Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-20-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex October 20, 2005 6:00 P.M. AGENDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Stephanie Morgan; Pamela Hammer; Craig Mundt; Ed Lounds; and, Ramon Trias. MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathryn Hensley, John Knapp, and Carson McCurdy. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Senior Planer; Ms. Diana Waite, Senior Planer; Ms. Wendy Clark, Senior Planner, and Ms. Talea Owens, Senior Staff Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES ANNOUNCEMENT Chairman Grande explained to the audience that the Planning and Zoning Board is an advisory Board that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Kelly announced that this Planning and Zoning Meeting is being televised. He stated that because of Hurricane Wilma, the County has canceled the hearing scheduled for the FPL Power Plant that was to be heard by the Board of County Commissioner on Tuesday. This will be rescheduled for November 7, 2005. He stated that he recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission move the meeting scheduled on December 15, 2005 to December 8, 2005, because of the holidays being so close during that time. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Chairman Grande asked if the Planning and Zoning Board if there were any objections to changing the meeting to December 8, 2005. There were no objections by the other Board Members. The December 15, 2005, Planning and Zoning Meeting has been rescheduled to December 8, 2005. Chairman Grande asked if there were any announcements. Ms. Hammer requested that Chairman Grande request that individuals in the audience please turn off their cell phones and take any conversations outside because it is very difficult to hear the speakers and the presenters when there are conversations in the audience. Mr. Lounds stated he has had conversations with the applicants from E.H. Building Group. Chairman Grande stated that he has spoken with the applicants and their agents from Florida Municipal Power. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Agenda Item #1: Lotux Investments, Inc.: Senior Planner Hank Flores stated that this is the application of Lotux Investments Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the Residential, Single-Family (4 dwelling units per acre) Zoning District to a Planned Unit Development Estancia Zoning District for property that is located on the th west side of South 25 Street, approximately ¼ mile north of Edwards Road. The proposed development contains 80 total units, 11 single-family units, with the rest in multiple family buildings. At the September 15, 2005, meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing of this petition. At this meeting the applicant said that the proposed wooden fence would be replaced with landscaping and that they would provide a hardened facility with a generator. The commission also had questions on the design of the project, and why the single-family homes, which are located on the western side of the project, th to be reversed and to have access from South 27 Street. The applicant has reviewed his project and decided against any further revisions to his site plan. Staff has determined that the proposed Zoning District designation and the preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan are compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. The petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in Conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to six limiting conditions. Chairman Grande asked if there was anybody that needed the six conditions read. Chairman Grande asked if there were any questions of staff by the Board. fence. Mr. Flores: They have not revised the plan yet, but they have agreed to change it. Mr. Hearn: How much landscaping will be required to replace that fence? Mr. Hearn wanted to know if that was a staff decision. Mr. Flores stated that it could be Mr. Lounds: On Page 23, the last paragraph, where I stated he agrees that the roads should be turned towards the street, is we implying that the houses should be turned towards the street? th That the ones on 25 Street face the street? Was that not understood in our intent. Mr. Trias: The site plan that we had in our packet is the same exact site plan as we had before? Mr. Flores: Correct. Mr. Trias: So the applicant has made no attempts to make any revisions to the design or any kind of follow up from our comments last time? Is that correct? Mr. Flores: Correct. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Ms. Hammer: Going back to the draft minutes, page 22, the second paragraph, Mr. Moore stated that they have an agreement that has been signed by the Fire Board with regards to the School System. I do understand that. Mr. Albert Moore (Attorney for the Applicant) Stated that there is an agreement that was signed by the Fire Chief that was approved before the Commission and the applicant with regard to monies that would be paid per unit for the impact that the project would have to the Fire Board above and beyond what the impact fees were. There was a similar agreement or formula that the School Board had been requiring. As of this date, I have been in contact with Mr. Sanders in regard to this project and others about having an agreement with the School Board, but Mr. Sanders is still trying to calculate exactly what the formula would be and he told me as soon as he figures that out that he would contact me. I think that were really there was supposed to be two agreements, one with the Fire Board and one with the School Board that were really not related, other than that they were similar types of agreements that they were to be monies paid for the impact above and beyond the impact fees because of the growth in the area. Chairman Grande: Bottom line is that those minutes would have to be corrected. Ms. Hammer: Right, make sure that they are corrected in the minutes so that there are two agreements. Mr. Albert Moore: I think that if you look at the project as a whole, the project is consistent with the surrounding areas across the street. There is Surrey Woods, which has multi-family homes. They did a real nice job with that project. Our project is going to be similar in nature. The Board th of County Commissioners also approved multi-family just down the street on the corner of 25 Street and Edwards Road. The multi-family concept, I think is consistent with the other projects that are existing in the area and that have been approved in the immediate area. Initially we did have only multi-family, we did not have single family homes. In talking with some Board Members there was a suggestion that there should be certain phasing because on the western th most site there are two or three single-family homes along 27 Street. So based upon that, we th switched the multi-family on 27 Street with single-family homes. He stated that he and his client are aware of the concerns that some of the residents may have that are in the existing area. We were tabled last time because Mr. Trias indicated that he wanted us to look into having the homes flipped around. We talked briefly on break at the last meeting about doing that financial constraints that we would be unwilling to do that. But the Board tabled it and wanted us to look at it. We have looked at it and I would respectfully disagree with the statement that Mr. Trias made a little earlier, when he asked staff if there were any attempts to change. There were no attempts insofar as we did not submit any type of changes since the last Board meeting, he is correct in regard to that. But, in regard to us looking at that and the impact that it would have on the project and the financial feasibility of the project as a whole, we looked into it and found that it was not feasible. Mr. David Lawrence (David Lawrence Architecture): The important thing that Albert mentioned is that when we started this process and we got our tree surveys, we looked very carefully at the overall characteristics of the site. We have preserved 96.6% of vegetation. th Mr. Trias wanted to know if the entrance on 27 Street is labeled as an emergency entrance. