussed at the present meeting. He clarified that the people that are involved are some of the same people but the applicant is not the same. Mr. Klein stated that some of the information that they wanted to get in to has been brought up as part of the conversation. He stated that they are very excited about the project, for some of the reasons that they will discuss shortly. He stated that they also want to echo their appreciation and the fact that the Staff report was so well done. He stated that it was very well presented and it put all of the information out for the reader to be able to make an informed decision. He concluded that the Staff had done a fine job. Mr. Klein stated that one of the questions that came up a minute ago was about the Preserve. He stated that Ms. Stolzenberg answered the question as well as possible. He added that the environmental department does have transplant areas. He stated that they have transplanted the Mint to other areas. He stated that they had to deal with this in the past. He stated that they have worked with Amy and Vanessa to come up with a plan. He added that they are going to minimize any impact to the Mint. He stated that they do not know the exact details. They are showing this at this stage because they know that it is generally in that area. He added that as they go further along the process and have the land uses approved, that they come back for the planned developments. Then the site plan and the boundary will be established. He reiterated what Ms. Stolzenberg had previously stated about there being buffers and protections. He stated that all of that will come into place as the development permit process proceeds. Mr. Klein stated that they indicated that on there because they are well aware of the location 35 of the Mint. He added that they want everyone to understand that they are not at all ignoring the fact that the Mint exists and they know that they have to address it. Mr. Klein stated that when they looked at the project, they looked at forty-six acres that have been designated as General Commercial since the Comprehensive Plan was enacted in the 1990s. He stated that for fifteen years, the area has basically remained dormant. He stated that there have been a number of pieces which have been used and then remain in disrepair as a result of entities that have gone out of business. He stated that he certainly does not have to tell Mr. Hearn what the property looks like; however, Mr. Houston will assist in helping all others to see pictures relating to what exists there. He stated that they looked at this and questioned themselves about what can be done in that area. Mr. Klein stated that no one has come along and addressed a desire to make this a full utilization for Commercial property. He stated that the topography is a little interesting. He also added that there is a slope to it. He stated that it does not lend itself to full use as Commercial. He asked what they can do. Mr. Klein stated that they looked at the ability to try to do Mixed Use. He stated that with all the talk about smart growth and with what they have been seeing with the TVC and some of the things that are going to come out of it, there is really no ability in St. Lucie County to do a true Mixed Use development. He stated that as part of what that discussion was leading into, you cannot do residential at all in any commercial area in St. Lucie County. He stated that Ft. Pierce has the ability to have the first floor to be retail and upper floors to be residential. He added that in regards to the live-work aspect of that discussion, it cannot be done in St. Lucie County now. He stated that they wanted to make a statement, a difference has and they wanted to be a catalyst for change in the area. He stated that he have had numerous discussions with Mike Busha, at the Regional Planning Council, about this. He stated that they knew that things were going to be coming forward in time to address the present discussion. He stated that they have talked with certain people at the County. He stated that the idea here was to do something specific and different because they did not feel like this area could wait. He added that it has been neglected for years and it is time to do something. He concluded that their solution was to utilize the MXD Land Use designation. He reiterated what Mr. Kelly had said regarding what they had learned, the last time that they did that with the DCA. He added there was a different perspective of the MXD between the two of them. He stated that they viewed everything at its maximum use. He stated that they provided the sub-area policies. He stated that they have used the sub-area policies for a couple of different things. He stated that it provides them the ability to have some flexibility and it puts a limitation on what they can do, so that there is no question about it. He stated that Ms. Stolzenberg had spoken a little about the lack of certainty at this stage and the development agreement. He stated that they believe that this is unique because they have the sub-area policies. He stated that as you look down them, you will see exactly what they intend to do. He stated that Mr. Houston will go through them a little more shortly. He stated that clearly the two key ones that were providing the flexibility that they wanted to create, were to provide the ability in the Comprehensive Plan. He added that they have to do these conditions in the Comprehensive Plan so that the LDRs can adapt to it, provide what you can have on this property only. Mr. Klein stated that they are not trying to change the world for the County. He added that they are just looking at the 36 subject property; provide the fact that you could have Residential on top of non- Residential use on this development. He stated that they also looked at the PMUD, which is the Planned Mixed Use Development Provisions of the code. He stated that it surprised them to learn that there was a limitation stating that you could only do up to forty percent of the property in Residential. He stated that you are going to need a certain amount of residential to support the commercial. He stated that the idea here, with the density, is to provide a core of residential that uses the sub-area policies that talk about walk-ability and connectivity and pedestrian access to keep them off of US1. He added that it will allow them to walk over to stores that will be there, in which they have numbered to no less than one hundred thousand or no more than two hundred thousand square feet. Therefore the sub-area policies provide a nucleus of Residential to be able to support the Commercial and make it viable. They do not want what is going on now to take place again in the future, with regards to failed Commercial. Mr. Klein concluded that it is a big picture approach to try to create a viable community. He stated that they are excited about the fact that they have the opportunity to do this. He added that they are excited about the fact that they have the ability to do something that is unique. He concluded stating that he was going to let Mr. Houston speak. Mr. Klein asked if there were any questions. Mr. Michael Houston approached the podium to speak. He stated that they were presenting something extraordinary to the board. He stated that St. Lucie County is evolving and he feels that their application is part of that evolution. He stated that they have spoken to the Board about some of the other projects that they have presented. He added that they all have been part of a positive evolution. He stated that when they looked at the tools that they had to work with, it became clear that the County was missing some tools. He added that developers too, were missing some tools. He stated that they want to talk about the issues regarding the subject property. His question concerning the subject property is why are the forty-six acres in North County inappropriate to all being Commercial. He also asked why is the MXD appropriate for them to use it. He asked why the sub-area policies, which Mr. Klein discussed, are great tools. He concluded that the sub-area policies are very interesting as part as the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Houston stated that it gets you part of the way to planning developments. He also asked why this is a good example of how it works. He stated that they will present examples of similar projects and things that they think that they will be presenting to the Board, over the next few months. He pointed out that exhibit C at the back of the staff report, is a schematic conceptual development plan. He stated that it is far from a real plan; however it is an illustration as to how they see the property being developed. He stated that where they see a village center, there will be a mix of commercial and residential Uses. He stated that where they see residential, it will be of a high intensity to allow the kind of node that allows more walk-ability in the community, mass transit will be discussed and it is also more appropriate because of the character of the site. He concluded that that exhibit is kind of the basics for some of the things that he will present shortly. 37 Chairman Grande asked if he could point the entrance to Coconut Cove out on the map, relative to this particular layout. Mr. Houston pointed it out to him on the map. He also added that he will show them more of the Coconut Cove in more detail shortly. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Houston. Mr. Houston pointed out the site location, the North County and the Indian River County line. He stated that the Indian River County line is very close to the site and it is probably just up a couple of thousand feet. He pointed out to the east, the Coconut Cove PUD. He stated that the label there is wrong, he clarified that Holiday Pines is down to the south. He added that Spanish Lakes is to the left. Mr. Houston stated that what you see here is kind of a unique North County character. He stated that the environmental influence is the Savannahs, which are very significant. He also stated that the area along the river with the mangroves is pretty much along most of the eastern edge of that. Mr. Houston stated that because of its features, he believes that it is an unusual part of the county. He pointed out the uses that are on the site presently. He stated that if anyone has not driven north to Vero Beach, he would not consider US1 a gateway for St. Lucie County. He stated that he does not know where the gateway begins or ends. He listed the uses that were there, including the old Chinese Restaurant that was there and the debris. He stated that there are a variety of uses that are not particularly attractive. He stated that the site is unique, in the sense that it is also on the ridge. He stated that they have already talked a little about this regarding Coconut Cove. Mr. Houston stated that the high point of the site is about forty-five feet. He stated that regarding US1, it is about thirty-five feet. He also added that Old Dixie is about fifteen feet. He concluded that it has quite a grade. Mr. Houston pointed out the land uses that surround them, on the map. He stated that Staff had done a very good job of going through them. He stated that you can see Coconut Cove PUD to the east. He stated that the FIND property and Harbor Branch Oceanographic are a special district land uses. He stated that the majority of the Residential is the RU, which is Residential Urban. He stated that this is an in-fill piece and it is part of the Urban Service Area. He pointed out on the map and stated that the red on the map indicated the commercial. He stated that is kind of in a scattered pattern. He stated that there is more commercial to the south as you head toward Ft. Pierce, but this is kind of an odd mix up here of small pieces. He moved to another place on the map and stated that it runs all the way from US1 to Dixie. He commented that he is not sure why it was designated that way. He added that it is a 1991 designation. He also stated that it is a big piece of Commercial. He stated that when you look at the topography, it is kind of an odd piece. He stated that the surrounding uses, which go back to the gateway, are pretty mixed. He stated that they are hoping as part of this project, and others in the area, that they begin to change the character or North County and that the gateway does start to be formed. Mr. Houston stated that one of the things that they looked at when they were looking at the Commercial question was pertaining to the forty-six acres of Commercial. The 38 question was if they needed that from a market stand point. He stated that they looked at the other commercial shopping centers that have grocery stores in the area. He stated that Community Commercial it is approximately one hundred and two or one hundred-fifty thousand square feet, or sometimes less or more. He stated that the three centers are all within relative close distance and they have taken pictures of those for proof. He stated that South Vero Square is on Oslo Road, which is north of the site by about two miles. He added that if is actually the closest Commercial to the site. He stated that Indrio Crossings at Lakewood Park is three and a half miles to the west. He also added that Taylor Creek Commons, which is a new store that Publix has taken over, is five miles to the south of us. He stated that one of the questions pertains to that which was discussed aforetime about concurrency. He stated that although they are not asking for a development order, they certainly understand the question about what are the impacts of the change. He pointed out that they have created a chart showing the impacts of traffic. The chart also shows, under existing Commercial, how the forty-six acres would generate twenty-four thousand trips a day. He added stating that five hundred of those would be A.M.; twenty-three hundred would be P.M. under the Mixed Use, using the maximum. He concluded stating that this is why the early discussion that they had pertaining to what they were asking for was so important. He stated that under the maximum, there will be fourteen thousand trips generated. He stated that four hundred and forty of them will be A.M. and fourteen will be P.M. He stated that with the sub-areas that they are proposing, their numbers are at the bottom, which is a substantial reduction from the twenty-four. He clarified that it was over sixty percent reduction. He stated that this is nine thousand, one hundred twenty-one trips and the A.M. and P.M. hour travels are seen as well. He stated that this is also on a percentage bases and the reduction of trips at the bottom, as they view the specific proposal that they have from an overall project on daily trips as well as the seventy percent reduction on A.M., and forty percent on P.M. He reiterated that this is a substantial reduction in the number of trips that could be out on US1, if it is viewed from a traffic perspective. Mr. Houston stated that it is instructive to look at the definition of Mixed Use pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that Staff has done a good job including that, however he wants to underscore it once more. He stated that it is intended for the areas where traditional land use classification does not afford the desire, flexibility, and input in community land use planning. He stated that areas with special or unique environmental considerations are used to encourage innovative land use concepts. He stated that any change to the MXD requires a PUD, PNRD or PMUD, so that that MXD, will be presented before the Board and the County Commission, after the land use change is made. He added that it allows up to fifteen units to the acre. He stated that this is a key item, wherein all uses will be compatible with internal and external adjacent land uses. He stated that this really states that how they are going to design this will have to work both outside and inside the project which is part of the PUD. He stated that this also deals a lot with what the TVC is attempting to do, wherein it is some of the smart growth concepts that they have applied. He added that what they have applied is very much a part of the connected street network, as compared to isolated streets. He stated that architectural elements that are attractive bring and create a special sense of place. He stated that he will show the community gathering places shortly. He 39 stated that community green spaces will be green and will be usable for an entire community. He stated that the big part of this is allowing the pedestrian to be a part of the experience of community planning. He reiterated that US1 in not exactly what he also stated that an integration of the Residential and non- Residential uses, walk-able communities to reduce the dependency on automobiles, creates a sustainable preservation areas. He stated that there needs to be quality preservation. He stated that these are the sub-areas policies that are in the Staff report. He stated that they are limiting the maximum number of units to 586 units and a minimum of 250. He stated that they can later talk specifically about what the densities are. He stated that they are in a mixed range and it depends on how much ends up being Residential and how much is Commercial. He added that there could be further discussion. Ms. Hammer asked how many of the acres are going to be made Residential with the fifteen units per acre, in regards to the forty-six acres. Mr. Houston replied that at this point, they do not have a specific acreage, since the application is for the MXD across the entire property. He added that the range of 250 to 586 was given because of the unknown acreage. He stated that based on the planning that they are doing today, they will probably be between the two. He stated that if you use the maximum, you would be over 600. He stated that if you used it across the entire site, it will be 690, wherein they are substantially under that. For example, if ten acres were taken away for Commercial and the maximum was used, then you would be 540. Chairman Grande asked if he could stop Mr. Houston at this point and ask questions regarding the specific area. Mr. Houston replied, absolutely. Chairman Grande stated that if he understands correctly, looking at exhibit C, it is being proposed that residential high density would be residential. He added that he feels that the strip area, Village Center high intensity, would be the area where they are considering a Mixed Use-Residential over Commercial. Mr. Houston replied that Chairman Grande was correct. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Houston if he has considered the density in the Coconut Cove area next door, wherein he imagines being a major part of the customer base in terms of planning for the density required to support the Commercial that would like to be seen. Mr. Houston replied that they have absolutely considered that. He stated that there are not that many rooftops in the North County. He added that there are opportunities for in fill; however, it is still evolving. He stated that this is the Mixed Use area and they are using it as the entrance to Coconut and the project itself. He stated that they are using the ridge, because of how it drops down, as more of the Residential. 40 Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Houston. Mr. Houston stated that their third sub-area policy deals with the square footage of Commercial. He stated that they have looked at how much acreage that the property had. He stated that they also looked at what was in the area. He concluded that that is how they came up with one hundred to two hundred thousand. He added that it may be at the lower end, because of the nature of the North County and Commercial demand which is based on the other three centers which he described. He pointed out the Mixed Use on the map. He stated that they are allowing Residential dwelling units to be permitted above, on Residential. He also stated that within the project, there has to be a designated transit stop location and a variety of housing choices. He stated that housing-type questions, is probably a lesser question about different products as much as it is about how to use the Mixed Use appropriately to create a product that does not exist today, in regards to market needs. He stated that public open space shall be provided with each neighborhood and possibly each neighborhood should be planned in the most housing area with walking distance. He added that they believe that all units will be in walking distance. He also added that half a mile is the typical standard for them. He pointed out the cross section regarding the county line and US1 on the map. He stated that what they have shown is an area out along US1, which probably has a grocery store or a large user. He added that it blends in to what will become the live-work units. He stated that it will be on both sides of a main street. He stated that they are describing it as a main street because it an important public space. He pointed out the Mint area on the map, in regards to some of the preservations discussions that they had earlier. He stated that there is a pretty substantial area, which contains Live Oaks, which run along Dixie. He added that they will become a part of their transition. He pointed out the twenty-five foot drop, from one end to the other on the map. He stated that they are attempting to take advantage of the units with views along the river. He showed a display of what he was talking about on the screen so that it will be easier to see. He stated that it is just the next evolution of exhibit C. He added that they have begun to see that there is probably a need for another connector off of US1 and a connection from US1 to Dixie. He pointed out the other connections on the map, explaining how the one is a bridge connection and it will not come down to Dixie, therefore the connectivity part becomes more important. He also pointed out the areas of Live Oak preservation on the map. He stated that there is a stand in the existing driving range that is out there presently. He pointed the Commercial area out on the map. He stated that this is the area where the town center will be, which are the live-work units, over retail. He stated that the purely Commercial portion of it will be on both sides of this entrance road. He stated that they have indicated that the Mint Preserve area, which Mr. Hearn has asked about, at this point appears to be 2.2 acres. He concluded that they still have work to do regarding getting the acreage tied down. He stated that he showed the images because he wanted to give them an idea of what their ideas look like. He pointed the live-work unit over retail out on the map. He added that they are thinking about as to put it on the main street. He showed another example on the screen. He 41 pointed out that it may be a little larger than what they are considering, however, the idea that is there is consistent to their idea. Mr. Houston added that the atmosphere is very walk-able. He also added that there is shade, and balconies which contribute to making the area a comfortable space. He pointed out that there is outdoor seating, wherein plazas and restaurants can seat people for outdoor comfort. He stated that one of the key things regarding looking at a town house design is the idea that there is a public space which is beyond the wall. He stated that the private or semi-private space leads up to your door. He stated that one of the items that were mentioned is important to the green space, therefore they will be working to make those Preserve areas a part of the overall community green space, wherein biking and walking will be workable. He stated that there are good examples about new design ideas and Commercial ideas in Florida, wherein it does not have to be backed up with big parking lots in front of it. He showed an example of a picture of a Publix, which is designed in Orlando. He stated that the Publix has a sense of street and urban design, instead of the typical Publix. He stated that it has changed the feeling of a typical shopping center. He also showed an image of street furniture. He stated that the little details like the ones he has discussed become important. He stated that Staff has walked through a number of important items. He stated that the idea which will be limited to the mentioned uses is that they are addressing the issue of the plant species and they are beginning to move forward toward the PMUD. He stated that the potential for absorbing some of the work and shopping trips internally is a key part of that. He stated that there probably will not be a big percentage of people who live there and work. He reiterated that they are consistent with the intent of the North County Charrette. He stated that it may or may have not been the appropriate use in the 1990s due to the lack of the level of study that they are at today. Mr. Hearn asked a question regarding the previous slide that was shown, which regarded light industrial. He asked what type of light industrial do they intend on anticipating. Mr. Houston replied that Staff had listed all of the uses, and that they do not propose any light industrial. He added that the only area that is commonly discussed is Artists Quarters. He stated that a potter or a ceramic Kiln may discuss the Artists Quarters area because it falls in the category of light industrial. He concluded stating that they do believe that what they are offering is a better tool. He stated that the Commercial is an acreage greater than it needs to be. He also added that they are bringing new ideas with the sub-area policies. He stated that they will be back with the specific project. He stated that this is an opportunity for them to continue to try to add new tools to the box in St. Lucie County. Mr. Houston thanked the Board. