Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-17-2005 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Public Hearing rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex November 17, 2005 6:00 P.M. AGENDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Pamela Hammer, John Knapp, Ed Lounds, Ramon Trias, Carson McCurdy and Craig Mundt MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathryn Hensley with notice, Stephanie Morgan with notice. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Hank Flores, Senior Planer; Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner, Ms. Diana Waite, Senior Planer, 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 6:03 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES ANNOUNCEMENT Chairman Grande gave a brief presentation of the procedures as of what to expect from the hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency 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 stated The Chairman will call each item. Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission has specific questions. The Planning and Zoning Commission will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next Month. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing, you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. The roll call was made and Chairman Grande asked if there were any other announcements to be made. 2 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Hearn commended the planning staff for getting the packets out to himself along with the other Planning and Zoning Commissioners in a rapid manner, which allowed them more time to review the packet content. Mr. Mundt stated he has met with the Ginn Company and their representatives Chairman Grande announced that he has also spoken with representatives of the Ginn Company. 3 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Agenda Item # 1: Meeting Minutes-October 20, 2005: The Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency decided that the minutes need to be corrected for the record. Ms. Hammer stated they will give the minutes to the secretary, who will then make the corrections for the record and then the minutes will come back for approval by the Local Planning Agency. Some of the Planning and Zoning Commission members stated the minutes need to be corrected and approved by the Local Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency before going to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Grande stated he would support a motion made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, requesting for the Board of County Commissioners to change their process, wherein they will not hear an application that they do not have the minutes for, from the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency public hearings. Mr. Trias motioned a request for the Board of County Commissioners to change their process, wherein they will not hear an application that they do not have the minutes for, from the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency public hearings. Mr. Mundt seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that there is a motion and a second. The motion is a request from the Local Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency that the Board of County Commissioners change their up-warding procedures, so that they do not hear and application, until they have approved minutes from the Local Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency. Chairman Grande asked if there were any discussion. All were in favor but Mr. McCurdy. Mr. McCurdy opposed. Mr. Knapp asked if what the vote was for the minutes. Chairman Grande announced that they did not vote on the minutes, but that the minutes will come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency for approval, after they have been corrected. 4 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Agenda Item # 2: Ginn-La St. Lucie, LTD, LLLP-PUD-03-022: Planner Linda Pendarvis stated this is the application of Ginn-La St. Lucie District) Zoning District, to the PUD (Planned Unit Development-Watersong South) Zoning District. This rezoning will allow for eighteen single-family on a 19.91 acre parcel of land located approximately three miles north of FPL nuclear power plant on S Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and 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 County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Grande asked if there were any questions of staff. There were no questions of staff by the Planning and Zoning Commission members. Mr. Rick Reikenis, representing the Ginn Company, stated north of the proposed project is the Watersong project, which is a residential project. He added that the Watersong project is currently under construction. He stated the project that he is representing, also known as the subject project is called Watersong-South. Their project is called Watersong-South because their access into Watersong-South comes through Watersong. He stated there are two different ownership entities on the Watersong project and the Watersong-South project. There is a different group of doctors out of Michigan who own the Watersong project. The Ginn Company is under a contract to develop and market the Watersong project for the owners. He added that it is currently under construction. Mr. Reikenis stated the Ginn Company actually owns the Watersong-South piece. They have an agreement with the Watersong piece to share access. He stated their access will come through Watersong and everyone who owns property in Watersong-South, will be members of the swimming club in Watersong. The next overhead shows the breakdown of the property. The property is approximately twenty acres, (19.9 to be exact). West of A1A is old Mangroves 5 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency and that 12 ½ acres will be dedicated to St. Lucie County for perpetual conservation purposes. Immediately east of A1A, it is approximately 2.2 acres. The wetlands and mangroves will be a conservationist easement. There are approximately 2.9 acres of actual lots and roads. The lots are single loaded between the road and the dune. Finally there are 1.18 acres of dune restoration. Mr. Reikenis stated with this project, there are absolutely no wetland impacts. This is one of the other reasons why they have their access through Watersong. He stated there will be an architectural review board for the project. He stated they have their DEP beaches and shores and coastal permits, dune restoration recommendation. Chairman Grande asked if there were questions for the applicant. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Reikenis to explain what a black-silt fence is. Mr. Reikenis stated a black-silt fence is part of the pollution prevention plans that are submitted to EPA through the NPDES Program. He stated it is part of the Department of Environmental Protection permitting process. Mr. Lounds asked if the black-silt there for construction purposes. Mr. Reikenis stated that is correct. Mr. Mundt asked if lot # 16 is a buildable lot. Mr. Reikenis stated yes it is. Mr. Mundt asked why the regulation states that DOT require an orange barrier fence. Mr. Reikenis stated FDEP require that during construction, the developer have an orange barrier fence on the construction site. He stated this is a standard of DOT, (wherein this is a requirement of DOT by FDEP). Mr. Mundt asked if the four foot paved sidewalk by the owner was an optional item on the plan. Mr. Reikenis stated no. He stated the owners will be required to install the four foot paved sidewalk. Mr. Mundt asked if there will be a left turning lane on A1A. 6 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Reikenis stated no, not for this project. Whatever turn-lanes that are going into Watersong, already exist. He added there is a right turn-lane going into there. The road improvements on A1A that were required are installed as part of the Watersong project, which are already in place. Chairman Grande stated Watersong to the north does have both left and right hand turning lanes and there is no access from A1A to this particular site. Mr. Lounds asked who maintains the pedestrian walkway and easements etc., once this is developed. Mr. Reikenis stated the Property Owners Association. Mr. Lounds asked if the Association itself will maintain that. Mr. Reikenis stated yes. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Reikenis what is their expected build out on this project. Is it shortly after they open it up and are finished with the construction? Mr. Reikenis stated yes. He stated the lots that the property owners have must be under construction within three years of having bought the lots. All of the lots were already pre-sold. There are reservations on these lots. Mr. Lounds asked if at the maximum, will it take three years or less before the project is completely built. Mr. Reikenis stated yes, the people must be under construction within three years. Therefore it may take four years. walkways and accesses across the dune and such have you. Mr. Reikenis replied yes. Mr. Lounds asked if the Home O thing that is done to the dunes etc. Mr. Reikenis Permits. Mr. Trias asked if the custom design homes by different architects is the idea for the project wherein they will follow the guidelines or is there a developer. 7 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Reikenis stated they have an Architecture Review Committee/ Architectural Review Board for the project. The Ginn Company has six builders in St. Lucie County who have passed their criteria that they have for required builders. He added that these six builders also have their own architects. He stated they have ill provide the land owners with the option of Mr. Hearn asked what is the significance of the two plans, The old Coastal Control Line and the new construction Control line, and how do they fit into the proposed project. Mr. Reikenis stated the significance is that the old coastal construction control line was established around 1928 and has been around for a long time. The USGS moved the Coastal Construction Control Line landward, and what you will see now is the new Coastal Construction Control line. The way it works is this; anything that you want to do, landward of the new line, If you want to do construction between the new line and the old line, you have to submit your plans, permits, and analysis, etc up to Tallahassee to DEP Beaches and Shores and request permission from them. Under no circumstances can you do any thing Sea-ward of the old line. In summary, in regards to anything Sea-ward of the old line, you can not do anything; in regards to anything landward of the new line, does not require permission; and anything that you do in between the two lines, will require their permission. Mr. Hearn asked what criterion is required to get their permission. Mr. Reikenis stated they require you to show the elevation s of your buildings. The minimum habitable floor elevation has to be above a certain elevation, which is typically a wave or serge elevation, depending on what the conditions are. Your hard-scape construction has to be a frangible nature, which is why they do a lot of stuff in paver-bricks and things like that. There are turtle lighting conditions that apply as part of the permit. The boardwalks, dune crossovers have to meet state criteria. Mr. Hearn asked if the property owners have to sign a waiver or agreement with the state for allowing construction within the two zones. Mr. Reikenis stated no. They will have to get permits for their individual houses. He stated they are currently getting a prototypical, maximum, built-out house permitted for al of the lots through DEP. There will be a blanket permit will save the lot owners about eight or nine months in the permitting process in 8 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Tallahassee. If they want to build that size house, the permit pretty much already exists for that lot. If they want to build something smaller, they can go ahead and also apply for those permits. He added that for anything that they want to do in there, they will have to get individual permits for their houses. Mr. McCurdy asked the proposed project is in a flood zone. Mr. Reikenis stated it is in a surge/surge zone. He stated the minimum finished floors are set at elevation seventeen mean sea level. Mr. McCurdy stated where the fill will come from. Mr. Reikenis stated the parking will go underneath that and will be like a grave. The houses will be up above. The first finished floor will be on stilts. Mr. McCurdy asked if Mr. Reikenis knew why the Coastal Construction set back line was moved. Mr. Reikenis stated yes. He stated because of the excess amounts of storms coming in, buildings that were built too close to the ocean had troubles standing on their own feet. Mr. McCurdy stated he believes that this is caused by erosion, which may also take place in this project as well. Mr. Reikenis stated that is correct and that is also why part of those permits for the houses will include all of the piling foundations, and calculations etc. Mr. Lounds stated in front of lot # 14 there appears to be a stepped-out driveway. He asked if this is for future access to go across the dunes or is it a turn around area. Mr. Reikenis stated - anyone who comes down that dead-end street and needs to turn around and get back out of the development. Mr. Lounds asked if it is wide enough to do a turn around or does it need to be expanded. Mr. Reikenis stated it is fine and the Fire Marshall has approved it. Mr. Knapp asked how far are the front of the lots from the ocean or from the high tide as they are set up. Mr. Reikenis stated the front of the lots is facing the streets and the dune will be reconstructed. The mean high-water line