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Lawrence: No, that is not accurate. We are willing to concede that it will be both ingressand egress. It will be gated, but it will be both ingress and egress. Mr. Lawrence: We are willing to do the community center with the emergency generator impact glazing so that there is someplace to go in the event of a storm. We have also agreed, as far as the slotted fence, to change it from a wood fence to a concrete fence. Ms. Hammer: Going back to the concrete fence issue, I do not recall a concrete wall around the perimeter of the property. Chairman Grande: I think everything up to this point has been that the wooden fence had been code would require a certain amount of landscaping on the outside. Mr. Flores stated that the wall would be required to have landscaping on both the inside and the outside. Ms. Hammer: I just did not remember hearing anything about a concrete wall, maybe I missed that point, but I thought that wood fence was coming down and we were talking about landscaping period, but now we are talking about a concrete wall. Thank you. Mr. Trias: Could the applicant define the word feasible a little bit better. Mr. Moore: There are two issues in regard to flipping the units; the first is when we made the concession to make the western most entrance and exit, which will be a full blown exit and entrance. Mr. Trias: One of the main issues here is that you do want to have a gated community and you want have a perimeter that is completely enclosed, is that the main design idea? Mr. Moore: I think that was the idea at first. Mr. Trias: All the entrances are gated and the perimeter is going to have a wall? Mr. Moore: That is the idea. follow. Are you talking about a concrete fence or concrete wall? Mr. Moore: The Board members did not like the idea of the fence, but that there was a requirement of some kind of perimeter, and I believe that it was a concrete wall. Mr. Mundt: You are talking about something that is solid. You said you were going to work with staff with regards to trails, and I saw nothing in the site plan covering that. Has that been discussed? Mr. Moore: I do not believe that the particulars of that have been discussed; I think that the only thing that our applicant would be happy to put the trails in any fashion that the county would like. I think that what the problem is that the county is going have to decide where they want them 5 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 My applicant is willing to do whatever this Board or the County Commission wants in the way of trails. Mr. Mundt: It says that the applicant would be working with staff within the preserve areas, and I was just wondering if those conversations had happened. Mr. Moore: Generally, but not specifically. Mr. Trias: This is a gated community. I do not understand how the trails would work. What was your concept, private trails or what are you talking about. Mr. Moore: Well the concept was, in speaking with some of the Commissioners, was that the persons that lived inside the community would need recreation within the community. And the idea was thrown out, but since the preserve area was rather large in proportion to the rest of the site, that it would be a good way to provide recreation. Mr. Trias: Around the pool and that area? Mr. Moore: Yes. Mr. Trias: One of the criteria that I like to think about when there is a request for a rezoning is what is the public benefit that we get by rezoning the property? Can you explain that to me? Mr. Moore: I think that you are getting a project that is consistent with the rest of the area. You are getting a project that when you look at the pricing structure of what is going around, I would not call this affordable or attainable, but in regard to the rest of the projects that are going up it is certainly more affordable than most that would come in front of you. It is consistent with the rest of the area. The applicant has already agreed to pay fees above and beyond the impact fees for the both the School and the Fire Districts. So they are paying fees above and beyond that. So I think that all of that is a benefit to the community. Mr. Trias: Thank you. Mr. Lounds: Would like to reserve some questions for after public comments. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. th Mr. Glenn Careley: Owns four lots on 25 Street and Brantley Road. Came here in July 2003, and spoke then. My concern at that particular time was what is going to happen to Brantley Road. What kind of buffer zone are we going to have between the single-family and the multi- family? I reviewed the plans back in September at the County building and they had a chain- linked fence on the north side. Is that what you still have? Chairman Grande: Currently the plan is that all four sides would have a concrete wall and that concrete wall would have the standard level of vegetation that is required by the County. Mr. Glenn Careley: What is the height of the concrete wall? The chain-linked fence was six feet. How is this project going to affect the drainage in the area? Chairman Grande: The plan calls for a retention area on site. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Flores: In looking at the plan, they are showing an 8 foot high wood slot fence, I would assume that it would be an 8 foot high concrete wall. As far as drainage, which would be handled at the final Planned Unit Development hearing, a conceptual drainage and utilities plan would have to be submitted and they would need to meet with South Florida Water Management District guidelines. The project also requires St. Lucie County storm water permit. Mr. Glen Careley: Mentions that this particular project is surrounded by multi-family, but there is also a lot of single-family on the north and west side of it. Chairman Grande: The single-family homes in our packages, so we are aware of that. Mr. Lawrence: South Florida Water Management District requires that projects such as this have containment around the perimeter and that they are able to hold the water on site and that the height of the perimeter is to a 25 year flood plain. We would be willing to make it a six-foot high if there is an objection to the eight-foot high fence. Chairman Grande closes the Public Hearing. th Mr. Lounds: Would feel a lot more comfortable if that access on to 25 Street showed how they planned to do that for in and out services for multiple cars. I would like to ask the applicant if they also had a chance to talk to the neighbors. Mr. Lawrence: We have not had any recent discussions with them. When we started this project, we did a mailing and had a meet and greet on the project itself. Some of the neighbors did show up. Most of them were favorable. Mr. Trias: I am not going to support this. The reason is because the design that we have before us is a choice made by the developer. I understand it and I respect it. They want to do a gated community, I understand, but in my view, that is just not appropriate. Being the type of rezoning, we should expect a higher level of design and planning, especially with all of the ongoing discussions that we have had with the TVC and similar processes, it's about time that we request the higher quality of design and the effort to fit into the neighborhood and that has not been done by choice. I understand what they are trying to do and many people have tried to do it in the past, and will do it in the future. I disagree with it and I think we should do a different design that matches the neighborhood much better. Chairman Grande: Would you like to put that in a form of a Motion? Mr. Trias: I would recommend denial. After considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.0603 St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Lotux Investments, Inc, for a change in zoning from the RS-4 (Residential Single- Family (4du/acres) Zoning District to the Planned Unit Development Zoning District, because it does not comply with the current standards of design that this County deserves. Chairman Grande: We have a Motion, do we have a second? Mr. Lounds seconded the Motion. 7 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Chairman Grande announces that there is a motion and a second. He asked if there is any further discussion on the motion. Ms. Hammer: What really threw me off is having remembering raising the issue of the wooden fence, but I do not recall ever mentioning putting a concrete wall around the whole perimeter of the property. The other problem that I have with it is that it is not in the TVC zone, where we do have the increased density, but this is asking us to go from an allowed present 41 units and increasing it to 80 units both single-family and multi-family. And while I really appreciate the fact that the applicant has agreed to make the club house a hardened facility with a generator that would benefit all of the owners in this area, I just have a problem of doubling the number of housing units in that property without something in return that is a public good, so I will be voting yes to deny. Ms. Morgan: In reading the draft minutes, it does say that the applicant stated that he would buffer the property with landscaping, rather than the wooden fence. Then also, that the plan needed more development and design and after seeing this, it is the same thing that we saw before. Chairman Grande requested that roll be called: Mr. Mundt: Yes Ms. Morgan: Yes Ms. Hammer: Yes, to deny Mr. Hearn: No Mr. Lounds: Yes, to deny Mr. Trias: Yes Chairman Grande: Yes Chairman Grande: The application will be forwarded to the County Commission with a recommendation of denial. 