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Houston Mr. Knapp asked a question pertaining to the traffic study. He stated that he was not sure if he understands the existing use or how by adding five hundred units the project would be getting less trips a day. He asked if it was a comparison between the maximums for different uses. 42 Mr. Houston stated that is. He explained that they just use maximums because they really do not have anything else to use. Mr. Knapp asked what is the existing commercial at its maximum, based upon. Mr. Houston stated that it is based on the allowed coverage on a commercial parcel. Mr. Jason Matson, with Kimley Horn approached the podium to speak. He stated that the existing scenario is looking at the forty-six acres at fifty percent lot coverage, which is per the Commercial zoning. He stated that they are basically looking at a million square feet. Mr. Knapp asked if he had said that it is fifty percent lot coverage. Mr. Matson replied yes. Mr. Knapp stated okay, for clarification. Mr. Matson continued stating that it is about a million square feet of commercial in the first scenario. He stated that you are actually dropping, in the scenario with the proposed Mixed Use, to about two hundred thousand maximum. He stated that they looked at the maximum retail scenario, along with the residential. Mr. Knap asked if he was saying that the twenty-four thousand is a million square feet and that there is only five hundred trips in the morning to that spot, where the million square feet of commercial is. He stated that he does not understand that AM peak hour. He reiterated the comment made toward the five hundred and one trips. He asked if the Mr. Matson replied correct. He clarified that it referred to the AM peak hour trips. He stated that with the retail center, the AM trip generation is fairly low from the seven to nine timeframe. Mr. Knapp asked if the existing use is all retail. Mr. Matson stated that it is all commercial retail. Mr. Knapp replied that it is general commercial. He asked if it includes light industry and other things also. Mr. Matson stated that the rate that they use for commercial is a very conservative rate of shopping center retail. Mr. Knapp replied okay. He also asked if the bottom, including their proposal, would be nine thousand trips with the two thousand trips maximum, plus the 586 units. 43 Mr. Matson replied that that was correct. He stated that it incorporates internal capture between the two. Mr. Knapp asked what their internal capture rate on that was. Mr. Matson replied that the residential is approximately ten percent for internal capture. He also stated that the retail is about three percent. Mr. Knapp asked if it was apparently small. Mr. Matson replied correct. He added that they are consistent with the ITE trip generation matrixes that were reviewed by Staff. Chairman Grande stated that he assumes that that was not someone disagreeing with Mr. Matson. Mr. Knapp asked if the peak hour was the number of trips of people leaving and coming in the morning. Mr. Matson replied that those were actually two-way trips. He clarified that that was an in and out in the morning peak hour. He reiterated that they represent a two-way trip. He stated that the directional trips in and out would be the sum of the in and out trips as seen on the display. Mr. Knapp asked if that was based on five hundred units. Mr. Matson replied yes. Mr. Knapp asked if it was only three hundred trips a day out of 586 units in the morning. Mr. Matson clarified that three hundred and forty-four only pertains to the morning peak hour from seven to nine. Mr. Knapp replied that on five hundred and something units, it is about less than half or a quarter of the people who live there, actually leaving in the morning. He asked if that was what their projection is based upon. Mr. Matson replied that this is ITE. He stated that it is for a residential town home condominium. He stated that a single family home is probably what he has in vision. Mr. Knapp replied, no not really. Mr. Matson stated that from an ITE perspective, which is where they generate their trip rates and equations from, on average a single family home is upward of nine trips per day. He stated that a town home condominium on average is around five or six. He 44 stated that after you look at the internal capture, this is the result that it is all from, which is their ITE trip generation calculation. Chairman suggested that it is an unusual and exciting community because there are almost three times as much people that come back in the afternoon, than those that left in the morning. Mr. Knapp stated that his reason for questions is based on the fact that numbers did not seem to have an impact at all. Mr. Matson stated that it is assumed that all five hundred are occupied. He stated that there is seasonality in residential condominiums. Mr. Knapp stated that there could be two people living in each unit, which therefore makes it over a thousand people all together. He added that if a third of them leave at peak hour, which is from seven to nine in the morning and four to six in the afternoon, it seems really low. He also included the people that come in to work there, if it is retail. Mr. Knapp concluded. Chairman Grande thanked the speakers. Ms. Hammer asked a question of Staff. She stated that they talked about the Mixed Use high intensity and that there were other categories. She asked if the next one was Mixed Use medium intensity. Ms. Stolzenberg replied yes. Ms. Hammer asked if they could tell her what the units per acre are for medium intensity. Ms. Stolzenberg replied that medium intensity is a range of five to nine dwelling units per acre. Ms. Hammer asked what the next category under the medium intensity is. Ms. Stolzenberg replied that it is low intensity and the residential there is not to exceed five dwelling units per acre. Ms. Hammer used an example to ask a question. Her example was in regard to calculating residential units in concerning Mixed Use units. She used round numbers to make the example illustration easier. She asked that if there are fifty acres and you have and twenty-five acres are going to be designated for residential, are those twenty-five acres the only ones that get the five to nine, or not more than five or is it that number over that whole fifty acres and that number is crammed into the twenty-five acres. 45 Ms. Stolzenberg stated that they have tried to convey to the State and the department of Community Affairs that they are not going to be double counting. She clarified that if a certain number of acres are used in the calculations for the residential, they cannot also be used in the calculation for how many square feet of non residential. She stated that that does not mean that you can not co-locate with the uses, so that you can conceivably have a first floor that is Commercial and a second floor that is Residential, as long as you are not exceeding the counts that you would come up with. Ms. Hammer asked if you have fifty acres and you are going to designate twenty-five of them for residential (she used ten of the units per acre for round numbers), will you get of the twenty-five acres, ten units per acre or two hundred fifty units or would you get fifty acres times ten units and get five hundred units. Ms. Stolzenberg stated no, if you are saying that you are going to identify a certain number of residential units and the acres that are generating those, then you are not multiplying the allowable residential over the entire acreage. She clarified that you are just using that acreage to determine the maximum number of units that you can have. She added that you can locate or co-locate them with some of the non-Residential Uses. She concluded that you cannot go over that number that you have set as the bench mark for how many you are going to have. She stated that she knows that this sound very strange, however, it is Mixed Use and it is not that easy to explain. She added that essentially you are saying that you are going to set up the bench mark declaring the number of Residential units, which does not necessarily mean that they are all here. She concluded that the key point is declaring the amount of units. Ms. Hammer stated that she understands that part. She asked that when the applicant comes back up again, she would like to know why they requested the high intensity rather than medium intensity. She asked if that is five to nine units, how many acres are they talking about for Residential. Chairman Grande replied that from his understanding of the explanation, he does not find it reasonable to acquaint it to acres. He added that he thinks that the deal is in regards to when they do submit a final plan; Commercial that is in the plan and the number of units of Residential that are in the plan in total. He stated that if you take the acreage that it would take to support the Residential in the plan, and subtract that from the total acreage then you would have to be able to entitle the Commercial by what is left and vice-versa. He stated that he feels that Ms. Stolzenberg has indicated several times that they want to make it clear to the state that they will not allow double dipping, using the same entitlement for both, Commercial and Residential, even though they can be in the same physical space. He stated that he thinks that the applicants have agreed to that in terms of talking about the perimeter that they are looking to stay within as they build out. He asked if what he had said was clarifications. Ms. Hammer replied that it did clarify. She stated that her concern is always the number of residential units. She stated that if you are looking at 586 units, then that is more than ten units per acre if you were looking at the whole forty-six acres. She added that you are 46 looking at 12.4 units per acre. She stated that if it was medium intensity, the maximum that you would be looking at is forty-six times nine which would be 495. Chairman Grande stated that it cannot add up to four hundred ninety-five. He clarified that it will be estimated to be around four hundred. He stated that he thinks that they are saying that if they use the total entitlement, to build up to the maximum Residential then there would be nothing left for Commercial. Mr. Kelly replied that that is correct. Chairman Grande stated that unless they were planning to have no Commercial element, then they could not build to that maximum wherein they would get cut off by nine. Ms. Hammer asked what then would be the reason of having a maximum dwelling unit number of 586 units. Chairman Grande replied it is because they were asking for a maximum entitlement of fifteen, not of nine. Mr. Klein approached the podium to speak. He stated that maybe that is a question for him to answer. He stated that he is aware that there is a concern about density. He stated that they had to address the potential of that concern. He stated that it goes back to the ability that he had spoken of earlier and some of the things that will be discussed in regard to the TVC Element when it comes forward. He stated that if there is not enough Residential to support the Commercial, then they can pull back the pictures of some of the other Commercial in the area. He stated that it has to be there to support it. He stated that it recognizes that in all fairness, high density regarding fifteen units per acres has some years to perk up. He stated that the nine units do not get you where you need to be and the fifteen units allow more than is necessary or more than anyone is comfortable with. Chairman Grande clarified that it is six hundred and ninety. Mr. Klein continued stating that the sub-area policy is designed to provide a range that gives you some comfort that they are not looking to dredge every potential unit out of the site as might be indicated otherwise with the highest density allowed in the county. He added that it also gives them the ability, as was indicated earlier, to have DCA review this in an appropriate and practical manner, which is exactly what could go here, not their everything and it does not make any sense. He stated that it was an effort to be practical in terms of appropriate type development, allowing the flexibility of a true Mixed Use without knowing where the units are going to go. He added that they are here with the conceptual plan. He stated that as they get in and start doing the site plan and start working with the environmental division, engineering, and the utilities, things will move around. He stated that they need to be able to have that flexibility so that it is allowed over that whole site, but the limitations there that they 47 want the board to recognize is that they have certain desires that they want to have met here and they do not want to go higher than that. Ms. Hammer replied that she appreciates what Mr. Klein is saying. She stated that her focus is in regards to the future. She stated that if he walks out and is stuck by lightening and the present owner flips the land to someone else, and they come in and say that it was given to them by the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Board, the zoning of future land use of Mixed Use high intensity, and by reason of approval, that they have the right to be able to put in the fifteen units per acre in effect. She concluded that this is what her fear is. Mr. Klein stated that he appreciates her concern. He also stated that that is the beauty of what they have done. He stated that had they not included the sub-area policies that, that is exactly what could happen. He stated that the sub-area policies are in a box on the map in the Comprehensive Plan of St. Lucie County. He stated that in order to change the sub- area policies, while there is a theoretical upper limit of fifteen units per acre, there is an actual upper limit of two hundred thousand square feet of Commercial and 586 units of Residential. He concluded that that cannot be changed unless someone goes through the process of changing the Comprehensive Plan, wherein they have to appear before the board, seek permission to change the Comprehensive Plan (which is only allowed twice a year), and they have appear before DCA for review and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. He stated that finally they have to reappear before the board for adoption. He concluded that that is why they have done this and it cannot happen without going through that process. He clarified that it was not the matter of someone saying that they will cram it down their throat, but it is a matter of saying, if they would consent to changing that n having heard the long discussion with the original developers, I vow not to change it because the original number is the number that we want to keep. Ms. Hammer replied okay. Chairman Grande replied that he thinks that there is more than a hundred difference between the projected maximum number and what would be allowable as Residential if they fudged and did not include Commercial. He stated the numbers declare a true intent to do a Mixed Use and mix commercial and Residential together, which is a very positive offering. Mr. Klein reiterated that they were trying to do something different and that it is the idea of creating the node with the ability to get to it, without having to get into your car and to provide something for the other residents that are up there that may have had to drive a long way. He asked if there were any other questions. Ms. Hammer stated that the land is zoned Commercial. She asked if there are any benefits to the community to go from Commercial to allowing 586 dwelling units. She stated that if you were inside of the crossed off line, then you would have to buy that density transfer, if everything happens. 48 Mr. Klein answered the second part first. He stated that he does not agree with that because Monday afternoon, the County Commissioners clearly stated that inside of the Urban Service area is going to be different from the outside of the Urban Service area. He stated that there are certain aspects of areas inside of the Urban Service area that are going to be able to increase their density because of land uses that are not going to have to buy density, which remains to be seen. He stated that if you ask about the public benefit, it is obvious to see what the benefits are. He stated that the screen contains the features that they have shown and provides examples of the public benefit. He stated that the impact to their roads is reduced from 24,376 potential trips to 9,121. He stated that he would go further to say that that is at 586 units and two hundred thousand square feet of Commercial. He stated that he is willing to bet that it will not be the full development of both of those; therefore the number may go down further. He stated that the second aspect is creating the type of development that they are encouraging. He stated that he would submit to them, that when someone comes and voluntarily looks to do a development that is unique to the community to provide something that does not exist or to provide a catalyst to that community to achieve what it should have achieved but is yet held back from achieving for so long, to view that the public benefit comes from the lifting up of the North County area, in that area which has been neglected for so long. He stated that they are providing the type of living and working area that is trying to be promoted in some areas rather than some of the development that is seen down south, which was indicated as unfavorable. He stated that he feels that there is a lot of public benefit and he does not believe that it can always be simplified to the fact regarding wanted density needs to be bought. He stated that he thinks that that is just as bad as what some of the developers down south say. He added that he does not agree with the analysis in the context of what the development is trying to do as a whole. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein concluded that the only other point that he would add regards the had a long discussion regarding the benefits that are created by the sub-area policies and the protection that they create for the county as well as the self imposed limitations that they create for the developers and the ability to create the flexibility and allow a plan to develop and a PMUD, in this case most likely, to be able to operate as a flexible document as opposed to some of the rigidity that they have seen before. He stated that he He stated that he believes that they have voluntarily imposed upon themselves enough not know what it would involve nor does he feel that it is necessary in this case. He concluded stating that he urges the Board not to recommend that that recommendation be continued. He made a comment regarding the Stop Gap. He stated that it is believed that they might be in the area of the Stop Gap. He also stated that he would like an 49 affirmative recommendation consistent with what was done earlier, regarding the elimination or excluding of any concerns of them being in the Stop Gap. He stated that Staff Regional Policy Plan and the State Comprehensive Plan. He stated that they believe that they are consistent in all aspects and they request that the boards recommendation of approval. Mr. Hearn asked a question regarding the event that the group may feel like a de agreement would be appropriate. He asked Mr. Klein if he would suggest to them the type of languag Mr. Klein stated that he does not know. Mr. Hearn asked if he was willing to say something that closely resembles what they presented at the meeting. Mr. Klein stated that he presented a conceptual plan that they drew up without having gone through environmental review, engineering review, or Staff review for testing to meet all of the criteria. He stated that they may not want him to sign that because it may aspects of it. He stated that he feels that it is a dangerous double edged sword that no one should want to have at this point. Mr. Hearn stated that he is trying to bridge the gap between what is suggested and what stated that if he had more understanding of it, may be he would have an idea. He added agreement. He stated that it does not tell him anything regarding making an informed decisions. He stated that based on his knowledge of the process, there is so much yet to come. He stated that upon reviewing the question made regarding the Mint, he has no idea of how big the Mint is. Chairman Grande stated that the Staff is positioning itself to answer that question. Mr. Klein replied okay. Mr. Kelly stated that the Staff is really satisfied with the sub-area policies, except in the area of the preservation of the Mint. He stated that they want to ensure that that is protected. He stated that that is the issue. Chairman Grande reiterated that the question was more along the lines of, given that you are satisfied with the sub- would tie them very closely to the conceptual that they have presented so far, which they 50 clearly indicated is at best, the conceptual and something better may emerge. He asked if they otherwise were saying that the agreement should firm up the sub elements that are in here and talk to the conservation area and the Mint area. Mr. Kelly replied, the latter. He stated that they need to be more specific about things pertaining to the preservation area. Chairman Grande asked if the recommendation that was referred to the presentation of their conceptual in together. agreement. He stated that they have come down to a real concern about the sub-area policies that have been proposed. He stated that he believes that it really takes care of the majority of the issues that they were talking about. Chairman Grande asked if it would be fair to say that when this is passed on to the County Commission, seen, so it will no longer be a conceptual discussion. Mr. Kelly replied that he is not sure that it will be because he is not sure that they will agreement in place. He added that Staff wants to ensure that the issues of preservation and the Mint are dealt with. He stated that if there is a method that would be acceptable, which is some level of enhanced sub-area policies to deal with it. He stated that they all have acknowledged that they need to deal with it. Mr. Klein stated that he is still a little confused. He asked if there was any aspect of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code dealing with preservation of that type of plant or dealing with the design of a planned development that is believed to be inadequate to protect the Mint during the process that is going forward. He stated that their presentation does not allow them to do anything. He stated that it is not a development order, nor is it a development permit. He stated that he cannot move forward and do anything. Mr. Kelly replied that he is correct. Mr. Klein continued asking if he wanted to go forward if he had to come back and go through the site plan process and the plan development process and meet all of the Mr. Kelly stated that that was correct. deficient with regards to the Mint area, s agreement. 51 Mr. Kelly stated that the question being asked is if their code is deficient in that area. Chairman Grande replied that he does not know. He added that the answer is not necessarily yes nor no. Mr. Klein replied that he was not saying that because he does not want to do it. He clarified that he feels that it is a bit of overkill. He stated that he is aware of the processes that are included in the procedures. He stated that he knows that they are going to have to come back. He stated that they know that it is there. He added that they have put it on their drawing. He stated that he does not know how they are going to come back and do a PMUD in front of the board and not have dealt with the Mint properly. He stated that he does not know what can be said now, that is going to be more than what the code requires him to do. Mr. Lounds stated that if Staff hands with the environmental protection group, then they can come up with the answer as how to preserve the Mint. He stated that either of the offices can do that for him. He added that it will resolve the issue of how to preserve the Mint and what needs to be done around it, including air flow, water shed and everything else in regards to the plant being involved. He asked Mr. Klein if he knows what the plant looks like. Mr. Klein replied yes. He added that the plant is very nice and pretty. Mr. Lounds stated that the plant is very delicate. He also stated that that would answer StaffMint in a preserved area. He stated that it can be done at the University of Florida with Amy and input joined together with it. He stated that he feels that that would help answer the question regarding how big the Preserve is going to be. He stated that Mr. Klein may find that it needs to be bigger, or that there is a way that he can transplant it and put it some place else. He concluded stating until he asks them, he will never know. Mr. Klein stated that they are going to do all of that. He stated that he does not know what he is suppose to say that he will do in a agreement now, that is not going to cover exactly what he has to do during the process. He stated that he thinks that mean anything different is irrelevant. He stated that they are willing to work with Staff and that they understand the desire to come up with something. He stated that they have narrowed it down to something that is probably workable and he commits to the board that they will try to do something that lends more certainty to the process, but he just does not know what it is at this point. Ms. Hammer asked Staff if there have been any communication or comment from Indian River officials. Mr. Kelly stated that he is not aware of any. 52 Ms. Hammer stated that the reason being for her question is in regards to a project that the board had approve, which was near the Indian River County line. She stated that she was lead to believe that they had no problem with it and she later found out that there actually was a problem. She again asked if there had been any input on the subject from them at all. Mr. Kelly replied that he will make an effort to make sure that they coordinate there. Mr. Hearn commented on the point that Ms. Hammer had raised. He stated that he feels that the big objection that he sees regarding the folks in Indian River County is that they would like to have the development in their own county, rather than our county. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Kelly to point out something on page eight under the policy 211, which is in consistency with the Transportation Element. He stated that there is a discussion about signalization requirements on US1. He stated that if they were looking for the developer to get the future land use changed, that the developer would actually under write the signalization something else. Ms. Stolzenberg replied that they are entering into the borderline of talking about things that get into the development order. She stated that when someone does this kind of analysis on transportation impacts, at the land use stage, it is hard to stop and declare an exact amount of trips that the land use will generate. She stated that they keep going one step further and they begin talking about road way improvements. She stated that they not at the stage where they are actually coming forward with a development. She stated that they were really looking at the land use stage trying to figure out what can they do to make certain that when they get to the development being proposed that it includes the types of features that they want on the site, wherein one of them is the Preserve area. She stated that the discussion was picked up from the consultant that the applicant had provided as far as where they are going once they get into the development stage. She stated that the improvements may be necessary, but at the land use stage, they would not agreement would be as a result of what was seen in the next application that came forward which may be presented as a PMUD or however they choose to present it. She stated that they were just looking at the land use stage wherein they were talking about the area that needs to be preserved however; the exact specifications on it are unknown. She added that they wanted to make everyone aware of the fact that that is definitely going to be included, in what ever development proposal that comes in. 53 Chairman Grande asked if the same kind of assurance was on the sub-element. He asked if that was the only other thing that would be in the agreement. sub-area because it is memorializes the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that that is something that is there. He stated that with regards to signalization and traffic improvements with the and it will require that. He stated that you do not know the exact needs until the development plan is created. Mr. Lounds asked if they had gotten to public comments yet. Chairman Grande replied no. Mr. Lounds asked if they can get there. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Marty Sanders, the Growth Management Land Acquisition and Intergovernmental Relations Director for the school district, approached the podium to speak. He apologized to the applicant for not notifying them beforehand on the issue. He stated that he was not aware of all of the issues, until he received the package which was on the day of the hearing. He stated that he has been the former facilities director for the school district and as part of that job; he has provided some input on planning issues. He stated that his role has changed and now his primary role is to look at growth, and how it impacts the school district. He stated that there have been many times wherein the school has been the odd man out, when it comes to making land use decisions. He stated that things are not looked at, on behalf of schools. He stated that he believes that Port St. Lucie and the land use decisions that were made by GDC, and how it impacts the school district with difficulty in meeting the public school needs is a good example of that. He stated that there are three developments before the board at the present meeting. He stated that they have some similarity. He stated that they are all taking some kind of non- Residential Use and converting them to a Residential Use. He added that this has impacts on the school district and the needs to provide schools and new school construction, as a result of it. He stated that he feels that there are some tremendous components of the project. He added that he feels that it has a lot of good planning techniques by clustering development and creating higher density development. He stated that this ultimately helps in transportation, traffic issues and all of those types of things. He stated that it has inter-local agreement with the County Commission states that the planning will look at impacts on the school district. He stated that the subject project, upon reviewing the additional impacts of public school needs, could have from one hundred and sixty to two hundred and eighty students. 54 He added that the project is at its conceptual stage and the type of land use is unknown and he stated that the number of students that may have an impact on the school district as a result of the subject project depends upon their market. He stated that if you look at the needs for public schools, taking in consideration the impact fees that would be paid for the residential units; they could still have between 1.7 and 4.4 million dollars worth of short fall for public schools needs, without looking at land acquisition. He stated that at this point and time, they believe that the public school needs should be addressed on this project. He stated that he feels that they need to table the project and give him some time to work with the developer and their attorney to discuss alternatives as to ameliorate the impacts on the schools. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Sanders a question. He stated that they have heard a lot about workforce housing in the community. He stated that he looks at the project as being a project that is going to pay a lot more and mean a lot more to the community, than workforce housing would be, if in fact the housing were workforce. He stated that if the project is going to create millions of dollars worth of deficits to the school board, then it needs to be addressed. He stated that he feels that the quality of this development will bring a lot more ad valorm taxes to the community and the school board, than some of the other projects that could go into there. Mr. Sanders stated that he is not quite sure. He stated that he has not looked at the situation from an economics perspective. However, if you use the same trips generation which was used in the traffic analysis with a million square feet of commercial, he is not certain that the ad valorm commercial, than it would be for the residential. Mr. Sanders replied that certainly an undeveloped property does not bring a lot of an ad valorm taxes to anyone. He stated that he is sure that there will be a time certain that it will convert. He clarified that he was not saying that the project was bad; however he is certainly saying that as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment inter-local agreement with the school board, that school needs and the common needs for planning for schools needs to be addressed as part of the land use decisions. Mr. Hearn replied that he understands that, however, he is not sure if what they are being asked tonight will even stop that from happening at a later date, before that project comes forward. Mr. Sanders stated that he is not certain if that was correct because they were asking for a conversion to Residential. He stated that once they get that conversion, they will obtain a use by right. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands that but, that is where the school district has to step forward and make them pay their fair share. 55 Mr. Sanders stated that they have no mechanism to do so. He reiterated that the school decisions and then the school district has to provide the services, no matter how they end up because of the impacts of the decisions that the local government makes. Mr. Hearn stated that they have made a lot of bad decisions in past. He stated that he understands that and that is why he is concerned along with that they do provide for the students. Mr. Sanders stated that he has not seen anything in the application that would lead them to believe what type of housing this might be. Mr. Hearn stated that he does not understand that. Chairman Grande made a comment regarding the impact fees before the approval of the project. He asked Mr. Sanders if that had happened yet. Mr. Sanders replied that that had not happened yet. Chairman Grande stated that if the project be approved at the present hearing, with the advantage of that happening, the school board in simplest terms should probably lose some energy and come up with a negotiable agreement. Mr. Sanders replied without a doubt and that he does not believe the board would be doing the duty of the inter-local agreement with the school district to consider the impact on the school district before making that land use decisions. Mr. Hearn stated that before the project comes before the Board of County Commissioners that Mr. Sanders has the opportunity to do what he is asking to do at the present hearing. He stated that they are not approving the project. Mr. Sanders replied that he is sure that the present board will either approve the project or deny it. Mr. Hearn restated that they do not approve the project. He clarified that they send recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. He added that there are a lot of differences that they found out last month. He stated that Mr. Sanders has the time to do what he needs to do between now and then. Mr. Sanders replied okay. Mr. Lounds stated that it sounds like a motion was being made. Mr. Hearn replied sure. 56 recorded. Ms. Young replied that she was not sure because as far as the negotiations go, when it really goes forward with a specific project plans, there will be a lot more detail than is given now. She added that it can be included in the motion comments that Staff is directed to work with the school board on any issues that they may have, prior to the hearing. She concluded that they can do that. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that pursuant to the inter-local agreement that the County has entered into with the school board, one of the things that they do as Staff is send out Amendment Applications and site plans along to the school board. She stated that they have gotten comments on some of those. She also stated that they did not get a comment on this one; therefore they did not think that this was a problem. Chairman Grande stated that this seem to be a timing thing. Mr. Sanders stated that it is a timing issue. He restated that is why began by apologizing to the applicant that he had not had a chance to talk to them beforehand. He stated that his change in roles at the school district within the last two months has left him fully engaged in looking at growth issues. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that they advise the applicants that they are not going to carry their applications further until they have met with the school board. She added that they have some kind of correspondence that says how the problem will be resolved or if there was an agreement, disagreements or a negotiation. She stated that the mitigation, which is the recommendation that will come from the school board Staff, is not mandatory at this point in time; however it will eventually be mandatory. She stated that it is mandatory that they begin to cooperate with the school board, share the information, and ask for their input and to direct the applicant to meet with them. She concluded that when they do not get a letter back, it is not their responsibility to direct the applicant to go through that routine measure. She stated that that routine measurement had worked for her when she had worked in Ft. Lauderdale. She concluded that there is a sufficient time that the applicant can meet with the Staff and they can get correspondence back that would indicate how the matter has been addressed. Chairman Grande stated that he thinks that that answer is great if the school board concurs with it. He stated that Mr. Sanders have come forward that they do not move forward. Mr. Sanders stated that he feels that they have sufficient time between now and the Board of County Commission meeting that they could work with the applicant to look at ways that they can mitigate the impacts. Chairman Grande replied great and he thanked Mr. Sanders. 57 Mr. Knapp stated that Mr. Sanders mentioned that there were three developments and that the amount of units could possibly impact the school. He asked Mr. Sanders if that was a number that he threw out just for this development. Mr. Sanders replied that that number is just for this development. He stated that those are using average to medium rates of student generations per household. He stated that it is really difficult to tell if the market is similar to what they are proposing at Coconut Cove or something lower than that. He added that if workforce housing is addressed, then it could be higher than that. Chairman Grande stated that the number which was indicated was a hundred and sixty to two hundred and eighty. He stated that if you take the standard that Katherine always hits them with, then the answer to 586 units would come out in that range. Mr. Sanders stated that he looked at the five hundred and sixty-eight units with a student generation rate of .282 per household. He stated that that is the average for multi-housing in the County, including beach condos to apartments in the city of Ft. Pierce. He stated that on average in the county, it is .282. Mr. Knapp stated that he just wanted to clarify that. He stated that he had read in the newspaper that there had been steps made for the school board to increase their impact fee. He asked Mr. Sanders if that was his position also to do the study or to get the impact fee increased or to where it needs to be for the school board. Mr. Sanders replied that that was correct. He stated that the impact fee tries to pay the difference between the cost for necessary services from the school district that the development will create and then the difference between what taxes are paid and revenue streams come in to help meet that. He stated that currently the impact fees are about three thousand dollars per dwelling unit. He stated that this past Tuesday the school board reviewed the closure report from Dr. Nichols at the University of Florida and has recommended a new impact few of approximately 4,950 dollars. He stated that that recorded recommendation will be forwarded to the County for their action to appear before the LP and ultimately the Board of County Commission for adoption of an updated impact fee. He stated that that increase of an impact come with two components. He stated that one of the components is the inclusion of land as part of the impact fee. He stated that previous historical cost did not include land wherein the land cost was not in the previous impact fee. He stated that it also looks at a newer construction cost. He stated that they are looking at the cost of the last two schools that have been constructed and the cost per student stages and updating it for that as well as the new revenue estimates. He stated that the school board has a twenty year plan that was created about a year and a half or two years ago that looked at school needs. He stated that that is approximately two billion dollars worth of needs over the time period of twenty years. He stated that the district is trying to devise funding mechanisms because they have very little opportunities to make new funds. He stated that they do not have the ability. He stated that the state sets their ability and their ad valorm punctuates with the exception of the two mils that 58 the local school district has for capital improvements and impact fees. He stated that the only thing that the school board has control of, within a revenue stream, is the two mils and impact fees. He stated that they have been looking at that as well as talking about a half-case of sales taxes, which is a vote referendum that they be on a ballot sometime in October. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Sanders and asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak on the behalf of the application. Chairman Grande closed the public portion. Mr. Bobby Klein approached the podium to speak. He stated that he was trying to figure out how to vouch a response to the discussion. He stated that they have had a number of motions that he has had to deal with in terms of the discussion. He stated that as a former president of the education foundation, he is a strong supporter of the schools. He stated that they have had a number of clients that have gone through the process and have worked with the school district and have voluntarily agreed to pay an impact fee of four hundred and ninety-four dollars per unit, that was approved for the development, in addition to the impact fees that are being accessed because they recognized that there was a lack of a component for a capital land acquisition. He stated that they have never anticipated that they would not be doing that, other than the fact that the impact fees were going to be increased. He stated that their agreement with the school district states that when the capital component is included in the impact fees, this voluntary agreement will go away because you will be paying it in your building permits. He stated that having said that, he has known Mr. Sanders for quite sometime and they have worked together for a long time. Mr. Klein apologized that Mr. Sanders had just received the notice today. He added that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Sanders before the present hearing. He stated that it bothered him to find that the reflection was not appropriate on the project or on the development team with regards to neglecting to talk with the school district. He stated that they will try to talk to them, although he is currently busy all the way up to the hearing. He added that they will do the best that they can to accommodate it. He added that he has a vacation that has been scheduled and the hearing is three weeks from now and he is not sure if they will have the opportunity to meet and do whatever it is that needs to be done. He concluded that he does not know what it is that they need to do. He stated that this is a premature discussion. He stated that they have shown that the units could be anywhere from two hundred and something to five hundred and something. He stated that they do not know the impact. He stated that as Mr. Sanders had indicated, they do not know what type of units. He stated that he certainly has no problem sitting down with Mr. Sanders and the superintendent of the school district, but he is at a total loss as to what it is that they are going to discuss. He stated that he has every understanding that when they come back with the defined site plan or PMUD showing what they are going to be doing, they will be able to analyze he impacts of the project and understand the impacts of the school 59 district and if they are not addressed properly by the impact fees, they will have the opportunity to do. He stated that the general practice has been in this community for the past year and a half to two years, is that that takes place between the preliminary and the final approvals of the PUDs. He stated that that is why he feels that he is at a disadvantage because he feels like if they are putting some condition on him to go talk with them, he is not sure that the board knows what it is nor Mr. Sanders know what it is that they are talking about. He added that he knows that he does not know what it is that they are talking about. He stated that he does not know what he is supposed to be doing. He restated that they will be talking to the school district, however he does not know what about. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Klein. Mr. Lounds stated that the rules of engagement between the developers and the school board are pretty clear that when it comes down to what you end up with, it is what you are going to pay impact fees on. He stated that this is the first time that a developer and a group of folks have brought something like this before them. He stated that they have listened to the Charrette and to the Towns Villages and Countryside and brought Mixed Use where there is Residential co-habitat with Commercial. He stated that Staff has probably had a lot of energy into this and he commends them for what they have put through to it. He stated that he thinks that it is good and he have not heard yet what the Residential will average out to be. Mr. Klein stated that of all of the developer clients that he has worked with lately, when they are asked what their value is like, they do not know because with concrete and steel and everything else, he does not know. Mr. Lounds told Mr. Klein to make an assumption. Mr. Klein replied that he suspect a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Chairman Grande added that he assumes that the couple of hundred thousand dollars is per room. Mr. Lounds stated that it looks like it is a good development and he likes it better than what was done years ago. He stated that he thinks that if they had been brought something like this at Porta Fina Shores, then they would feel better today about what that has turned out to be. He stated that some of his concern is that this type of development does not impact a community as much as just straight Residential will. He added that he thinks that that is good. He added that anytime that you can keep the people in an area, and let them utilize the Commercialism of that area is great. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Lounds if he was done. Mr. Lounds replied yes. 60 Chairman Grande asked if there were any other comments. Ms. Hammer stated that what bother her most are the conversations that she has had with representers of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. She stated that one of the reasons that they got to a point where they are looking at the TVC is that the County has continuously given away density. She stated that this is one of the things that the Staff indicated to her. She stated that when she asked about how they are going to get people to pay for the density, that they had said that you do not give it away, therefore you do have to pay for it. She stated that she is wrestling with the idea of handing over five hundred and something units of density without them either being purchased from outside or inside of the Urban Service Boundary, or something done. She stated that she knows that the applicant said that there is going to be less traffic. She asked what the community is getting for allowing up to five hundred plus Residential units. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with Ms. Hammer, however he does not know what the mechanism is or what vehicle they would use to aid that comment. He stated that he does not know if there is one in place, inside of the Urban Service area. He stated that he does not know of a stewardship or of a transfer density that works inside of Urban Service area because it is pretty well set. He stated that if you get outside of the Urban Service area, where you could do a stewardship from a rural piece of land, however it cannot be transferred inside of the Urban Service area. Mr. Kelly stated that the stewardship program is not fully defined but he believes that Mr. Lounds is correct. Mr. Lounds stated that he does not know of a way as to transfer density inside an Urban Service area. Mr. Kelly stated that they can construct it in a way that you could. Chairman Grande stated that they are getting a little far of field in that. He stated that based on how it is perceived; they do not have that mechanism in place. He stated that they are bringing to them and their future land use request to what is there now and or what could be there. He stated that they are not structured and he suspects that they will not be structured soon to answer that question. He stated that they need to review the application within the context of where they are now and what the impact is going to be. Chairman Grande asked if there were any more comments. Mr. Hearn stated that he is reminded of last month when they voted unanimously to turn th down a project on 25 Street and Edwards Road, wherein the density was increased and the property was Commercial. He added that this board felt that the plan should have been better prepared. He restated that they had voted unanimously to oppose it and the Board of County Commission vote unanimously to approve it. He concluded that the County Commission is not that concerned with giving away density and that is not a good 61 thing. He stated that he thinks that the project is going to create a blue print for future development in that area, which he feels will be very positive. Mr. Lounds made a motion to approve the application of Vero Vista Center for a change in Future Land Use and Designation from Commercial to Mixed Use. He added that he thinks that it is a first quality approach to the Towns Villages and Countryside. He also stated that it is a good development and it fits within their comp plan as a PMUD. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Chairman Grande stated that before they vote on that, that he has one question of the motion maker. He asked if he would like to include that before this reaches the County Commission, the questions regarding what ever discussion should take place with the school board and the Staff about a developer agreement be at least resolved or reduced to paper so that it is presented to the County Commission along with the application. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Sanders if he was convinced that he will be able to get what he needs to get from the development before it goes to the County Commission. He stated that he understands the rules of engagement in impact fees that must be done before the County Commission will approve it. Mr. Sanders stated that impact fees are an issue paid at the time of building permit. He stated that there are various other mechanisms used to mitigate impacts of development on schools. He stated that in Orange County, they have a Martinez doctrine, wherein the future land use map is amended to create more density. He stated that you can mitigate that by a payment of a fee to the school district. He stated that another method is shown in Martin County wherein they have donated school sites. He stated that there has never been a donation of school sites in St. Lucie County. He stated that developers have always forced the school district by creating the demand and enforcing them to pay fair market value for those sites. He stated that in Martin County, the developers have actually donated school sites and have actually paid fees in lure of dedication of school sites. He stated that there are various mechanisms available for the developer to mitigate those impacts. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to add a school component to the motion if the second would agree to that, wherein the developers will get in agreement with Mr. Sanders and the school board before it comes before the County Commission. Ms. Morgan stated that the motion was to change the future land use, and it is not to approve any project or Residential units. She stated that it is to change from Commercial to Mixed Use. She stated that he does not know how many units will be on there. She stated that they are going to work together because if it comes back, the board will send them back to negotiate. 62 Ms. Hammer stated that the project is in St. Lucie County, yet the name hovering over it says, Vero Vista Center. She stated that it appears to be referring to Vero as opposed to referring to St. Lucie County. Chairman Grande asked if they could change the name on it. Mr. Klein stated that it is an entity that exists. He stated that there are deeds in that name. He stated that he appreciates the comment. He stated that he had the same comment when he found out about it, but it was too late. Ms. Hammer stated that all of their deeds say reserved but the developer changed the name to PGA Village. Mr. Klein stated that that is why they are calling it High Ridge. Ms. Hammer replied okay. Mr. Lounds stated to call a question. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions on the discussion. The Roll Call was made. Ms. Hammer said that she really has mixed emotions on the land use change. She stated that she will be voting no on the application, although she does not think that it is a bad idea. She stated that she remembers hearing that the future is now and the fact that they change the land use designation means that it can never go back. She concluded that this is her problem. Mr. Hearn replied yes. Mr. Knapp replied yes. Mr. Lounds replied yes. Ms. Morgan replied yes. Chairman Grande replied yes. He stated that the application will be forwarded to the Board with a recommendation for approval. 63 AGENDA ITEM 4: THE PRESERVE-PA-05-003: This item was presented by Sheryl Stolzenberg. This is application file number PA-05- 003. This is the application of John Disalvatore, otherwise known as the Preserve. This is for a change in land use designation from Industrial to Residential High, which is a maximum of fifteen dwelling units per acre, for a 56.9 acre parcel, located west of Angle Road, east of Canal 29, north of Metzger Road and south of Ave. M. It is required by the 9J-11 Florida Administrative Code to look at the surrounding land use designations. Regarding the area, to the north and east, the zoning is Industrial and to the south it is Industrial and Mixed. To the west there is a public facility school and the zoning is industrial. She stated that they looked at the existing surrounding uses that are actually on the land now, and to the north and northwest, south of Ave. M there is an existing auto salvage yard and some vacant land. To the north of Avenue M, there is vacant land and some single family residences. To the east, there is vacant land and residences and additional vacant land and a storage facility with an office. She added that there is also a repair shop. In addition to the property having odd boundaries, to the south there is agricultural and some homes and west of canal 29 is Westwood High School. She stated that as required by 9J-11 Florida Administrative Code, they looked at the availability of and demands on sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, traffic circulation and recreation. She added that this is not concurrency, but it is the question of whether or not a provider has to change their plan in order to provide services or as to how they or the developers are going to provide services. She stated that a letter was received by the applicant, in which the copy came to them from Ft. Pierce Utilities Authorities, which is the service provider in that area. She stated that it indicated that waste water capacity is limited in the vicinity of this proposal and that a great deal of work would be needed in order to make certain that the service would be available. She stated that the provider had not planned for it; therefore either they or the developer would have to make the appropriate plans to make certain that service would be available if the amendment is approved. She stated that Staff concerns with this amendment arose when Staff began to look at the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, in particular with the land use element. She stated that the applicant had identified a number of policies that they felt would support the amendment and were consistent with the amendment. She stated that they did not similarly construe those policies. She stated that the applicant had identified a particular land use policy 1.1.11.3, indicating that the land was not appropriate for Industrial, however that policy addresses the rezoning of land and it indicates that the land must have access to the regional roadway system. This site does have access to Angle Road via Metzger and Monticello. She stated that Angle Road east of Kings Highway is a state arterial. She stated that it is appropriate to classify the site as Industrial. In addition, we always have to look at policy 1.1.5.3 in the Land Use Element, when considering any amendment to look at whether the property is adjacent to or no more than one quarter of a mile from the same or greater land use. She stated that the adjacent land uses include Industrial and they are greater but they are not really types of land uses that they would feel are compatible with Residential. She stated that the second part of 64 that policy which addresses that the area is within the ability of being served, the provider of sanitary sewer has indicated that service can be provided but someone is going to have to make certain that the facilities are installed, whether it will be at the expense of the developer or at the expense of the utility. She stated that it is just an identification that this level of service is not planned for, for the particular land use. She stated that that is the question that they need to be able to look at when they are looking at how well or how poorly this particular use has been planned for. She stated that they did not actually find that it conflicted with the Transportation Element. She stated that the applicant provided materials that stated that the traffic could be reduced by the change, but Road and Bridge Department said that until an actual actual traffic generation would be lessened. She stated that they were concerned about impacts on consistency with other elements, which is another thing that the state law requires them to look at. In particular, the Economic Element is encouraging the development of industrial employment, which is a higher paying type of employment. She stated that their concern here is that if the County reduces the amount of available industrial acreage that they were in fact, not consistent with their own Economic Element. She stated that Staff did receive, on the particular amendment, a letter from the school board Staff, indicating that they had concerns with this. Therefore, in regards to the information that was available to them and in regards to their concerns about the incompatibility of the future and existing Industrial Uses that are surrounding the site, they did not feel that this was an appropriate location for this particular land use, and they did not that this should be recommended for approval or transmitted. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Stolzenberg and asked if there were any questions of the Staff. Mr. Hearn asked if they would go back to the policy about the compatibility within a quarter of a mile. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that it is future land use policy 1.1.5.3, which says that when considering County Commission shall make the following findings supported by the other elements of this plan, prior to taking any approval actions granting an individual amendment to the future land use maps: 1.That the properties under a land use amendment application is adjacent to or within no more than one quarter of a mile of the same or greater land use classification. 2.That the property under a land use amendment consideration lies within the five year capital improvement program of the water and waste water master plan for St. Lucie County or otherwise meets the requirements of policy 65 She stated that her statement is that even though that the language states that it is no more than one quarter of a mile of the same or greater land use classification, she does not believe that what was meant was greater in terms of intensity. She stated that what they probably meant was in regards to density. Mr. Hearn stated that he would agree with Ms. Stolzenberg. He stated that the reason being he went back to that discussion is because there may be a need to change the language wherein it will mean what it says. Ms. Stolzenberg replied right, and she feels that he is absolutely right. Chairman Grande asked or says what it means. Mr. Hearn replied whatever. Mr. Lounds asked if the city limits whereabouts could be shown to him. He asked if they were near the city limits and is Angle Road a division line for them at the point of reaching the city limits. Mr. Kelly stated that anything located on the map that has a County land use designation would be in the County. Mr. Kelly looked through the Comprehensive Plan to find a map. Mr. Lounds stated that he was curious to know how close they are to Ft. Limits. rd Mr. Kelly stated that the city is the whiter area on the map. He pointed out that the 33 Street generally straight up, is the current city limit. He pointed out the area that they were looking at. He also pointed out Westwood High School, which is adjacent to the rd property. He stated that the current city limit is over at 33 Street. Mr. Lounds asked if the piece of service by Ft. Pierce Utilities was included. Mr. Kelly replied yes. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that they have a very large service area. Mr. Lounds thanked Staff. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of Staff before they hear from the applicant. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, from the law firm of Ruden McClosky, approached the podium to speak on the behalf of Mr. Disalvatore, who is the applicant for the land use 66 amendment. He stated that they have reviewed Staff not disagree with some of the issues that they have raised. However they feel that there are other Comprehensive Plan policies that were no taken into account and when all things are balanced, they feel that the change in the land use for the subject property is appropriate. He stated that he would like to review some of the land use policies and point out why they feel that it is appropriate. He concluded stating that he would like to address the school board issues because they did get the opportunity of receive a letter from Mr. Sanders, wherein they took the opportunity to sit down and talk to him prior to the present meeting. He stated that the Staff memo has covered the size of the property, which is not a huge piece of property. He added that it has covered its location. He stated that it is immediately adjacent to Westwood High School and it has Angle and Metzger Road as its other boundaries. He stated that it has property wherein Industrial Land Use is surrounding it. He stated that the property immediately to the south, not withstanding that it has Industrial Land Use which has developed existing Residential Development. He stated that the property to the east of the subject property is a mix of Commercial and Residential, even though it has an Industrial Land Use. He stated that the Staff memo did not focus on the affordable housing issue, which is purely and simply what they are looking at for the subject property. He added that they will focus on the affordable housing issue and why they are asking for an RH Land Use designation. He stated that in order to achieve affordable housing in this County, you will need to consider a number of variables of which the Board discussed at a previous workshop. He stated that one of the key variables is density. He stated that if the County truly believes in promoting an affordable housing type of element, then they also need to consider increasing the RH Land Use properties in this county. He added that it has adopted Comprehensive Plan policies to achieve that. He pointed out that Objective 5.2.5 begins with the basic premise, in which the County followed with a policy 5.2.5.1, which states: County shall maintain or increase the amount of vacant land currently designated on the Future Land Use map as Residential High, in order to reduce land cost for low and moderate income housing and at least annually, the plan shall be amended to add RH designated acreage that is comparable to conducted a scientific study; however he can point to thirty acres in the County wherein they have been developed or currently under development, that used to be RH property and are now no longer vacant and available for Future RH property. He stated that one of the pieces of mentioned properties is on Jenkins Road, which is a little north of the Home Depot entrance on the right side. He stated that it has been developed as an apartment complex. He stated that the other piece of property is on WeatherBee Road, which is located between Oleander and US1. He stated that it is being developed as a multi-family project. He stated that there are thirty acres that have been taken out of the RH inventory that need to be replaced, according to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. He stated that they have a parcel that is 56.9 acres and it slightly exceeds the thirty acres. He added that if they looked around, that they would probably find a few more RH acres that have been taken out of inventory. He concluded that that is one policy that 67 Staff should maintain at a minimum, twenty-five percent surplus of vacant land designated for high and or medium Residential Use on the Future Land Use Map and inside of the Urban Service Boundary in order that an adequate choice of sites for housing is available He stated that the Staff refers to a Comprehensive Plan policy that says that there is seven hundred and fifty-four acres of multi-family acreage out there. He commented that that is not a static number. He stated that the County is suppose to go back and periodically review the amount of acreage that is available for multi-family development and adjust that and maintain a twenty-five percent surplus so that there is adequate site for developers to go out and find and pay a reasonable price, in order to provide affordable housing in this county. industries, Industrial and Commercial, providing numerous positions, the County should encourage the development of housing conducive to the attraction of these new that was a major point at the workshop in front of the County Commission, on He stated that you can have all of the economic incentives in the world to bring industry and Commercial activities to the County, but if the people that those people want to hire do not have a reasonable place to live, then those industries and Commercial activities will not come to the County. He concluded stating that you cannot have one without the other. He stated that Staff refers to taking Industrial Land Use out of inventory and it is their contention that there is plenty of Industrial and Commercial property that there has been no evidence put on that there is a shortage of such property. He state that if you look up by the airport and the amount of Industrial and vacant land there, including the Mixed Use that surrounds the airport, taken fifty-six acres of industrial land out of this location, does not defeat the Comprehensive Plan policies to provide for Industrial and Commercial property in the County. He added that the need for affordable housing for those workers would override that under land use amendment application should be adjacent to or within no more that one quarter of a mile to the same or greater type of land use classification. He stated that he would point out that they fall within that objective. He stated that if they will look at the map, it is obvious that immediately south of the parcel, is a pink parcel which says RH. He added that they are within a quarter of a mile of the identical land use that they are attempting to change to. He stated that more importantly, the County has put all potential developers, looking to change property, in a quandary. He stated that if you look at this location on the future land use map and the one other location in the County, in the future land use map that has a relatively large concentration and that is already designated RH property, you will find that that RH property is totally surround by Industrial or Commercial Land Use. He stated that as a developer if you want to change property to RH, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan policies, which state that the County should maintain a surplus inventory of RH property but to change Industrial Commercial property, you are not given that opportunity. He reiterated that you have absolutely no choice. 68 He stated that the other portion of RH property, if you are interested, is located just south of Edwards Road and in between Oleander and US1. He added that there is a corridor there and if you are familiar with the area, you are aware that the area around that is Industrial and Commercial property. He concluded that there point is that their are competing policies in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that Staff have pointed out that a few of them were in regards to economic development and Industrial Land Uses. He stated that they feel that overriding those policies or the numerous policies dealing with affordable housing that recognize that the only way to achieve that is to maintain a sufficient surplus of RH property in the County. He added that there is nowhere else in the County to convert property to RH, but to convert Industrial or Commercial. In regards to the subject property, he stated that it is bordered on one side by Westwood High School. He stated that his understanding is that the school board has current plan to turn Westwood High School into a middle school and build a new high school that is to the north of that site. He summarized and stated that there will be a middle school and a high school, next to Industrial property. He stated that he would argue that that is not necessarily the most appropriate use for property located next to a high school and a middle school. He stated that he would actually question whether or not, given the way that the county has developed, if the Industrial Core should remain an Industrial Core. He added that he would also question whether or not if the county should not go back and look at the whole area and maybe consider re-designation. He stated that the County has said that they want a neighborhood planning effort and they have defined the area as everything from 95 on the west, Orange Avenue on the south and Angle Road on the north and east. He stated that in conversation with several of the County Commissioners as to whether or not if they should even withdraw the application, because they were in an area that would have to go through a planning effort, he stated that their comments to them was to go forward because they wanted to know what the property is so that when they do the neighborhood planning effort, they will know how to plan for the property. He stated that they were given direction to continue on with their development proposal. He stated that he would argue that the remains of the property should probably be looked at in regards to whether given the character of the neighborhoods, what the neighborhoods to the east are trying to do to revitalize their area. He stated that it is probably more appropriate, not to be Industrial. He stated that if it is going to be a Residential district, the County has decided that RH is appropriate in this area. He added that they are only following the Comprehensive Plan policies, by adding RH properties within a quarter of a mile of the already existing RH property. He stated that with respect to the school district, they sat down with Mr. Sanders and they understand his position and they understand that that is going be the new position of the school district. He stated that whenever property comes in, whether it is for a land use change, Zoning Change, or for a PUD application, they understand that if it is increasing the density over and above what is already there, that the school district is going to be making the same comments that were heard previously in regards to impacts on the school district. He stated that they will be looking for something over and above the impact fees. He stated that in their conversations with Mr. Sanders, they worked on the assumption that the impact fee will be going up to five thousand dollars per unit. He stated that based upon the previous assumption and the maximum amount of density that 69 could go on the subject property if it is converted to RH; they have worked through some numbers. He stated that that is going to be an effort in progress as this goes forward. He stated that they do not have a specific site plan for the subject project. He stated that the Board will note that they will not putting up a site plan for their project. However, he included that they did develop, upon submitting their application, a concept plan. He stated that they have subsequent to that effort and while the application was being reviewed, they have had several conversations with Mr. Anderson and Beth Ryder, who is a community services director, about affordable housing options and possibilities on the subject property. He stated that they thought that it was in their best interest and in Staffe a concept plan any further until they figure out what the density on the property might be if they get a Residential density and given the density, they would like to know what type of project could go on the property and what are the options as to working with the County in regards to affordable housing programs. He stated that those of them that have attended that workshop are aware that the next day Staff was meeting with the state representatives to determine how and what strings were attached to the twenty million dollars that the County is getting for affordable housing projects. He stated that all that they knew at the workshop is that that money has to be spent within the next two years. He stated that they did not know what kind of programs would be available. He stated that they are working out the details of those programs as they speak. He stated that their intent is to th go to the County Commission on July 12 for transmittal. He stated that if they transmit this property to DCA as RH, they will then sit down and work hard and fast with Beth Write and her folks at the affordable housing proposing. He added that they will work with Staff on concept plans and at that point, they will start to put together a proposal which could be reviewed. He clarified that that is why there is no concept plan to be reviewed at the present meeting. He stated that they are asking for Straight Land Use Amendment to RH. He stated that whether or not they should be entering into an agreement with the school district as part of a land use amendment, he would submit that that is not appropriate because they have no details and they would not know what the perimeters of that agreement would be. He stated that they understand the school districts position and that they will be looking for exactions over and above the normal impact fee because in their mind, they are increasing the density and the impact on the school over and above what the existing land use is. He added that he feels that there cannot be any argument there, upon change from Industrial to Residential. He stated that the level of impacts will certainly be determined by the level of density. He also stated that the level of development that eventually is proposed for the property until they know those perimeters. He added that there is no way to come to an agreement with the school district other than to say that that will be a condition and that they will sit down and talk to them at that point and when it is appropriate. He stated that he has Mark Mathes, from the planning firm of Thomas Lucido and Associates, for specific questions in regards to planning issues. He stated that the Staff was correct in their representation as to their concurrency. He stated that they understand that according to FPUA there maybe certain improvements that need to be made for water and sewer, but that would be true for an Industrial site when it came in for a site plan. He reiterated that those are more appropriate for specific development 70 proposals wherein when they come in; they can look at the impacts. He stated that FPUA has a legal obligation to provide water and sewer to the site as to how those details that are worked are and at the time that it is needed. He concluded stating that unless there are questions for him or Mr. Mathes, he is thankful for their time. Chairman Grande asked if the owner of the property was Mr. Disalvatore. Mr. Ferguson replied that it is currently under contract, with permission from the owner to submit the application. Chairman Grande stated that this is a public hearing and he asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak. Mr. Marty Sanders, the Executive Director of Growth Management for the School District approached the podium to speak. He stated that he has included his letter of May th 24 in the packets. He stated that it talked about the impacts regarding the school district. He stated that as Mr. Ferguson has indicated, they have had a discussion and certainly it is his opinion that time of land use change determines whether this is appropriate and what impacts it has on public services. He added that according to the district school district. He stated that the project, at fifteen dwelling units an acre, is a request by the applicant on the density. He concluded stating that they have a range and a concept of what they are proposing, or else they would have gone for a lower or medium density development. He stated that that could have potentially eight hundred and fifty three dwelling units. He stated that when you consider Workforce Housing, his estimates are that it could be anywhere between two hundred and forty and four hundred students. He stated that if you look at the cost of what they are spending for a K8 and you equate those to the percentage of students that would go into that school, it varies between 5.2 and 9.3 million dollars of new school needs because of a land use decision. He stated that impact fees, as currently adopted, would off-set that by about 2.7 million dollars, but could leave a short fall between 2 ½ and 6.6 million dollars to the school district, due to a land use decision. He stated that they have talked to Mr. Ferguson and they will continue to work with him and his client to talk about what could be done to mitigate the impacts between now and the County Commission meeting. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Sanders and asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak. Mr. Chris Lang, the owner of the salvage yard, approached the podium to speak. He stated that they do about eight thousand plus cars a year on that site. He added that there are four cranes. He stated that they do steel and that they crush automobiles and so forth. He stated that he does not believe that he would want to live next to it. He stated that they are a bit noisy and that they buy appliances and scrap iron and so forth. He stated that the site looks a little like a landfill and it is noisy. 71 Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Lang. Ms. Hammer asked Staff y out on the map. Mr. Ralph Jensen approached the podium to speak. He stated that he owns a parcel approximately twelve hundred feet of fence line from Metzger Road all the way to Avenue I. He stated that there are two issues being discussed. He stated that when they got into the Industrial and developed a trucking company and a storage wherein there is shipment of grapefruits from within and they also wash for Tropicana and Ocean Spray, they have always felt that they were in the right zoning and in the right place. He stated that along with Mr. Lang, it has always been appropriately zoned and they have gotten along well, with their neighbors. He stated that he is concerned that they would put hundreds and hundreds of people on their back fence line, for residency. He stated that the other issue is if there is 250 thousand, there is a view of the river. He trucking company. He stated that he does not know if that is what they consider and a contractor behind them, they would have no worries and they would be compatible along with them currently. He asked if they will lose any rights and if they have to be buffered from them. He also asked if they have to be buffered from them. He stated that they currently let refrigerated units run, in order to keep the grapefruits chilled. He added the maybe they will not have grapefruits anymore, upon entry of the project. He stated that as it stands now, they have the right to run those units to keep the grapefruit non perishable before it goes to China. -containers, which run He stated that he knows at any price that he would not want his family living next to Mr. ness in development he would not have a problem with him as a neighbor. He stated that they have all been there for decades. He stated that they like each other and they work well together. He pointed out that the residential neighbors are present at the hearing. He stated that they always take in consideration because they are here. He asked would he invite them to move in and build their home and invest their hard earned money, withstanding that the view from maybe the radio station, the marble factory or Mayflower. He stated that his second concern is the funneling of all of this to the flashing light at Metzger Road. He asked how many people will come behind the proposed development. He stated that currently it is very difficult and very dangerous to get out at Angle Road th and 39 Street. He stated that unless they put in new roads, all of the traffic will have to th funnel at Metzger Road, take a left at 39 Street and go to Angle Road. He stated that he recommends that anyone to go there after school around 3:00 P.M. and try to get across that intersection. He asked if it were possible to add eight hundred units to that intersection without regards to the traffic. He asked with the view of the junkyard, will he now be required to buffer his trucks. He stated that he always thought that it would be 72 compatible with Industrial. He stated that they bought, and build there and they support the County from their businesses there. He asked if he has to worry that now they will have affordable housing that may not like his business now. He asked if the affordable housing moves in are they going to recommend that Mr. Lang should leave because they now do not like his junkyard. He added that of course he and Mr. Lang pay their taxes and they are all happy there. He stated that he guess that he was shocked and dumbfounded to find out that they might want to put housing on their area. He stated that everything within their area is Industrial. He asked if it was fair to the people that they intend on selling to. He asked if it was fair to the roads that they now have to travel. He stated that if it grows up and it grows up Industrial as it currently is zoned, he will welcome neighbors wanted just like Kings Highway Industrial Park. He restated that he will welcome that. He asked if the proposed project will include one-story, or two-story. He asked if there is further change, will they be allowed a three story town home and look right into his storage lot at his semis. He asked what the repercussions are. He asked if there is current guarantee that they will buffer from them and is that in the land development code also. He stated that they should. He stated that they are present to protect their businesses and their rights and their neighbors. He stated that they currently do not have a problem with their residential neighbors. He asked if the proposed project will create a problem with their residential neighbors and how many of the developers would live there. He added that he feels that not many of them would live there because they do not have a view of the river but of an auto recycle yard, a marble company or a trucking company. He concluded asking them to choose carefully and see if there is not a better site. He stated that he is all for affordable housing, but do you put them behind the land fill. He stated why not put them next to Glades cut-off. He asked if they have any sites that they can put them between Trop and the land fill for a better view. He stated that he thinks that they ought to really consider why it is Industrial and why it should stay Industrial. He finished by thanking the board for their time. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Jensen. Ms. Hammer asked if someone could poin map. Mr. Jensen pointed out his property on the map. Ms. Hammer thanked Mr. Jensen. Chairman Grande asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak to the particular application. Ms. Jamie Hurst approached the podium to speak. She stated that they own property on Metzger Road. She stated pointed out where they are located, on the map. She stated that they bought that property as an investment and as Industrial. She stated that one of the reasons that they bought it is because it is Industrial, but mainly because of its location to 95. She stated that it is very easy for people that are in the Industrial-type 73 business, to get to 95 from this location. She stated that if you have the mentioned th amount of residential trying to get on 39 Street, it would be very difficult. She stated that all of the surrounding area is Industrial. She stated that they have looked at other property in the area and where they were originally proposing to develop places their entrance right next to their building on Metzger Road. She stated that she does not see how that road could handle that much traffic. She stated that she does not know if they have been down Metzger Road; however it is a two lane road which contains a dead end just west of their property. She stated that it would be very difficult to travel. She stated that there is not much Industrial property left in the area. She added that she feels that it is very important to bring industry into their area on that. She thanked the board and left the podium. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Hurst and asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak. Mr. Elliott Virgin approached the podium to speak. He stated his residency. He stated that his residence is one of the few residents that is not zoned Industrial. He stated that he have lived in the area for approximately twelve years. He stated that he has mixed emotions about the proposed zoning changes, specifically in regards to Fort Pierce Utilities coming out to render services. He stated that he is currently a resident of the County. He stated that he is aware that Ft. Pierce Utilities have difficulties with rate hikes and so forth which was mentioned over the news. He restated that he has been a resident in that area for approximately and he does not think that it would be appropriate to put more residents out there because of the Industrial places that are currently established. He stated that because he one of the few residents who are not zoned Industrial; he would like to know what would be the status of being zoned the way that it currently is. He concluded that that is his comment. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Virgin. Mr. Virgin pointed out where his property is on the map and restated that his property is not zoned Industrial. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Virgin what was his question concerning zoning. Mr. Virgin stated that his questions were in regards to Ft. Pierce Utilities moving in the area and the zoning not changing. stated that the issue about Ft. Pierce Utilities Authorities and their ultimate services tie in because they are in their service area. He concluded stating that whether the proposal is approved or not, ultimately the utilities are going to serve in that area. He stated that he 74 does not think that the change impacts either of the two things that Mr. Virgin questioned. Mr. Virgin replied okay, and he thanked Mr. Kelly. Chairman Grande stated that he is not sure if the very last comment that was made is correct. He stated that if the area was changed to High Density Residential, he assumes that as part of any development, that they would need to bring service into that area which would make other residents in that area who are currently not connected, become connected. He stated that he realizes that they are in the service area but he assumes that they are not on FPUA at this time. He asked this was wrong. Mr. Kelly stated that that is not necessarily true. He stated that a lot of this is regulated by State Law. He stated that he guess that there is the possibility that if they were within the correct distance to align, ultimately there could be an impact and a requirement to connect. He stated that in the long term, this is a fairly urbanized area and he thinks that it comes anyway. Chairman Grande agreed that it will obviously happen some day; however he was just thinking that a High Density Residential community in that area may be the catalyst for bringing services in that then impacts a whole lot of people in advance of when it would have impacted them otherwise. Chairman Grande asked if there were anyone else who like to speak toward the subject application. Mr. Ferguson stated that the comments that the speakers had made were very appropriate. He also stated that his response to a couple of those is going to be that this is no the appropriate time to address those. He stated that in regards to the traffic, he understands that the traffic is a concern and he understands that the traffic on Angle Road is a concern. However, for purposes of the review, there was a traffic report done and the property currently has a zoning of light Industrial. He stated that under light Industrial, maximum intensity a development per code, is approximately ninety-one hundred trips a day. He stated that under maximum development as RH, is wages to be approximately fifty-three hundred trips per day. He concluded that you almost have the number of potential trips. He stated that depending on the Industrial development that goes in there, the trips could be near zero or they could be closer to nine thousand. However, for purposes of the folks in the audience there is access off of Metzger and there is auto legal access directly to Angle Road. Therefore the project that would go in there would have two accesses, which is what the fire district will require as well as connectivity. He concluded stating that that will help to mitigate some of the impacts on Metzger Road. He stated that Buffers are an issue that would clearly be addressed with a specific site plan and they would have to take into account as to what the neighboring properties and their rights are. He stating that they are going in knowing that it is Industrial and they know what the uses are and that they will have to situate the development such that those impacts are mitigated. He stated that as far as the value of the property goes with concerns of beach front or in regards to the location of the affordable housing location, 75 that this is where the County has dictated that RH property goes, which is in the middle of Industrial and Commercial property. He stated that the two locations on the Future Land Use Map are totally surrounded. He stated that they are not making choices necessarily to put it here, but the County is leading them in that direction and if any property is going to convert to satisfy the High Density Residential need, it is going to be industrial property and all likelihood that they are already Industrial Uses in the neighborhood. He stated that if the County wants to change its policies and direct High Density Residential some place else then they would certainly be happy to look in those areas. Mr. Ferguson thanked the board. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Ferguson and closed the public hearing. Chairman Grande asked if there were any questions or comments from any of the board members. public hearing, including Staff comments he hereby moves that the Local Planning Agency recommends that the St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners does not transmit the proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs for consideration as an amendment to the County Comprehensive Land Plan added that he feels that it does not fits with the goals, objectives and policies of the them by Staff support his comment. He stated that he cannot imagine putting Workforce Residential units in the mentioned area, which is surrounded by Industrial. He stated that in his opinion, it needs to stay Industrial. He stated that he does not think that it is fair to the people who live outside. He added that it buffers the area to put Workforce there. He stated that if for some reason that the County Commission approves this, he hopes that rd they take about two acres at Avenue I and 43 Street for a share of units because they will have to spend their time there because the City is not going to respond to that area. He concluded stating that those are the reasons that he moved that they deny this petition. Ms. Hammer seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that they have a motion and a second. He asked if there was any comment on the motion. The roll call was made Mr. Hearn voted for the motion to deny, with the added concern that St. Lucie County is already the low income capital of the Treasure Coast and he is not sure of where they are going with the proposal. He stated that he feels that within another five years, there will be lot of foreclosures and there is going to be an awful a lot of houses available for low income families. Ms. Morgan replied yes. Mr. Knapp replied no. 76 Mr. Lounds replied yes. Ms. Hammer replied yes to deny. Chairman Grande voted yes to deny. He commented stating that he really does not think that High Density Housing is necessarily synonymous with Workforce or low income housing. He stated that cramming them all together and making them cheaper and poorer and sticking them in an Industrial area, is not what he finds to be the answer to housing problems. He stated that he thinks that if an application like this is going to come forward that it really needs to be for reasons other than, that th recommend to the County Commissions that the petition not be forwarded to the state. 77 AGENDA ITEM 5: JEFFREY FREEDMAN-PA-05-005: Ms. Sheryl Stolzenberg presented this item. She stated that they actually have two petitions from Jeffrey Freedman, however, this is a small scale amendment and that this one does not have to be transmitted to the State. She stated that this petition could be adopted locally and then they would send a report to the Stated and if the report is okay with it then it becomes an official land use amendment. She stated that this is file number: PA-05-005. She stated that this is the application of Jeffrey Freedman for a Change in Land Use Designation from Commercial to Residential Medium, which is a maximum of nine dwelling units per acre, for a 9.66 acre parcel. She stated that it is located on the south side of Miramar Avenue, which is the east side of Kings Highway. She stated that as required by 9J-11 Florida Administrative Code, that staff looked at the surrounding land uses. She stated that the area to the south and east is Commercial. She added that Residential Urban is to the north, which allows five dwelling units per acre and that Residential Medium is to the east. She stated that of the existing surrounding uses, this is actually part of Phase Two of Indrio crossings. She stated that phase one, which is to the south, is an existing shopping center. She stated that the land to the east is vacant and there is Multi-family dwelling and vacant land to the north. She stated that it is also required by 9J-11 Florida Administrative Code, which they look at the availability of and demand on sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and traffic circulation services and it was found that this change could be accommodated without amending the comprehensive plan. She stated that looking at consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, they found that the subject proposal supports and furthered parts of the land use element, Objective 1.1.5 in particular. She stated this objective asks that development be directed to where services are available. She stated that looking at Policy 1.1.5.3, which is the requirement that when considering an amendment that they find that property adjacent to or no more than quarter of a mile from, has the same or greater land use. She stated that there is property within that boundary that has the same land use and also that the property lays within the five year capital improvement plan and that it can be served. She stated that they found that it did not conflict with the Transportation Element. She reiterated that a report was provided showing that traffic could be reduced and Road and Bridge is indicating that until there is an actual application, that they cannot really know that. She concluded stating that, in other words it does not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that as far as other elements and the support that it provides, this application specifically did say that it was interested in accommodating affordable housing, whereas the previous application did not make that application in the material that was submitted. She concluded stating that, therefore, they have found that although 78 they do not have an actual goal or a policy at this time which states the amount of affordable units that are needed, the data and analysis for the housing element do indicate that there is a need for affordable housing. She stated that this proposal, since it specifically did mention affordability, would support the data and analysis of the housing element. She stated that in the Economic Element, they found that Goal 12.5 was supported. She stated that this goal encouraged patterns of development that are less costly to provide with public services and facilities and encourage redevelopment and revitalization of older Residential, Industrial and Commercial areas. She stated that the introduction of Residential into the subject area where there is adjacent to it an already beginning to decline Commercial shopping center gives an opportunity to provide some revitalization. She stated that there was a conceptual/ semi-conceptual site plan that was submitted along with this. She stated that although the documentation which was submitted by the applicant indicated that there was an opportunity to provide for greater connectivity and pedestrian access within the site, the conceptual site plan at this point does not demonstrate that. However, that does not mean that a future actual site plan will not, because if this does go forward, that would certainly be something that would be of interest and that they would be looking to see pedestrian access in view of its proximity to the North County area. She concluded, stating that this application is a small scale, that this does not have to be transmitted to the State. She stated that they recommend that the board recommends adoption of the land use, to the County Commission. Chairman Grande asked if there were any questions of Staff. Mr. Hearn stated that he has one observation. He stated that he is not sure where the opinion that the shopping center is in decline out there, derived from. He stated that the shopping center is not too far from his home and they shop there regularly and he is not sure that he agrees with that observation. He stated that he has a concern regarding the statement that was mentioned regarding vacancy to the north of the subject property. He asked if he was correct. Chairman Grande intervened and stated that he noticed that the subject application did not have an aerial that they could use to determine. Mr. Hearn intervened asking if they had an aerial that they could look at on the screen. Chairman Grande asked if there was some reason as to why the aerial was not included in the packets. Mr. Kelly stated that they did not realize to that moment that it was not included. He stated that they will have to check on that. Mr. Kelly pointed out the aerial on the screen. He stated that it is what was prepared in advance and it is what the board normally would have gotten. He pointed out the existing shopping center. He pointed out where the Winn Dixie would be. He also pointed out some other features on the map that are in the shopping center, such as a diner, which is no longer there and a gym. He stated that 79 maybe the comment made towards the declination of the shopping center is more accurate for a shopping center that has been there for a long time and has never fully rented all of its space. He included the fact that it has lots of businesses. He stated that there has certainly always been space there. He also stated that some of the store fronts in the mentioned area are store fronts which actually never had backs in them. He concluded that it was never fully utilized. Mr. Hearn stated that that is probably a better description. Mr. Hearn addressed several of the homes that are located to the north of the shopping center, where the roads curve on to the north east. He stated that the homes do not show on the map but he knows that there are quite a few homes located near the subject area. Mr. Kelly pointed to a vacant area on the map and stated that it was vacant. Mr. Hearn agreed that the area was vacant. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of Staff. Mr. Lounds asked if the piece out in the front is still commercial. Ms. Stolzenberg replied yes. Mr. Lounds asked if it will remain that way. Ms. Stolzenberg replied yes, as far as they understand from the applicant. Chairman Grande asked if the TVC area have the arm that runs up to Feeder Road, or is he in the wrong place. Mr. Lounds stated that according to the hash marks, it is outside of the TVC. He stated that the south side of Indrio Road is in it and the mentioned piece is out of it. Mr. Kelly stated that he has lost track of the Crossed-Hatch map, but he has the map wherein there was an earlier determination that the blue area was the same as the Cross- Hatched area. Chairman Grande agreed that the map was identical. He stated that his understanding is that the TVC area actually has an arm that runs north east up to Feeder Road. Mr. Kelly stated that he is not following and he added that they have found the Cross- Hatched map. Chairman Grande stated that it does not appear there also. He also stated that on the other hand he does not think that it matters. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Kelly and asked if there were any other questions before they hear from the applicant. 80 Mr. Al Brodeur from Thomas Lucido and Associates approached the podium to speak on the behalf of the applicant. He stated that as you can see, this was approved as Phase Two of the Indrio Crossings Shopping Center. He stated that over time, the market did not catch up to it quite right. He stated that it is their observation that this was probably planned at a time when big box Commercial was actually encouraged and segregation was also encouraged from the additional Residential. He stated that they are looking at this differently today. He put up a slide of a conceptual plan for display. He stated that they feel that there are a number of different advantages for this to be Residential. He stated that currently there is a Commercial Land Use and a Commercial Zoning, up against a Residential Land Use to the north and a Residential Land Use to the east. He stated that they feel that a multi- family town home development would be a more appropriate transition for the residents which are located to the north of the Commercial to the south. He stated that currently they are looking at the back of a Commercial center that was built before double frontage Commercial centers. He stated that there are dumpsters and a loading area, which he considered as currently not very attractive. He added that they are looking to alleviate that. He stated that there are existing drainage problems on the site that they are also looking to alleviate by increasing the retention area on the south side. He stated that the subject site was chosen for a number of different market reasons. He stated that they feel that it would be a great location for living. He stated that they are planning for the development to be in location wherein it will be within walking distance from the shopping center. He addressed the questions from Staff when it comes to connections to the shopping center. He stated that on the south west corner, the initial plan was to have a pathway across that area. He added that upon visiting the site, they found that area is the loading area of the grocery store. Therefore you would be walking across and you would walk right into a loading area. Chairman Grande asked if Mr. Brodeur was pointing to something. Mr. Brodeur clarified that he was referring to the southwest corner. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Brodeur. Mr. Brodeur continued pointing to a strip of land on the map. He added that if you walk across that piece of land, it is not very attractive. He also added that it is a loading zone and there are a lot of dumpsters. He stated that the second option, which they are currently working on with Staff, is to build a decorative bridge across the retention area. He stated that the bridge will go down the middle, and over the retention area. He stated that the dip beneath the bridge will not be filled with water at all times, but this is the worst case scenari cannot drive, they will build the bridge so that they can walk right across and go to the shopping center. He stated that they are also planning a clubhouse and a pool. He 81 concluded that it will basically be a nice place for retirement. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Grande asked if anyone had any questions of the applicant. Ms. Hammer stated that she thinks that she heard Mr. Brodeur say that it is not an age restricted community, but he closed stating that it is a nice community to retire in. Mr. Brodeur reiterated that it will not be aged restricted, but those that are of retirement age will be the main residents and they will be the ones that they will be marketing it to. However, it will not be restricted to retirees. Ms. Hammer asked why not. Mr. Brodeur stated that they do not want to put any restrictions on it. He stated that if a working family wants to live there, they are welcome to live there also. He also pointed out that they are showing them the plan because they know that they want to see it. He stated that from past experience, normally land use amendments are not approved without some kind of concept, so they wanted to present a visual idea. However, he stated that he would like to focus on the land use, in which currently, the large commercial piece is asking for a big box center. He added that they know that there is a better way of doing things. He stated that they are looking to locate residential in closer proximity to the commercial and he feels that that is a better choice, rather than creating a larger shopping center there. Ms. Hammer asked about the land to the left of the subject property. Chairman Grande asked if the land to the left is Lakewood Park. He asked if it was to the west. Mr. Brodeur stated that they did not feel that that area was appropriate for Residential. Road wherein that will remain commercial. Ms. Hammer asked if he owns all of that property or is he representing the person who owns the whole section of property but they only want to have the rezoning on the part that is Cross-Hatched in red. Mr. Brodeur replied correct. Mr. Brodeur introduced the builder to answer this question. Mr. Dror Triger, the builder and developer of the development stated that there will be two types of units, wherein one of them will be nineteen hundred and something and the 82 middle units will be twenty-two hundred plus. He stated that the side units are allowed to accommodate, by their experience, elderly aged residents who will appreciate those types of units. He stated that in the side units, they are putting the master bedrooms down stairs so that it will allow the elderly to avoid having to run up and down the stairs. He added that the master units, kitchen and all of the set area will be down stairs in order to avoid going up and down the stairs. He stated that the middle units will be a little more upgraded. He stated that the masters will be upstairs and there will be an option of whether or not if they want an elevator in the house. He stated that it is unusual for normal two-story to provide elevators but their experience from down south in the Boynton Beach area has shown them that there is a huge demand, when options as such are presented. Mr. Lounds asked if these were rental units or condominium-type units, wherein he can buy a unit in this. Mr. Triger stated that it will be a homeowners association, which will own the land. He stated that the units themselves are condominium association, which means that the person buys the units and not that land and the entire area around the land which includes the pool and the clubhouse. He stated that all of that will be maintained by the homeowners association. Mr. Lounds asked if he could buy five of the units and rent them out. Mr. Triger stated that they have not eliminated as to if that will be some sort of requirement. He asked Mr. Lounds if he was trying to avoid investors. Mr. Lounds stated that he does not know if he wants to eliminate the investors, but he would like to see some kind of consideration for rental of that unit. He stated that when you go east of this property, there is a great deal of rental units back there that create problems for fire rescues and law enforcement and so forth. He added that they still and always will exist until something straightens it out. He stated that he would not want to see the subject development fall into that same realm as rental units. He stated that if they go into this development with the idea of this being rental units, then he is not for it. Mr. Triger stated that they are not building them for rental but they are building them to sell. He stated that if someone buys a rental and wants to rent it, he has a limited ability. He stated that he can enforce what he has learned from other builders in the area, within the last two years. He stated that within eighteen from the day that they close, they cannot sell the units. Mr. Lounds stated that he guarantees that the people, who own the rental units on La Salle Road back there, do not live there. Mr. Triger asked if he was talking about the developments that he has known of for eighteen months. 