8 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Agenda Item #2 EH Building Group: Whispering Oaks: Senior Planner Hank Flores stated that this is the application of EH Building Group for a Change in Zoning from the Residential Single-Family (3DU/Acre) Zoning District to the Planned Unit Development Whispering Oaks Zoning District for 67.18 acres of property which located on the east of North Jenkins Road, approximately 1/4 mile south Orange Avenue. The applicant is proposing a residential development of 378 units, which consists of 131 single- family lots, 143 town house units with a one-car garage and 104 town house units with no garage. The proposed planned development maintains 42.98 acres of project area and total common space. This is 63.9% of the project. The lakes contain 11.59 acres, there is 21.32 acres of landscaping and native upland habitat is consisting of 10.07 acres. The applicant is also dedicating an additional 20 feet of right-of-way along North Jenkins Road. The remainder of the project consists of those areas designated for the residential development, such as buildings, roadways, driveways and sidewalks. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning district designation and site plan are compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area. The petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in Conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to seven limiting conditions. Chairman Grande asks if there are any questions of staff. Hearing none, Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Trias: How many additional units are being requested as a result of the rezoning when compared with allowed units right now? Mr. Flores: 177 additional units. Chairman Grande asks if there are any additional questions of staff. Ms. Noreen Dreyer (Attorney for the Applicant): Here requesting PUD approval for approximately 67 acres of property that currently has a land use of Residential Medium (up to nine units per acre). The current zoning is RS-3 (3DU/Acre) and we are requesting a PUD with a density of 5.6 units per acre. We have reviewed the staff report and agree with the staff recommendation, including the conditions of approval. We believe that our PUD allows us to achieve a mix of unit types and some design features that enhance the property and the community and bring the property in with the development that is consistent with the surrounding approvals that have occurred recently and consist with the future land use designations surrounding the property. Mr. Trias: Is that green area on the lower left part of the project. Ms. Dreyer: Yes. Ms. Julia Shewchuk (Jordan Jones & Golden): Here to give a brief overview and presentation of the project. Overall consistency is RM, which allows for nine units per acre. To the north of us there is industrial, and commercial, and to the south is also all medium density residential land 9 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 use. The zoning that we are looking is RS-3 (3DU/Acre), to the north are also heavier type uses, to the south is Celebration Point PUD, which was approved not too long ago, and one another PUD that has not made it yet on the zoning map, which is Bend Creek PUD. Surrounding zoning is consistent with surrounding developments. Mr. Trias: Asks that Ms. Shewchuk trace the perimeter of the project on her presentation. Mr. Hearn: The illustration being shown is extremely misleading. I thought that all of the green area was part of the property. I would like to see the applicant to delineate exactly what is their property so that we are not confused. Ms. Shewchuk continued with her presentation. She stated that this site plan has many benefits to the residents as well as to the public. One of them is the environment, the clustering of the units in the PUD allows for a more efficient use of property, which is a larger and better- preserved area. There is also a conservation easement. The quality of life of the residents is increased because you have more open space for passive and active recreation and you have denser and enhanced landscaping throughout the subdivision in between the units and also through the adjacent areas. Recreation portion is benefit to the public as well as to the residents because we are providing several amenities on the site, which places fewer demands of county facilities. There is enhanced landscaping, the buffers are wider and more dense than typically required, and they are transitional buffers between the industrial or to residential developments. The project is providing access points on both Jenkins and Peterson Roads with turn lanes. Providing an additional 20 feet of right-of-way to North Jenkins Road for future improvements and linking in the sidewalk on Jenkins Road. Also providing connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists with an internal sideway and bicycle trail system. Mr. Trias: Wanted to know where in the industrial buffer was. Ms. Shewchuk: Not shown on this site plan. Mr. Trias: its 10 feet according to this site plan? Ms. Shewchuk: its 20 feet. Ms. Shewchuk continues with her presentation. Ms. Morgan: Staff report states that received a response from the School Board. Has staff received that? Mr. Flores: No. Ms. Dreyer: We have entered into agreements with both the School District and the Fire District to agree to pay an additional contribution for the acquisition of land. The agreements were entered into in January and March of this year. Agreements have been provided to Mr. David Kelly. Mr. Trias: Finds that there are some inconsistencies with the renderings shown as compared to the site plan. Ms. Hearn: Property just to the north zoned RS-3; that is not part of your project and is under separate ownership, is that correct? 10 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Ms. Shewchuk: Correct Chairman Grande asks is there are further questions of the applicant Ms. Morgan: Ingress and Egress on Peterson Road. Ms. Shewchuk: Both will be there at the time of construction. Mr. Lounds: How much open space? Ms. Shewchuk: 64%. Mr. Lounds: Multi-family on the north end of the project where it would back up to industrial rather than single-family. Ms. Shewchuk: Yes. The town houses are intended as a transitional use from the higher intensity uses of industrial and commercial towards the residential. Chairman Grande wants the density for Celebration Point. Mr. Flores: 5.12 dwelling units per acres. Mr. Lounds: Wanted to know if there were any conversations with the neighbors of the residential areas. Mr. Todd White (Developer): Met with residents to the south of project. They only asked for increased landscaping and buffering to the south. Plan on meeting with others as soon as possible. Mr. Lounds: Along Uvista you will have a 20-foot buffer at that point. Do you plan on putting a 20-foot buffer on the southwest corner? Mr. White: Residents did not request that when I met with them. Mr. Lounds: If you have spoken with the residents with regards to the buffers and they do not have a problem, then I do not have an objection to what you are doing. But if I were to hear otherwise, I would not be happy. Mr. White: States that he has spoken with them and will continue to work with them going forward. Mr. Hearn: Wanted to know if this was a gated community. Mr. White: Yes. Mr. Hearn: It is not indicated on here, do you plan on having a perimeter fence around it or anything? Mr. White: No perimeter fence. 11 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Hearn: How are going to keep people out? Mr. White: Its just controlled access. Mr. Trias: But you are doing a gate? Mr. White: Yes. Mr. Trias: Even though it is not consistent. Mr. White: I was referring to walls around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Trias: Two-car garage in the front of the single-family detached units, is that correct? Mr. White: (Inaudible) Mr. Trias: How wide is the lot? Mr. White: 47 feet wide, with 6 feet on with side) Mr. Mundt: Peterson Road egress and would like to ask staff if that is adequate. Mr. Flores: Believes 20 feet is adequate for two-way Ms. Hammer: Really 20 feet landscape buffer? Ms. Shewchuk: The 20 feet are supposed to go all around the town homes on the east side of the property across to where the RS-3 zoning is. Ten foot landscape buffer to the industrial, because there is the road in between and an additional 15 feet from the road to the units. And then there is 20 foot buffer along Jenkins Road. Ms. Hammer: Wants to know about the recreation area. Ms. Shewchuk: Multi-sport court to be used for several different types of ball games. Ms. Hammer: Wants to know if they will be hard surface or grass. Ms. Shewchuk: Grass. Ms. Hammer: Has a problem with the town homes along the left side of the recreation area. Thinks that the recreation area is too small for this number of houses and the number of people that would be there. Would like to see those 8 units eliminated and that whole triangle become the recreation facility. Has concern with the tot-lot being that close to the road because this looks like going to be one of the major entrances coming in. Mr. Trias: Would like dimensions of multi-sport court. Mr. White: The sport facility is a multi-purpose court. You can have multiple sports take place on the court. Ms. Shewchuk: Understanding is that it is the size of a regular ball field. 12 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Chairman Grande: Needs some explanation on the size of the multi-sport court. Wants to know if it is approximately the size of the pool. Mr. White: Yes Chairman Grande asks if there are any other questions of the applicant. Chairman Grande opens the Public Hearing. Mr. Darren Robertson, 139 Uvista Court, stated that they have heard no information with regards to this development. Interested in where the entrances and exits will be. Mr. Hearn: Asked if Mr. Robinson has seen the plan where the exits and entrances are. Mr. Robertson: no. Ms. Hammer: Wanted to know if Mr. Robinson received a letter notifying him of this meeting and the change in zoning request. Mr. Robertson: Just this meeting. We received it two or three days ago. Chairman Grande: Wants to know if the developer contacted Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robertson: No. Mr. David Tubeck: F on in that corner. Stated that there are three properties down there with the middle property being for sale. That property value has now been inhibited by what is going on around it. Know that the individuals, who own that property, could not get to the meeting, but are very concerned. Chairman Grande: Wants to know if those individuals have had any contact with the developer. Mr. Tubeck: They are aware of it, but do not think there were any discussions. Mr. White: Wanted to state the reasons why he did not meet with those landowners. Mr. Hearn: Would like to see the multi-sport court larger. If nothing else takes a little bit out of the upland preserve. Mr. White: That is what we would like to do. Ms. Hammer: Under the impression that he met with the residents of Uvista Court. Mr. White: Stated he only met with one. Mr. Lounds: amazing what you can do when you meet with these individuals. I am not real happy with development. I feel that you have brought forth a better plan than what those individuals to the south of this project have brought forth. 13 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Trias: Idea is great. Presentation has great concepts. Agrees with presentation. The actual design that being shown is very dense PUD. Mr. Robertson: Wanted to address the drainage. Ms. Shewchuk: We are aware of the drainage issue. Distance from these buildings To the property lines is a minimum of 50 feet. Actual landscape buffer is anywhere between 10 and 20 feet. Detailed landscapes plans have been submitted. Ms. Hammer: Wants to know about the three types of housing. The town homes with one car garage, are those the ones in the top right corner or the top left corner? Ms. Shewchuk: Top Left. Ms. Hammer: Town homes with no garage are in the top right. Ms. Shewchuk: Correct. Ms. Hammer: Are they one story? Ms. Shewchuk: They are two-story. Ms. Hammer: The town homes with no garage in the top right corner are two-story units. Wanted to know of Mr. Robertson lived in a one-story or a two-story home. Mr. Robertson: One-Story. Ms. Hammer: What about the rest of the homes on that street? Mr. Robertson: They are all one story. Except for one two-story. Ms. Hammer: Likes the idea of the phasing of the different types of mixed housing. Likes the two entrances. Very disturbed that there has not been a meeting with the owners to the north and would like to see the applicant withdraw or table this until he can meet with the neighbors to the north, would like to see a lot of these units removed from the plan and the units by the recreation area be removed. Mr. Robertson: States that there are no trees there. All of the trees are gone. States that they did leave some over on the west section. Ms. Dreyer: States that the applicant would like to move forward tonight. States those 5.4 units per acre is not very dense. Mr. Trias: Wants to know what the net density of the property is. Mike Schor (Civil Engineer and Surveyor for the Property): States that the concentrated density is forced on them by two conditions; one of them is the amount of preserve area and the other size of the lake. The reason for the size of the lake is because we are in a flood compensation zone and we have to create enough flood compensation to facilitate the elevation of the rest of the site. 14 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Trias: And there is a third reason, which is that you are requesting almost twice the amount of units that are allowed now. Mr. Schor: Correct. Ms. Dreyer: States that they are well within the range that would be permitted by the future land use and we believe that this request is justified because of the mix of housing types that we are offering. The developer is offering a product that will provide a range of housing units at multiple price ra community. We have open space far in excess of what would typically be required. Requesting that the Board move them forward tonight to the recommendation of approval. Will also continue to look at the recreation area. Chairman Grande closes the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds: What prevents it from going to the nine units per acres? Mr. Flores: States that there is not anything that would prevent them from submitting a plan that has nine units per acre. Mr. Hearn: States that he though that this plan locked them into this many dwelling units. Mr. Flores: As far as this plan, yes. Mr. Lounds: In the area of the development that buffers Uvista, where you have multiple family units looking at single-family homes on Uvista, you can put higher, thicker, density landscape at ooking at the back side of your property. Told the developer that an eight-foot high wall is not going to hide his building. Ms. Dreyer: States that the developer can commit to enhancing the landscaping along the area of Uvista. Mr. Lounds: Asked Mr. Roberts if this would help. the best that they can do with what they understand this community is asking for. Chairman Grande: States that he does not have a problem with the total density of this project, the problem is that the developer or designer of this project has utilized the available space in best fashion based on the products he is trying to put on the property. Agrees with Ms. Hammer and that I would like to see this not rejected and not sent on, but I would like to see the developers take this back and flip the units to where they ought to be on the property. Mr. Lounds: Wants to know if it would satisfy the Board if that area of Uvista had the single- family and in the South end of Peterson Road had the multiple-family, which gives you a buffer of that road and area. Mr. Trias: States that he is encouraged by the discussion about design. By going through the TVC process has taught us a lot. 15 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Hearn: States that his remarks from before were geared toward the density issue. Concurs completely that a redesign of this project would be in order. Chairman Grande: Wants to know what the alternatives are. How would the developer feel about tabling this temporarily and having the client take the input that has come from the people and from the Board and perhaps move some of the units around so that they fit better and come back. Ms. Dreyer: States that they have been in a processing for a very long time and would like to commit to looking at a redesign of the Uvista area. Mr. Hearn: Asks if Board could send this on with the recommendation of approval with the condition that these areas of concern be changed before it reached the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Morgan: Agrees with Mr. Hearn. States that we are an advising Board and we are advising them what to do and I am sure that Board of County Commissioners will be reading these minutes and listening to tapes. Mr. Trias: States that he would feel more comfortable tabling this. The best thing to do is have better design projects to begin with. I am not going to support this because of the poor design. Chairman Grande: States that no mater what the conditions are, I would also vote against it. Mr. Mundt: States that he thinks it is a very good effort. States that he likes a lot of things about it, but does not feel good about sending something forward without knowing what it is going to be. Is not prepared to support this to the Board. Mr. Mundt makes a Motion to deny. Chairman Grande: Wants to know if Mr. Mundt would like to make a Motion to table this and have they come back with a revised plan. Ms. Dreyer: States that they would like to be moved forward tonight with whatever recommendation you choose to forward to the County Commissioners. We understand your concerns. We would appreciate those concerns being identified in a motion. Mr. Grande: Wants to know if that is a commit that they would not