83 Mr. Lounds replied that those to the east of the development do not live there. Mr. Triger stated that he is aware that they do not live there. Mr. Lounds stated that they need to live there and they would clean it up. Mr. Lounds stated that if Mr. Trigergroup could do that, the Mr. Triger stated that they can include it in there; however you t because it is illegal. He stated that it is running to the question of legality and there are some attorneys that could give him better advice because he is not an attorney. He stated that you are running into a difficulty to eliminate some of the purchased units to rent it. He stated that you can put restrictions such as the eighteen months rule that states that on the day that you close on the units, you must live in the units and you cannot resell it. He added that there is a minimum of two years rent before you can change your tenant. He stated that this sort of implementations can be put in and will be presented to the County if the County will require them within the Homeowners Association documents. Mr. Lounds stated that he is not against the development and that he would like to see this there rather than another big box, which has a problem with Commercial development. However, if they are going to put a multi-family unit that close to Kings Highway and that close to the Commercial, there need to be considerations made as to doing it correctly. He added that if there are restraints or restrictions on the development it needs to be done correctly so that it does not develop like it has about a half a block back down the road. Mr. Lounds stated that Mr. Triger is the developer and he should figure it out. Chairman Grande stated that assuming that it is going to be a condominium, what ever can be legally put into the condominium documents in terms of rental, not withstanding that there are some pretty heavy limitations as to what can be enforced there, will be an issue further in the process. Mr. Lounds stated that he thinks that this is a step in the right direction as to for what you want to do there, by having a condominium-type affecting that. He stated that it is not going to be just rental apartments. Mr. Triger stated that they are not building it for rentals and they are not aiming for rentals. He stated that they are aiming for High Medium Housing. He stated that they are definitely providing homes that are competing heavily with what is build a little north and west of the subject property, in regards to pricing. He added that in regards to quality, they are competing with them heavily. Mr. Lounds stated good and that his question was answered. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Kelly if he had any comments. 84 Mr. Kelly pointed out that they have really left the land use discussion and that these are issues that are well beyond the present focus. Mr. Hearn stated that he has a concern with residential that close to the loading docks in the back of a major grocery chain. He stated that the dumpsters are emptied any time during a twenty-four hour time period. He also added that tractor trailers come in with produce and supplies, twenty-four hours a day and he knows that he would not want to live there. He stated that he is not sure if it will be anything but problematic especially in that southwest part of the development. Mr. Brodeur approached the podium to speak. He stated that it is their intent to construct a six foot privacy wall, but not to limit the pedestrian access. Mr. Hearn stated that a six foot wall is not going to stop his concern of the noise, at any hour of the night. He stated that there is going to be problems there. Mr. Brodeur stated that it is their belief that trying to separate Commercial and Residential so strictly is not always a good idea. He stated that it is their belief that to increase pedestrian access and to allow for more walk-ability and less traffic on the road. He stated that they will do whatever they can to buffer this, with vegetation, and/or a privacy wall to alleviate those concerns. He stated that they do feel that this is a prime location to allow for a residence. Chairman Grande stated that his sense is that if the Residential was there and the Commercial was coming in, that there would be buffering requirements under Commercial. Mr. Kelly replied yes. Chairman Grande asked if it works the other way around. He asked if it would be up to them to put in whatever they felt would be best to separate them and make their units more sellable. Mr. Kelly replied yes. He added that they are speaking in regards to design issues. Chairman Grande asked if there was not a requirement on them. Ms. Hammer pointed out that on page seven it indicates that one of the justifications for the amendment is to provide affordable housing. She stated that she would like to ask the applicant of what is the kind of price range are they talking about because he had talked about nineteen hundred square feet to twenty-two hundred squared feet. Mr. Triger stated that it is around the mid two hundreds. He stated that he is talking red to the prices that are running to the north and west of them. He stated that their price range is approximately sliced in half in regards to the cost of units of the other price ranges. He 85 added that they feel their price range to be appropriate, suitable and that it will provide for a lot of people. He also added that it is a nice house in a prime position, which will lift at the same time as the shopping center. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Triger. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Marty Sanders, the Executive Director of Growth Management for the school district. He stated that his concerns were in regards to the same issues concerning the last two developments which are the conversion of lands that have no need for schools and no generation of students to a Residential Use that generates students. He stated that while this development is much smaller, it has a lesser impact because they do not need a school site for this particular development. However it could have eighty-six units and financial impacts on the school district could range from two hundred and sixty thousand dollars to six hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars on additional demands created over and above, what would be reimburse through impact fees. He stated that he has spoke with the builder earlier and he has agreed to work with the school district and they will continue to work with them to see what can be done to ameliorate their impacts. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Sanders. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Chairman Grande asked if there were any comments or a motion on the petition. Ms. Hammer commented stating that they are being told that this will accommodate needs for affordable housing. She stated that affordable Housing to her is not a two hundred and thirty to a 250 thousand dollar home. She stated that that would be the only reason why she would consider the application; otherwise, she does not see any good reason to change the land use from what looks like a Commercial Square to Residential. She stated that she guess that she does not understand that reason for the application. Chairman Grande made a comment about the market driven. Ms. Hammer replied that she will withdraw that comment. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other comments and if they had a motion. Mr. Lounds asked if there was any consideration with the Residential land that is going to be developed west of there out in the origin of Indrio quarter or the Charrette area, which the Commercial piece may come back and be more valuable as a Commercial piece five years from now. He concluded that that was a hypothetical question. Mr. Brodeur stated that his interpretation of the Charrette is that they want to discourage large Commercial big box development, in which everyone will drive into that one box and drive back home. He stated that it was his interpretation that they wanted smaller 86 Commercial pieces that were in closer proximity to where the residents will be living. He stated that if they wanted to buy a lawnmower, they cannot prevent the residents from going to Home Depot if that is where it is suitable for them to buy it from. However, if they are going to get some eggs and milk, they all will not have to go to the intersection of Kings Highway and Indrio but they can go to their little Commercial depots in their backyards. He concluded stating that that is his interpretation of the Charrette and that is why they feel that this proposal is consistent with the Charette because currently he does not think that it is appropriate to have Phase Two built and now they have another asphalt jungle of another box. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Brodeur. Mr. Hearn commented on the big box analogy of the shopping center. He stated that the Winn Dixie is a big box and he does not consider the other ten store fronts to be a big box. Chairman Grande asked if someone would like to make a motion. Mr. Jeffrey Freedman, the applicant, approached the podium to speak. He stated that he will address the original thesis in regards to the reasons for submitting the subject plan. He stated that they committed to the Staff and to the County, approximately nine months ago, that they would proceed with a development of a residential and commercial component simultaneously. Therefore, they have given Staff a site plan that Ms. Stolzenberg and the previous speakers have addressed. He stated that they have had a DRC review meeting. He stated that their intention is to remain in the development motif of a Commercial component along the Kings Highway side, and then develop the subject residential community which will make the transition from that eastern portion of the property to that site that is currently an undeveloped piece of property. He added that it is likely that it will be developed as a residential parcel. He stated that their commitment to the Staff and to the Commissioners is that they will jointly develop this particular parcel of land along that combination. He stated that if he might, he would like to add that in 1989 this parcel of land had been approved and that this is a vested site plan of a fairly ugly, very intensive, large component shopping center with asphalt and really no attractiveness for this particular neighborhood. He stated that they are attempting to add at least an element of open spacing and green-spacing which could be compared to what was an approve site plan about fifteen years ago. He stated that they sat down and tried to figure out what would be the best use for the subject area and their conclusion was to do a mixed kind of use project of a commercial with a multi-family residential component. He stated that his understanding is that there will be numerous other commercial shopping sites along that area over the next several years. He added that to have another site of a large series of integrated buildings would not be a particular attractive use for that area at this time. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Freedman. 87 Mr. Freedman replied thank you. the testimony presented during the public hearing including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency recommends that the St. Lucie Board of County Commission adopt the proposed small scale land use amendment of Jeffrey Freedman to the Comprehensive Plan and provide a report of it makes sense to do a transition from Commercial to have multi-family before you get to the residential. He stated that he thinks that it will be a very nice improvement to the community up in that area, to have some very nice housing and he thinks that it is good for the community. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that a motion and a second had been made. He asked if there were any questions or comments on the motion. The roll was called. Ms. Hammer voted no to the motion. She commented that she voted no specifically because it is indicated that it would provide affordable housing ownership and in her humble opinion, two hundred and thirty thousand to 250 thousand dollars homes are not affordable housing. Mr. Hearn voted no. Mr. Lounds voted yes to approve. Mr. Knapp voted yes. Ms. Morgan voted yes. Chairman Grande voted yes. Chairman Grande made a comment in regards to the allusion to a site plan that is still in effect fifteen years later and that is a vested site plan. He stated that he has watched this particular piece of property and he does not think that anything has happened on it in plan would have expired by now. He stated that he did not want to say that before the vote because he did not feel that it should have affected this. He concluded that the petition has been passed and it will be sent to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval, but at some point he would like to speak to the applicant the Mr. Kelly stated that they will also take a look at that 88 AGENDA ITEM 6: JEFFREY FREEDMAN-PA-05-001: Ms. Sheryl Stolzenberg presented this item. She stated that it is file number PA-05-001. She stated that this is a regular amendment and it would be transmitted to the state if it is approved. She stated that this is the application of Jeffrey Freedman for a Change in Land Use Designation from Commercial to Residential Medium, with a maximum of nine dwelling units per acre, for a forty acre parcel. It is located on the east side of south Kings Highway, north and adjacent to the Ft. Pierce Jai-Alai Fronton. She stated that as required by 9J-11 Florida Administrative Code, that they have looked at the surrounding land uses. She stated that there was Commercial to the south and north, RS to the west, RU to the east and the existing surrounding uses to the north were Agricultural Uses. She stated that the existing surrounding uses to the west are land that is owned by the County, the south is Ft. Pierce Jai-Alai and to the east are some groves and vacant land. She also stated that as required by 9J-11 Florida Administrative Code, they have looked at the availability of and demand on sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and traffic circulation services. She stated that these could accommodate the demand however; the analysis that was submitted on the traffic circulation did not include the potential of traffic from the Research and Education Park that St. Lucie County intends to create. She added that there may be some conflicts that are created by that. She stated that further analysis would be necessary to make that kind of determination. She stated that as far as consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Objective 1.1.5, which directs development to where services are available; there is a question in regards to the possibility of a conflict with Residential traffic from the site and the Research Park, which is going to be an actual reality. She stated that Policy 1.1.5.3 is the policy that they have to use when they are considering an amendment to make a finding that the property is adjacent to or no more than one quarter of a mile from the same or greater land use. She stated that their concern in this instance is that because the Research Park had been described as a park that really could not have Residential on its site, that having Residential this close to it might also encounter the same problems that the Residential on the site would encounter. She added that there would be a tendency to switch more of the Residential to the western part of the site which would mean, since this is proposed to be a planned unit development, that the greater portion of the density would be located towards the west, whereas the adjacent land uses lower the density. She stated that they were concerned about the possibility of incompatibilities between the Research Park and whatever things might be coming from the Research Park that make it not a very good location for Residential on site. She concluded stating that these were just land use compatibility issues that were of staffconcern. She stated that the proposal did not appear to conflict with the Transportation Element. However, they did not really have an analysis that looked at how the traffic from this site would mesh with the traffic from the Research Park. 89 She stated that they did feel that there were conflicts with other elements. She stated the Housing Policy 5.1.1.1 identifies that a certain number of acres to accommodate new multi-family and indicates that that was already in place in the land use map. She stated that in the Economic Element, they found that Policy 12.2.1.3 states that they should be identifying locations for and encouraging development of economic clusters for business and industry. She stated that the site would benefit from being located near related industries in the area. The reality is that land that already has a non-Residential designation near the future business park might be ideally situated to provide services to that business park. She added that if that is converted away from non-Residential to Residential, then that opportunity is not there. She stated that it will appear that the might not be supporting the business park and the Economic Element by making this change at this time. She stated that based upon the given information, their recommendation was that this proposed amendment not be transmitted to the State Department of Community Affairs. Chairman Grande thanked Ms. Stolzenberg and asked if anyone had any questions of Staff based on their report. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Lounds if this is the same parcel that they have rejected a Change of Zoning on several years ago because of its proximity to the Research Park and so forth. Mr. Lounds replied that he does not believe that it is. He stated that he has thought of that and he concluded that he thinks that the parcel was further south and on the opposite side of the road. He stated that he thinks that those pieces were on the west side of Kings Highway, and more towards Okeechobee Road. He stated that their concern there, which is his same concern here, is the Commercialism of Kings Highway and where it is going. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions before they hear from the applicant. Ms. Cynthia Angelos, with Wyce, Handler, Angelos, and Cornell, approached the podium to speak on the behalf of the applicant. She stated that as indicated, this application is requesting forty acres that is just north of the Jai-Alai. She added that it is on the east side of Kings Highway. She stated that it is for a land use Change from Commercial to Medium Residential. She stated that as reflected in the Staff report, the primary reason for the application is to provide housing for the Education and Research Park. She stated that they understand Staff that at the time Staff recommendation was formulated, there was not as much information available as there is now, that they have been able to derive. She stated that Mr. Dennis Murphy has provided a schematic and as reflected on the same, there is one hundred and seventy-five foot right-of-way that would be donated along Kings Highway. She stated that there would be a Mixed Office and Commercial Use, before the Residential portion 90 would begin. She stated that Mr. Dennis Murphy has information about the Education and Research Park with regards to the overlay district and their plans, which would serve as a buffer from the Residential. She concluded stating that the primary reason for the application was to supply housing for those that would work at the Education and Research Park. She stated that she would point out that the schematic follows the TVC. She stated that she had gone through the plan with each of the respective commissioners. She stated that each of the commissioners were very receptive. She added that Commissioner Craft wanted more detail and that is the plan, which is currently before the Board. She stated that she thinks that it is a shame that Mr. Marty Sanders has to sit through the meeting as late as he has to at the current meeting. She added the she can assure them that she will work with Mr. Marty Sanders as it relates to the school board and she will also work with Mr. Marty Sanders in regards to getting some policies together. She also mentioned that by the time that this PUD site plan gets before the Board for final approval, she thinks that they will find that the density that was once being given away for free will no longer be the case, which is based on conversations that she has had with the County Administrator. She also added that if they have not had those conversations, they will. She stated that she has also discussed with her client that he needs to be prepared to pay money to the school board over and above the impact fees as well as to the County for basic infrastructure needs. She concluded, stating that she would like for Mr. Murphy to address both what is being planned at the Education and Research Park and better address the plan. Mr. Dennis Murphy, the Senior Project Manager with the firm of Culpepper and Terpening, approached the podium to speak on the behalf of the petition. He stated that the petition is for a Change of Land Use for a forty acre parcel of land, east side of Kings Highway, north of the Fronton, and South of Orange Avenue. He stated that this parcel is opposite a tract of land that was looked at about a year and a quarter ago. He asked staff to show a slide display of the land use map that was shown previously. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the blue parcel that is seen on the overhead is the subject to a prior petition for a land use change. He then pointed to the piece that the County Commissioners bought and have since then incorporated concepts for the Research and Education area, into the master plan. He pointed out and stated that the rectangular pieces that can be seen at the southwest corner of the blue tract, on the map, were not currently publicly held. He clarified that they are privately held. Mr. Murphy pointed out to locations on the map and explained what they are. He stated that in a longer time period, the current Board and the Board of County Commissioners have rejected proposed changed of land use and zoning on a parcel of land that was subsequently annexed in the City of Ft. Pierce and it is currently proposed for a Residential He stated that they have a parcel of land that they believe is more suitably classified for Residential Use, than it is for its current General Commercial Use. He stated that they have a parcel of land that is in part grove and part pasture. 91 He stated that they have a parcel of land, wherein when they submitted their application back in January, they did not have the privilege or the available information in which to Education Park. He stated that they have a parcel of land that will be conveying out approximately one hundred and seventy-five feet of its frontage along Kings Highway, for the widening. He added that the widening will be required with the development of the Research and Education Park for the subsequent DRI applications that will have to follow that. He stated that they have a parcel of land wherein they are taking the traffic impacts and reducing them by approximately seventy-five percent, from what they could be under the current land use classification. He stated that they have a parcel of land wherein they will try to put in about three hundred units onto it based upon the concept plan that is in front of them. He stated that that concept plan incorporates information that they have been able to gather most rece Department, regarding the concepts issues for the Research and Education Park. He stated that that is important because when they filed their application, no one was really sure where the physical development on the Education Park was going to take place. He stated that since that time, the preliminary plans that they have been made aware of (they have not really seen the final copies of them, because they were still in preparation), have moved or concentrated the Human Development, which includes the labs, the buildings and the built environment on the eastern quarter of the overall tract. He asked if the aerial photo could be shown. He stated that when they are talking about the Research and the Education Facility, extends west, approximately a mile and a half. He added that is it about a mile and a quarter deep and it occupies approximately sixteen to eighteen hundred acres. He stated that the built environment will be, from what they have been told, in the area that he pointed out to on the screen which constitutes the northeast corner of Rock Road and Picos Road. He added that it will constitute a sizable, about half of the section that he showed which is at the southeast corner of Rock and Picos Road. He stated that it is roughly the eastern half of that. He pointed out that this is where the proposed built environment is going to be. He stated that there will not be any Agricultural test plots, nor will there be any growing of crops or products in this area as presently in vision. He stated that when you look at the concept plan that they have provided and you look over into the upper left hand corner on the map, you will see that that is the piece that they were talking about in regards to the petition. He stated that you will see the arrows that they have going west. He stated that they align with the planned intersecting roadways that come out of the Research and Education Park. He stated that they believe that their plan that they are showing, which is a Mixed Residential, Low Intensity Commercial plan, complements the Research and Education Facilities being put in across the street. He stated that this provides housing opportunities for those who wish to live close to the work environment. He stated that the plan is conceptual, but their client has indicated a willingness to come in and refine this type of plan to match up with what is being presented. 92 He stated that the graphic that is before them references a future hotel site. He clarified that that does not belong to them. He stated that that is an artistic license that was taken based upon some of the early discussions that they were privileged to regarding the Research and Development plans. He stated that one of the concepts had a dot for a hotel there and a conference center should be developed in the future. He stated that that may not happen and that that will come off of the plan in the future. He stated that they are not involved in that but he just wanted to note that as a place in here. He stated that upon going through and listening to the Staff comments, it needs to be noted that their application is consistent wit Element, the Potable Water Element and the Drainage Element. He also added that it is consistent with recreation and Open-space, Conservation, Coastal Management, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvements Elements. He stated that their cited deficiencies are related to two policies within the land use element, and a general transportation comment saying that they were deficient because they were being asked to model some traffic information that was not available to them before. He stated that as they move through the development process, as a preliminary development order, their traffic assessments at this point have been cursory. He stated that they are not asking for a specific capacity, but they are asking for an opportunity to come back with a refined planned and a detailed development plan approach which will address concurrency issues. He also addressed regards to the extent that the county can provide the necessary information as to what the impacts will be from the Research Park, and stated that they will add that into their modeling efforts. He stated that if they do not have it, then they cannot do it. He stated that they believe that they are, in reference to the sited policies, incompliance specifically Policy 1.1.5.3 which had two parts to it, wherein it was noted that they were inconsistent with it. He stated that they believe that a change in the land use classification to RM is consistent with the Quarter-Mile proximity, since they are making their property less intense than the adjacent properties. He stated that the adjacent properties are Commercial. He stated that they are going down a notch. He stated that in the other part of that policy, the report has found it to be consistent and there are available utilities to their area. He stated that the Staffconcern, is being improperly applied in this case because as it is materializing through the development of the master plan, they are not in any area that needs to be set aside for protection or preservation, in order to protect crop production. He stated that if they were, he would still be up there arguing that they have a reasonable shot at coming up and seeing forth that this is Residential because they can provide adequate, vertical and horizontal screening and buffering to protect the plant environments or the test plots that are out there in the research areas that are out there. He stated that this is an issue that would be coming up more and more over the next couple of weeks. He added that there are other properties in the area that he believes are closer to their test sites than they are, that may actually have a greater impact that are not providing the levels of buffer that they perhaps need to. He stated that they are prepared to do what they have to go in and do in the subject area. 93 He stated that he believes that their application package was comprehensive enough and they did cover everything and he does believe that proves that they would warrant. He concluded stating that they respectfully request that their application is forwarded to the Board with a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners transmit their amendment to Tallahassee for review and that the Board of County Commission be give the opportunity to give it a final review hearing approximately three or four months from now. He stated that he is available for further questions. Ms. Angelos stated that Mr. Freedman wanted her to point out that they have been working very hard and plan to do a wetland preservation area, dedicated to the public, with walking trails, and board walk and with environmental awareness and urban settings and stations to compliment the Research Park also. She stated that that is what you see back there behind the proposed forty acres. Chairman Grande thanked the applicant and asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Knapp stated that he did not understand the map that was provided to them. He stated that it looks like that there is development there, but is the separate piece a different piece, behind it that you connect to. Then he asked what does it has to do with the forty acres. Mr. Murphy replied, nothing other than a context relationship. He also added that they own the property. He stated that they own eighty acres in total. He stated that their petition is to change the west forty from Commercial to Residential. He stated that their objective is to construct a Mixed Use community as seen in the slide photos and Mixed Use by product type, plus limited Commercial. He pointed out to arching roadway on the map and stated that that would be where they would have the limited Commercial He stated that the balance of their property would then be multi-family and some single family. He stated that moving into an area towards of the Copenhaver Road, there would be single family opportunities. He stated that the only reason for showing them the plan is to give them an idea of what their thought processes are for the development of the property. He stated that this is not going to be the final foot print plan. Mr. Knapp asked if the hotel was on their land. Mr. Murphy replied no. He clarified that it is not on their land and that it is an artistic license that was taken and it is coming off. Mr. Knapp asked if it was where the Fronton is. Mr. Murphy stated that is where the Fronton sits right now. Mr. Knapp asked if there was a hotel and a Jai-Alai Fronton on there. 94 Mr. Murphy replied yes, it is redevelopment opportunity. He stated that that was a part of some earlier discussion. Mr. Knapp asked if the bottom spot was or was not their land. He asked if block seven and block eight was their land. Mr. Murphy stated no. Then Mr. Murphy pointed out Graham Road on the map. Mr. Knapp asked if the development was on Graham Road. Mr. Murphy replied no. He stated that it is separated by its back up approximately on Copanhaver Road. Mr. Knapp asked if the eighty acres of what they were talking about were where they mentioned it to be, and not in the hotel or the Fronton. He pointed to another section and asked about it. Mr. Murphy stated that they already own that and that has an RU Land Use designation onto it right now. Then he asked Mr. Kelly to go back to the aerial slide photo. He stated that the only piece that they are meeting to talk about is the piece on the aerial, which is shaded in red. He stated that the context plan is to show what their overall process is for the entire eighty acre holding. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Murphy if he gets Residential Land Use on this, will he apply for a PUD. Mr. Murphy replied yes. He stated that that is the only way that they can do what they are talking about. Ms. Hammer stated that she sees the forty acres that he is talking about, but she is impressed with how he wants to join that into the land on the present map to the right. She asked if he could outline the rest of his eighty acres with the mouse on the screen. Mr. Murphy outlined his eighty acres on the screen. He stated that the single family element would be on the wooded parcel. He stated that it is important to know that their intentions in that area are single family, which is consistent with the other uses in the area. He stated that they do not plan to introduce any multi-family in that area. Ms. Hammer asked if they would have the enhancements around the wetlands and the walking trials so that that would be accessible to the property to the left if they allow the land use change. - details, but in general terms; it would be a unified development plan and a unified development approach for the entire property. He also added that access to the amenity system, which is what this would be, would be available to all of the owners within the project. Ms. Hammer asked if they were talking about a gated community. Mr. Murphy stated that they have not gotten that far yet. Chairman Grande asked Mr. Murphy who is the owner of this. 95 Mr. Murphy replied that the applicant is Mr. Freedman and Jeff has the ownership of the back forty and he thinks that the top forty is under contract purchase. He stated that if you look it up under the tax rolls it will show up as Florida Gaming. Ms. Angelos stated that the Jai-Alai is selling it. Mr. Murphy replied correct, but it is a contract purchase and they have the authorization letters, which are in a file with the application. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Murphy and asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Marty Sanders, the Executive Director of Growth Management for the school district. He stated that he is present to speak as an advocate for children. He stated that the legislature session, within the past month, has initiated a Senate Bill 360, which brings forth concurrency for schools as a requirement. He added that that is refreshing and over the next three years they have to develop a concurrency management system for schools, therefore he will be there in the future with more to say. He stated that as Ms. Angelos has said, she will work with them to help develop policy, and he appreciates that. He stated that he has always been a true believer in trying to use all of the brain power that they can get. He added that she too is an advocate for kids and he is sure that they can work out some methodology to address the impacts to school. He concluded stating, with that being said and done, they will work with the applicant to try to do that. Ms. Hammer asked Mr. Sanders if there were any proposals within the five, ten, or twenty year plan for a school site in the subject vicinity. Mr. Sanders stated that the school district owns a site on Jenkins Road, about a mile to the east of the subject property. He stated that it is near the apartment complex, which is about three quarters of a mile, north of Okeechobee. He added that the overwhelming growth in the school district has been in the south part of the county and they are plugging holes down in there, to maintain the capacity. He stated that they are beginning to see development in the mid and north part of the county. He stated that a north county school will be in the nearby future. He stated that they have very little control over funding so they are just staying a half of a step, ahead of the kids. He stated that on that note, the school district does annual demographic projections. He added that they hire an independent firm wherein within the last three years, they have hired Fishkind Associates. He stated that Fishkind proposed sixty-seven thousand units occurring in St. Lucie County and the new DRIs. He added that they have a good grasp on the demographics. He stated that they have received a demographic report from Fishkind, about three weeks ago. He stated that they were surprised to find that there was a bump in new students, elementary students in particular. He stated that they propose that by the incoming fall season that they believe that they will have over two thousand students station short fall in the elementary school. He stated that last Tuesday night, the Board approved the architectural contract to move forward with another K-8 at Cashmere, which is at the very northeast corner of St. Lucie 96 West. He concluded stating that they are staying a half of a step ahead of the students and that will be a fast track project, to have that school open by the fall of 2006. Chairman Grande thanked Mr. Sanders. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing and asked if there were any questions or comments of the Board. Mr. Knapp asked if this was in the Urban Service Boundary area. Mr. Murphy replied that the property is well within the Urban Service Boundary and it is in the FPUA service area. Chairman Grande asked if there was any speakers present to speak on the behalf of the Research Center. He asked Mr. Murphy is he was the speaker for the Research Center. Mr. Murphy stated that he could speak on the behalf them. Chairman Grande announced that they are unrepresented at the hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that he would have to argue with them about that. He stated that he is not on the board of governors for the Research Park but he has been a part of it for a while. He stated that the Park does not lend its self towards Residential. He added that they have tried to prevent that because of the stigma of research with Residential being close to it. He stated that the University of Florida closed its Bradenton Research Farm because of that. He stated that one of his concerns with the whole project, considering the fact that it is a nice project and that it is laid out well, is that it is in the wrong spot. He stated that Kings Highway is going to be, has been and will continue to be a Commercial corridor. He stated that it is from Okeechobee Road to Indrio Road, and it is all commercial except for the people who have lived there for years. He stated that he feels that this proposal is misplaced, which is to be facing Kings Highway, because of the Commercialism of it. He stated that if they could flip that thing back some how and get it to the other side of 95, then he would be all for it. However he does not feel that residential on Kings Highway is good growth for them. He stated that he does not feel that Kings Highway can handle that. He stated that there are buildings going in just north of the Park, which is a building supply company. He added that Ring Havers is putting in some other things, north of Orange Avenue. He concluded stating that it is clear to see that Kings Highway is a Commercial corridor. He stated that the Research Park has bought up a lot of land to prevent development around it because of this stigma of research and residential areas. He stated that there is a lot of energy going into the Research Park, and he does not feel that this fits that Park. He stated that they are correct in the fact that the Research Park will need to have residential areas near it, but not that close to it. He stated that he feels that it is a great development, and he likes it because they are combining, hopefully, single residential units and so forth. He also added that there are multiple ways in and out of it, but it is on 97 Kings Highway and he thinks that it needs to remain Commercial and not have that traffic on it. He concluded stating that if they can flip it some other way, then he would vote for it, but not like this. Chairman Grande stated that it sounds like he is in concurrence with the staff recommendation, and asked if he would like to put that in the form of a motion. nsidering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Jeffrey Freedman for a Change in Future Land Use designation from Commercial to Residential is because he feels that Kings Highway is primarily a Commercial corridor. He stated that he thinks that having Residential facing the Research Park is not consistent with the future plans of the Research Park even though this is a good development. He stated that he feels that it is misplaced by being on Kings Highway. Chairman Grande asked if there was a second. Ms. Morgan seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that there was a motion and a section and he asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board members. The Roll Call was made. Ms. Hammer replied that she will be voting yes to deny the application. She added that she really likes the layout and the plan. She stated that she also wish that it was in another location. However, the Research Park is there and she envisions houses next to it wherein. She added that the next thing that they are involved in is with the residents coming in complaining about the fertilizers, the odors and so forth. She stated that they are there first. She concluded stating that she would love to see this kind of layout in another location. Mr. Hearn replied no. Mr. Knapp replied no. Mr. Lounds replied yes. Ms. Morgan replied yes. Chairman Grande stated that he would have really liked to have gotten some of the inputs from some of the folks at the Research Park, only because of the questions of suitability. He added that short of that, he will be voting yes on the motion. He stated that if he 98 understands correctly, the application will be forwarded to the County Commissions with a recommendation from them, of denial. He stated that that concludes the agenda. Mr. Kelly introduced a new planner, who is Andrew Riddle. Chairman Grande stated that he would like to echo the comments that were made earlier in regards to the preparation of the packets and the presentation. Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. 99