go to the County Commission with multi-family units in the Uvista area or was that a commit that you would look at it? Ms. Dreyer: It is a commit that we would look at it. States that understand the concerns. Ms. Heather Young: States that from a procedural standpoint recommends that the appropriate Motion would be to continue to that date at 6:00 pm or thereafter. If they table it, they will basically be starting the process over. Chairman Grande: States that it would be continued until a January Meeting. Mr. Hearn seconds the Motion to continue this item. 16 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Chairman Grande announces that there is a motion and a second to continue this hearing to the scheduled meeting in January 19, 2006. Mr. Trias: States that he feels more comfortable with tabling this issue or denying it. Ms. Hammer: Feels more comfortable with a motion to deny rather than table, because it does not look like they are going to go back and do all of things that we have recommended. Chairman Grande: Asks if they would be happy if they send it forward with a motion to deny and the Commission chooses to accept it as it is. Ms. Hammer: States that she would be very unhappy. Mr. Hearn: States that he has seen this board make a unanimous recommendation of denial on a project and then the Board of County Commissioners turn 180 degrees and approve it unanimously without any changes to it. Believes that the developer will make a good effort to appease what concerns we have and I would rather see us move forward with a recommendation of neither approval or denial and then list our concerns to pass on to the Commissioners. Chairman Grande requested that roll be called on the Motion to continue this item until January 19, 2006: Mr. Hearn: No Ms. Hammer: Yes Mr. Lounds: No Mr. Trias: Yes Ms. Morgan: No Mr. Mundt: Yes Chairman Grande: Yes Chairman Grande states that the application will be continued until January 19, 2006 at 6:00 pm or soon thereafter. 17 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Agenda Item #3 Kings Highway: Planner Wendy Clark stated that this is a petition to rezone property from Agriculture to Industrial Light. The property is located on the east side of Kings Highway, just north of the I-95 overpass. The parcel is approximately 13.5 acres in size. The intended purpose is to develop the property with a small industrial park. The proposed zoning is consistent with the County Land Development Code as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the item be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. Chairman Grande asks if there are any questions of staff. Mr. Lounds: Wants to know what is the piece of property located just south of this parcel. Ms. Clark: There is no way to tell who owns the property. Mr. Lounds: States that he would like to know owns the property to the east of it and what it is. Mr. Flores: According to Mr. Brillhart, the property is owned by Buddy Johnson and looks like it has access along Kings Highway. Chairman Grande asks of there are any other questions of staff. Mr. Dennis Murphy (Senior Project Manager with Culpepper and Terpening): States they have of County Commissioners. As they noted the application is consistent with the current land use designation. It is consistent with the development activity taking place along the Kings Highway corridor. Our intention is to come in and develop as a small industrial park or a small industrial use or operation. The exact type of activity is still being formulated as to what it will wind up being. Chairman Grande: Wants to know if applicant has spoken to the individuals located to the southwest corner of the property. Mr. Murphy: No. Believes that the managing partner of the group has made some contact with some of the property owners of the area, but does not know for a fact if that goes for all of them. Mr. Lounds: States that concerned about putting an industrial park next to residential area that Mr. Murphy: Goes over the zoning of the surrounding areas. Chairman Grande asks if there are any questions of the applicant. Mr. Lounds: Asks if this is going to be a multiple industrial park or is it kind of designed with one company in mind. Mr. Murphy: We have not designed it with anything in mind yet. States that they could come in and sub divide up or it could be a single user. Mr. Trias: Asks what would be the typical buffer along the perimeter of this site. 18 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Murphy: We would have to conform the County minimum landscaping codes and the standard ones are the 15 foot wide and long street frontages, 10 foot along the perimeters. We would have to deal with the vertical elements of six to eight foot high screening fences between the residential/non-residential uses. Chairman Grande opens the Public Hearing. Mr. David Tubeck: Gives some background information on the surrounding properties. States that they met with Commissioner Hutchinson. Chairman Grande asks staff if there are any plans or charettes for this area. Ms. Clark: States that she has been told that there is a neighborhood Charrette planned, which most likely would include these properties; it is simply conceptual at this point. Chairman Grande wants to know if anyone has spoken to Culpepper and Terpening about this. Mr. Michael Brillhart: States that when the actual workshop was scheduled, the landowners and any applicant that representing a potential site plan review will be invited to that particular workshop. Mr. Trias: Challenge is changing the land that has no infrastructure into urbanized land and the solution seems to be a cul-de-sac in every parcel. I am very encouraged that it is no longer the case and that it is something that we no longer want to do. Mr. Kirby Shaw, 990 North Kings Highway: States that he has been there for 20 years. States that the value of his property has gone down. Would like to see rezoning postponed until after the charette or have a site plan presented before the rezoning. Mr. Lounds has some questions for Mr. Shaw with regards to the history of his property. Mr. Shaw answers questions with regards to his property. Ms. Hammer: Asks Mr. Flores to outline the exact property that Mr. Shaw owns. Chairman Grande closes the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds: States that he feels that the Kings Highway corridor is an industrial or commercial area. Mr. Hearn: States that he will not support a rezoning that is going to cause undue hardship to a neighbor that has lived and put his whole life into a piece of property. I would support something of life. Mr. Trias: States that a site plan is essential, because it is affecting the neighboring property owners. Mr. Tubeck: Offers further information on the surrounding properties. 19 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Lounds: States that his concern with residential development on Kings Highway is the traffic Ms. Hammer: Asks if it w property that has come in for the zoning change. Mr. Tubeck: Yes. Ms. Hammer: have you discussed that with the applicant? Mr. Tubeck: Yes. Mr. Hearn: Asks Mr. Shaw if he prefers to stay there doing what he doing now. Mr. Shaw: Yes. Mr. Murphy: Addresses the Board. Ms. Morgan asks what types of businesses are allowable under industrial light. Mr. Flores: Various manufacturing. Mr. Hearn: After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments and the standards of review as set forth Section 11.06.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny application of the Kings Highway Industrial Park II, LLC for a change in zoning from AG-1 to Industrial Light Zoning District because of the adjacent (inaudible) of the property that would be in my mind totally in conflict and could cause irreparable harm to the present property owner to the east and there are other avenues of changing the zoning that would provide with a site plan that would provide a degree of certainty for the property owner to the east. Ms. Morgan seconds that Motion. Chairman Grande announces that there is a motion and a second and asks if there are any questions. Chairman Grande requested that the roll be called: Ms. Hammer: Yes, to deny Mr. Lounds: Yes Mr. Mundt: Yes Mr. Trias: Yes Ms. Morgan Yes Mr. Hearn: Yes Chairman Grande: Yes Chairman Grande tells the applicant that his application will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. 20 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Ms. Dreyer addresses the Board with regards to EH Building Group: Whispering Oaks about procedural rules. Ms. Hammer: What if it was continued until December 8 rather January 19. Ms. Heather Young: Stated that she did look at the section. Traditionally we view a continued public hearing as ending on the date when the board concludes the hearing and takes action on the petition before you. You have not done that tonight. I think that you have two alternatives; accept what Ms. Dreyer is suggesting that they will decrease the density in that northwest corner or if you have a question about the 60 days and the end of the hearing, and then the December 8 date, as suggested by Ms. Hammer, would clearly fall within those 60 days. Chairman Grande states that he has no problem with December 8. Ms. Dreyer: States that she bel make sure that things get moving forward. Mr. Mundt makes motion to reconsider the Motion that continued to January 19. Mr. Hearn seconds that Motion. Chairman Grande announces that there is a motion and a second. Chairman Grande requested that roll be called: Mr. Trias Yes Ms. Morgan: Yes Mr. Lounds: Yes, to reconsider Ms. Hammer: Yes Mr. Hearn: Yes Mr. Mundt: Yes Chairman Grande: Yes Mr. Mundt makes a motion to continue until December 8, 2005, at 6:00 PM or soon thereafter. Mr. Trias seconds that motion Chairman Grande requested roll call: Mr. Hearn: No Ms. Hammer: Yes Mr. Lounds: No Ms. Morgan: No Mr. Trias: Yes Mr. Mundt: Yes Chairman Grande: Yes Ms. Dreyer: Would like the Board to reconsider tabling motion to December 8. You should do that because we will agree to reconfigure the density of the project in the northwest corner adjacent to the Uvista single-family homes to provide a compatible product on that area. 21 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Ms. Hammer: Raises an objection. States that we may have a procedural error, which we have corrected, but if we start a precedent where an applicant that has been continued or tuned down comes back in a few hours later when we have five other applicants sitting the audience, I really do not want to participate in that type of procedure. Mr. Mundt agrees with Ms. Hammer. evening. 22 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Agenda Item # 4 East Glades Holding: Planner Wendy Clark stated that this is a petition to rezone property from RS-2 single-family to AG-1. The property is located on the southwest corner of Graham Road and Copenhaver Road, The parcel is approximately 38 acres in size. The intended purpose is to allow for a wholesale plant nursery. The proposed zoning is consistent with the County Land Development Code as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the item be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. Chairman Grande asks if there are any questions of staff. Mr. Dennis Murphy (Senior Project Manager for Culpepper and Terpening): Petitioner owns the property at the corner of Graham and Copenhaver Road. They are seeking to rezone the property to AG-1 for the purpose of establishing a containerized and tree nursery and also to establish an office operation for their growing of the trees and their Treasure Coast business operations. Respectfully requests that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. Mr. Lounds: Can they sell plants retail out of this? Mr. Murphy: They could if they got a business license. It is not our intent to do that. Chairman Grande opens the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. Chairman Grande closes the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds: Would vote for anything to take from residential in that area and put it back into agriculture. Mr. Hearn: Wants to know if there is a way that the applicant can do what he wants to do without a full blown agriculture zoning there. Mr. Flores: Another alternative could be the AR-1, Agriculture/Residential District. Mr. Hearn: Wants to know what the zoning is to the south of the property and to the remaining properties. Mr. Flores: To the south and west is RS-2. Mr. Hearn: Stated that he not going to support this with agriculture zoning. Ms. Hammer: Wants to know the applicant did not ask for AR-1. Mr. Murphy: Because we do not have anyone living on the property. Mr. Hearn: Stated that he did not think that you had to. Chairman Grande: The AR-1 does require a house. 23 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Hearn: One other question, with all the agriculture property that we have in this County, rezoning residential property that is surrounded by residential property. Mr. Trias: I am ready to support this. I fail to see the downside of it. Mr. Lounds: After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments and the standards of review as set forth Section 11.06.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the applicant of East Glades Holdings for change in zoning from RS-2 to AG-1 because I think that it puts it back into agriculture and helps control density. Mr. Trias seconds that Motion. Chairman Grande announces that there is a motion and a second. Chairman Grande requested roll to be called: Mr. Mundt: Yes Ms. Hammer: Yes Mr. Hearn: No Ms. Morgan: Yes Mr. Trias: Yes Mr. Lounds: Yes Chairman Grande: Yes County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. 24 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Agenda Item #5 Robert Ritten: Planner Diana Waite stated that this is an application of Robert Ritten for change in zoning from Institutional Zoning District to a RS-4 single-family Zoning District. The property is located on the north side of Orange Avenue, approximately 700 feet east of the Florida Turnpike. The property future land use designation is Residential Urban, which potentially allows five dwelling units per acre. The surrounding uses are vacant land to the north, which have been approved as the Palm Breezes PUD; there are single-family residential homes to the east and the west; and residential vacant land to the south across Orange Avenue. The applicant states that the intended purpose of the requested zoning to provide a zoning district that allows more desirable allow the future owner to propose a specific development plan. Staff has reviewed the petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objections and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the item be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. Mr. Trias: No site plan proposed? Ms. Waite: That is correct, this is a straight rezoning. Chairman Grande: Are sewer and water currently available at this site? Ms. Waite: Not at this site. It is being extended to the Palm Breezes PUD which is located to just to the east of this property. Mr. Lounds: How did those lines get extended to Palm Breezes? Mr. Hearn: Do we have anything in our packet showing the future land use and the surrounding zonings. Ms. Waite: Yes Mr. Mundt has a question about right-of-way. Ms. Waite: This particular parcel is on a FDOT access road. Mr. Danny Retherfelt: Here on behalf of the applicant. As stated before, Mr. Ritten bought this property with the intention of building a single family home and living there. Obviously things east, but actually surrounds the entire property. There will be utilities, water, and sewer throughout that PUD. This is the reason he would like to sell the property. It is zoned Institutional. He did not think that he would have such a hard time rezoning it to buil Now he is having a hard time selling it, for the simple fact that only churches can buy it, unless he rezones it. No one wants to talk to him about it because he does not have the proper zoning in order to build houses on it. 25 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 We are asking to rezone the property to something that is compatible with single-family, so he can sell it and people can be homes there. Chairman Grande opens the Public Hearing. There was no public comment. Chairman Grande closes the Public Hearing. Chairman Grande: If they were to actually build at four to the acre, by our code does that require water service and sewer service. Ms. Waite: At that density, yes it would. Mr. Lounds: After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments and the standards of review as set forth Section 11.06.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the applicant of Robert Ritten for change in zoning from Institution Zoning to RS-4 because I think that it helps close in a glitch in our zoning that was made several years ago for a particular individual and that is deteriorated and I think that it helps close in the gap. Mr. Hearn seconds that motion. Chairman Grande announces that there is a motion and a second and asks if there are any questions or comments. Chairman Grande requested that the roll be called: Mr. Trias: Yes Ms. Morgan: Yes Mr. Mundt: Yes Ms. Hammer: Yes Mr. Hearn: Yes Mr. Lounds: Yes Chairman Grande: Yes County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. 26 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Agenda Item #6 John DiSalvatore: Michael Brillhart states that this is a re-submittal of an application for a change to the future land use map for property located off of Metzger Road, which is just west of Angle Road, along the C29 Canal. The parcel has increased in size up to 75 acres, from 56.9 acres. Staff has reviewed the petition. The conditions have not changed enough to amend our previous recommendation to deny the application. Chairman Grande asks if there are any questions of staff. Mr. Hearn: Under the impression that an application like this had to have a certain time frame before it came before us. Mr. Brillhart: If an applicant has been denied for a rezoning case, they have a 10-year time frame. Went back and looked regarding our comprehensive land use amendment and could not find any stipulation that requires a waiting time frame. Mr. Hearn: Wanted to know if staff was surprised at that. Mr. Brillhart: In such a short time frame, yes. Mr. Hearn: Are we going to address that concern? Mr. Brillhart: County staff is involved right now in doing a review of Chapter 11, which is the administration side, which looks at these types of issues. Mr. Trias: How many units could be built here if this were approved? Mr. Brillhart: Approximately 1125. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of staff. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Ferguson gave a brief presentation of the ng. Mr. Ferguson: Stated that Mr. DiSalvatore spoke with existing surrounding neighbors. Mr. Ferguson displayed a map of the subject property. Mr. Trias: Is the yellow 1000 units. Mr. Ferguson: Yes, the number was chosen to avoid the DRI standard. Mr. Trias: The red would be commercial and the purple would be what? Mr. Ferguson: Those would be recreation nodes. Mr. Trias: What kind of building types? 27 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Ferguson: Will not be single-family, they will be multi-family. A combination of town homes and condominium units. The goal is to get a high density in order to maintain a reasonable price. Will not be rental units. Mr. Hearn: Is there any mechanism that would be available for this project that would prevent the salvage and other high intense uses from being subjected to complaints from neighbors at a later date. Mr. Ferguson: There is no way to guarantee that there would not be complaints. Mr. Hearn: I would like to protect the existing uses of the property surrounding there. Mr. Ferguson: Have addressed any School Board concerns. Traffic analysis was completed. Mr. Trias: What is the threshold for the DRI Review? Mr. Ferguson: Generally speaking, its 1000 units in St. Lucie County, which is why we are proposing to be fewer than 1000 units. Mr. Trias: What is the purpose of the DRI Review? Mr. Ferguson: DRI Review is to review the impacts of a large development on the region. Mr. Jan Steward: Gave brief description of the conversations that he has been having with Beth Ryder. Mr. Trias: What is the proposal? Mr. Steward: 10/10 Program. 10% of the homes are setting aside and dedicating to the County. Those 99 homes will be subject to the second 10% part. The second 10% part allows the home owners to either get the house at 10% less than the market price of the house that is being offered or get $20,000.00 as a closing costs credit or as a down payment. The third one is that St. Lucie County Housing Trust. Chairman Grande opens the Public Hearing. Mr. Chris Lang, 1303 Angle Road: Could support the project if it looks like the map. n attached to it, would you still be okay with it? Mr. Lang: No. Again if resembled the map with the commercial zone and they have a buffer zone incorporated to the backside of our property. Mr. Ralph Jensen, 907 Angle Road: Discussion of the staff recommendations in the report. No Applauds the ideas, but not compatible. Ms. Sandra Vaughn, 4318 Avenue J: Hopes that this board sticks with the first recommendation and deny this project. 28 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Ferguson: Clarifying a few items for the Board and the public. use? Mr. Ferguson: Because there is a cost involved. Mr. Lounds: Have the same concerns that he has had before. Problem is that is in the middle of an area that right now is an industrialized area and needs some help. Mr. Ferguson: Disagrees with Mr. Lounds opinion. Mr. Mundt: Wants staff to comment on page 9 under policy 5111. Mr. Brillhart: Based on a drastic change to the existing future land use. Chairman Grande closes the Public Hearing. Mr. Trias: Stated that this is a very bold request. A very dense project with no plan. Mr. Lounds: I would like to see this work. Asks the applicant to come back with some kind of community support or plan. Mr. Ferguson: The economics do not allow for that level of effort and planning until we know that there is a potential light at the end of the tunnel. Until we can get past the transmittal stage, I think that it would be unfair to ask the applicant to do so. Mr. Lounds: How do you take what you presented to and go to Tallahassee and ask fro transmittal. Mr. Ferguson: Stated that in his opinion, we do need consistency standards in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Lounds: Is your time limits so restraining on you that you cannot come back and make a better presentation with us? Chairman Grande: Staff has cooperated and has re-reviewed this has recommended that this Board not transmit and also suggested that coming before this Board and discussing the financial hardship of doing a plan prior to transmittal for something that I roughly calculate as $150 to $200 million dollar project is just an incredible statement. Mr. Ferguson: It was a business decision that dictated that they not spend the resources at this time based on a risk analysis. Chairman Grande: Suggests that they greatly lower their risks if you increase the level of detail in your analysis. Mr. Trias: I find that answer completely unacceptable, and I think that I understand why somebody would want to go through a process and not spend any money. 29 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Lounds: Moves that the Board vote to pass this on to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that they transmit to Tallahassee. The reason being is that it is a needed project; it is needed for low income rental housing in St. Lucie County. Chairman Grande states that the Motion fails for lack of a second. Mr. Lounds: Moves that the Board pass to the Board of County Commissioners a Motion to deny based on the fact that presentation tonight did not give us enough information to satisfy all of the needs for the recommendations and that until the applicant can do such, we do not transmit to the recommendation to deny. Mr. Trias seconds that Motion. Chairman Grande announces that there is a Motion and a second. Mr. Hearn: Shares the concern for the need of affordable housing in our community. Chairman Grande requested that roll be called: Mr. Mundt: Yes Ms. Hammer: Yes, to deny Mr. Hearn: Yes, to deny Ms. Morgan Yes Mr. Trias: Yes Mr. Lounds: Yes Chairman Grande: Yes Chairman Grande: The application will be forwarded to the County Commission with a recommendation of denial. 30 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Agenda Item # 7 FMPA: David Kelly, Planning Manager, stated that this is the application of the Florida Municipal Power Agency for a conditional use permit and a major site plan approval to allow the construction of a 1200 mega watt natural gas fired electric generation plant. The plant will consist of four 300 mega watt units on approximately 68 acres in the Utilities Zoning District. The parcel is located on the south side Glades Cut-Off Road, southeast of the existing intersection of Jenkins Road. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Grande asks if there are any questions of staff. Mr. Hearn: Wants to know what happened to the other plants that were approved. Mr. Kelly: Stated that this will be located on one of those sites that had been previously approved. Mr. Dennis Murphy (Senior Project Manager Culpepper and Terpening): Florida Municipal Power Agency, they will be the entity that owns the power plant. FPUA will be the operating entity for the new electrical generation facility. Mr. Jim Hay: Gives this Board a brief presentation on the plant. Chairman Grande asks if there are any questions or comments from the Board. Mr. Hearn: Did I understand you correctly when you said this plant would take two months to build. Mr. Hay: No Mr. Kelly: Just for clarification it was 300 people during the actual construction for two months. Mr. Hay Yes. Mr. Hearn: Impact on the wetlands. Mr. Hay: There are some low-grade wetlands on the site. The agencies that regulate the wetlands come and take a look at them and we determined that we need so many credits for those wetlands and we bought those credits from the Bluefield Mitigation Bank. The wetlands will be destroyed when we put the power plant up. Mr. Hearn: Asks how the gas will arrive to the plant. Mr. Hay: The main gas main runs along the turnpike. We will build a lateral that is about 3600 feet and it will be an underground lateral to our site. Mr. Trias: When is the King Power Plant going to be removed? Mr. Hay: FPUA has made a significant commitment to retire the King Plant. Plant cannot be retired until the Treasure Coast Plant built. 31 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Chairman Grande: You would not be advised to having it as a condition of this conditional approval that the King Plant would be decommissioned at the time that this plant is put into commission. Ms. Hammer: Determined that natural gas was the best way and proposed plant was the best way to provide power. Is that is a written report from the public service commission? Mr. Hay: Yes. Ms. Hammer: Stated that she would like a copy of that. At the peak time of constructions there would be 300 people. Wants to know if local people will be used for construction of plant. Mr. Hay: We will be using local people. Mr. Hammer: Can you identify that name of the firm that you will be subcontracting to? Mr. Hay: No, we are out to bids. Ms. Hammer: Just for the record, does a gas plant have any mercury emissions? Mr. Hay: I need to have my environmental consultant address that. Tim Hillman (Air Quality Scientist): Yes. There are minimal amounts of mercury emissions. Ms. Hammer: Can you define minimal amounts of mercury? Mr. Hillman: Estimates one, one thousandths of a ton per year. Mr. Hearn: Compare your mercury emissions to a coal plant. Mr. Hillman: Natural gas has the lowest of the fossil fuels. Mr. Hearn: Why was coal not considered? Mr. Hay: Takes longer to build a power plant using coal, and the site was selected specifically for gas. Mr. Lounds: With the increase cost of natural gas going up. Is there a consideration to use more diesel or liquid gas? Mr. Hay: We are not considering another source for power plants; we are using natural gas. Mr. Lounds: What are your tower heights? Mr. Hay: 170 Feet Mr. Lounds: Capacity of reused water from FPUA. Mr. Hay: We need about 3 million gallons a day. 32 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Chairman Grande: Do you have an alternative for water? Ms. Hammer: Did you look at any other sites to build your gas plant besides this one on Glades Cut-Off Road? Mr. Hay: No in St. Lucie County. water until we get reclaimed water. Mr. Lounds: Why in Fort Pierce? Mr. Hay: One of the reasons is that we can use the reclaimed water. Mr. Lounds: States that it would be nice to know that you are going to do something for the of Fort Pierce. Mr. Hay: Yes sir. Chairman Grande: Are you also exempt on taxes fixed assets or capital assets? Mr. Hay: Yes. Ms. Hammer: Is there any provision since the Fort Pierce MUA where the customers of that organization will have a reduced rate plant? Mr. Hay: The FMPA passes on economies of scale. Lower finance costs to our members. Mr. Mundt: Prior approval on this site was Duke Energy and that was for 640 mega watt plant. You are going to double the capacity of that. What containments are contained in the reject cooling water? Mr. Hay: No. Mr. Bill Theiss: Currently in the preliminary engineering phase in designing the plant. Mr. Hearn: Is there any odor coming from the operating process? Mr. Theiss: Unable to answer. Mr. Mundt: Has questions about noise. Mr. Stan (inaudible): Answers questions about noise. Have to stay below the 50. Mr. Mundt: Wants to make sure that the noise level is met. Mr. Mundt: States that noise is a problem in St. Lucie County. 33 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Mundt: Has a question about the environmental control plan, is this a plan that is going to be planned before the construction begins. Mr. Stan (inaudible): Yes. It will be in place and approved be construction starts. Mr. Mundt: Has a question about the drift of the cooling tower mist. Mr. Stan (Inaudible): Using tower that has one of the lowest drift rates. Mr. Hillman: The DEP that regulates the air emissions, they also regulate the drift eliminators that you put on cooling towers. So they will make it a condition of their air permit that we have .0005 % drift eliminator on the cooling tower. Mr. Mundt: Are there any plants that are approximately the same size. Mr. Hillman: No. We have a plant that is very similar to this plant; it is a 300 mega watt in Kissimmee. Mr. Mundt: How many acres is your 300-mega watt plant on? Mr. Hillman: No sure. Mr. Mundt: States that it looks like a lot of plant on 68 acres. Mr. Mike Soltace: 100 acres. Mr. Hearn: Why should we allow you to do this in our community? Mr. Hillman: One of the benefits is that you will have a reliable power supply in St. Lucie County that is inland. Another benefit is that it is a low emission power plant. The power plant does not impact traffic after construction is complete. You have plants that burn clean natural gas. You will have good jobs for operators here in St. Lucie County. I think this is the future power generation for Fort Pierce Utilities. Mr. Hearn: States that he may look more favorably upon this project if I thought the other communities that were tied into you network did their fair share also. I think that we are being asked to do more than our share to provide power to future users that will be in other areas of the state. Mr. T power plant. Mr. Hillman: I think that one of the benefits is the retirement of King Plant, but I cannot address the relocation of the any sewer plants. Mr. Theiss: Asked our engineer with the plant to look at a 5 year, 10 year and a 15 year decommissioning time frame. FPUA will make that decision based on the timing that decommissioning to where it will not adversely affect our customers. Chairman Grande: What would be the impact of your consideration there if this conditional use permit had a condition that conditioned the decommissioning of the sewer plant? 34 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Theiss: The decommissioning of the sewer plant has to be economic decision that we make with our customers in mid. Chairman Grande: So you would be willing to give up this plant to keep the sewer plant? Mr. Theiss: We have to build this plant at Glades Road. Mr. Lounds: Plant is going to use reclaimed to cool its unit with. Mr. Theiss: That is correct. Mr. Lounds: And they are going to get that reclaimed water from Fort Pierce Utilities Authority that is going to build sewer plant next door to this. Mr. Theiss; that is correct. ting it in the back yard of everybody? Mr. Theiss: We have a 25-acre site that is zoned for it and that is where we intend to go. Mr. Lounds: Stated that he does not care, that it is too close to the County. Ms. Hammer: Would like to know the location of the sewer plant. Mr. Mundt: How many acres is that. Mr. Theiss: 25 Acres. Chairman Grande opens the Public Hearing. Mr. Chris Panayiotou, 4870 Selvitz Road: Really disturbed about what he has heard this evening. Does not see how this will improve our County. Thinks that a plant like this belongs far away from residential areas. Mr. Tom Richards, Director of Electric and Gas Systems for Fort Pierce Utilities: With regard to the King Plant, Fort Pierce and the City of Fort Pierce have been generating power at that site since 1911. Mr. Trias: One of the benefits of having a municipal power plant is the fact that it can behave in ways that are beneficial to the public. I understand how they intend to run this business, and that there are some very important public issues and those are the ones that we are talking about. Mr. Mundt: Clarifying that three million gallons of water are necessary per day for unit one. Mr. Hay: Yes. 35 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency October 20, 2005 Mr. Hay: Stated that their Board of Directors is deceased and that they do what the cities want them to do. And we build the power plants where the cities ask to build the power plants. We believe that City control is very important. That they have a say in where we go and what we do. Chairman Grande closes the Public Hearing. Ms. Morgan: This is the first time that I am hearing about this. How many residents attend the open house held on June 2 and how were they notified? Mr. Hay: 12 to 15 people attended the open house. The media was present. Press Releases and Public Notices about the power plant in accordance with the St. Lucie County rules. Ms. Morgan: Did you meet with any representatives from the Chamber of Commerce orthe Treasure Coast Builders Association? Mr. Hay: No. Ms. Morgan: Stated that she has a big problem with this. Feels that it has been hush-hush. Mr. Lounds: After considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Florida Municipal Power Agency for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of 1200 mega watt electric generation plant in the Utilities Zoning District. Ms. Morgan seconds that Motion. Chairman Grande announces that there is a motion and a second. Mr. Hearn: What is the benefit to us as a community to allow this type of what I consider pollution to our community of many types of pollution? If we were getting a financial benefits or other benefits that are far more than what has been offered tonight, I might be inclined to Chairman Grande requested that the roll be called: Mr. Mundt: Yes Ms. Hammer: Yes Mr. Hearn: Yes, to deny Mr. Trias: Yes Ms. Morgan: Yes Mr. Lounds: Yes Chairman Grande: No Chairman Grande: The application will be forwarded to the County Commission with a recommendation of denial. 36