is about 120 feet. 9 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Knapp asked when the dune is reconstructed, will it be higher than the bottom level of the housing or will it be the same level of the garage or the house. Mr. Reikenis stated no. The minimum finished floor for these houses will have to be about elevation seventeen and the top of dune when reconstructed will be somewhere between elevation thirteen and fifteen, depending on the cross section which will be approved by DEP. The top of the reconstructed dune will be slightly lower than the first habitable floor of the houses, but it will be higher than the garage. Mr. Knapp stated he has a problem with people living too close to the ocean because they are being washed out every time there is a storm and that he is surprised that people will even buy things like that. Mr. Knapp stated it appear to be poor planning to allow someone to be as close as one hundred feet to the ocean with a house. Mr. Mundt asked if the houses will be on stilts. He asked if there will be breakaway wall on the ground level. Mr. Reikenis stated if there are any walls on the ground level, they have to be break away. Mr. Mundt asked if the houses will primarily break away walls or will the houses be on stilts? Mr. Reikenis stated it will depend on the builder and the architect. He stated when they get their permit from DEP Beaches and Shores for the house; they are provided those two choices. He stated they are selling the lots and have not designed the houses yet. However, when they do design the houses, they will have to do one of two things; the houses would either be on the stilts on the concrete piles or if there is a wall in there, it has to be frangible and it has to be brick-away. Mr. Mundt what are the price range on the lots? Mr. Reikenis stated the last re-sales in Watersong on the waterfront for the lots that are the same size as the proposed project, were 1.2 million dollars. He stated these lots were reserved sometime ago at a much lower price and the Ginn Company will be honoring those reservations. Mr. Mundt asked if the County has ever approved any project similar to the proposed project. 10 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Chairman Grande stated the County has approved the project to the north of the proposed project, which is Watersong project. The Watersong project has the same basic design as the proposed project. Chairman Grande asked if the dune that is to be constructed in front of this property will be a continuation of the dune that is already constructed and in place on the property to the north. Mr. Reikenis stated that is correct. Chairman Grande stated on the arrangements for the property that is not being built, there will be a conservation easement for the land on the eastside. He asked if the land on the Westside will be deeded over to the County or will that be held in private hands with a conservation easement or something of that nature. Ms. Pendarvis stated that it will be deeded over to St. Lucie County as a conservation easement. Chairman Grande stated he can understand why the applicant may want to do that but does not understand why the County wants to accept that. Ms. Pendarvis stated the Mosquito Control has ditches that they maintain in that area and they would like to continue to be able to access that. Chairman Grande asked if the County was accepting ownership of that property or is the County asking for a conservation easement for their proper. Ms. Pendarvis stated the County will have ownership to that property. Chairman Grande asked if the County will have ownership to that property than it comes off of the tax rolls. Ms. Pendarvis stated the County owns the property to the north of it as well. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of staff. Mr. Knapp asked if it is deeded as a conservation easement, will the County not be allowed to go on and maintain those ditches and do the County have to own it in order for them continue maintaining those ditches. Ms. Pendarvis stated the County would like the liberty of being able to come and go as they please. Chairman Grande stated if there are no other questions, this is a public hearing and he will open the hearing up to the public. 11 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Knapp if he would consider it a condition of approval that the County does not accept ownership in this. Mr. Knapp stated if it was going to be approved, then he would do that. However, he is not sure that building houses one hundred feet from the ocean would be a good idea, nonetheless he does not approve of that. He stated with the storms that we have had and the way that things have been washed away, he does not know or agree with what the purpose of building these homes this close to the ocean may be because they can be gone so quickly. Chairman Grande stated as a local resident in this area, he very carefully watched the development immediately to the north of this-Watersong project, throughout the hurricanes of last year and Wilma of this year. He stated there is an artificially constructed dune on the land to the north, the original Watersong project. He added that this dune has held up remarkablely well. If this dune will be continued south, in front of this project, then this land will probably be stronger or more water-typed, after construction, then it is today. Mr. Lounds stated his biggest concern with this project and or similar projects as this one are the erosion problems that continue to occur over there. He stated he is not happy approving projects that will lend to more erosion in the future. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Grande, based on his experience and observation of the area with the hurricanes of last year, if he feels that the artificial dunes will hold and help alleviate some of his concerns of an eroding dune area and the erosion area. Chairman Grande stated he would be very hesitant about this project, if it were either significantly to the north in the Fort Pierce area where the Jetty seems to cause continual erosion, immediately to the south of the Jetty, or further to the south, where the dunes are really insufficient as the fence of mechanism. Chairman Grande stated the property immediately to the north of this, in which this will have the same silhouette, has held up in-creditably well, both the dune and the beach. 12 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Chairman Grande stated this was his first fear and he has watched this very carefully, long before this project was on the table because he was very concerned about the previous one. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Mundt if he was concerned about the dunes as well. Mr. Mundt stated last year he went up to the northern property after the storms and the parking lots were full of sand. He stated he does not know what the depth of the sand was, however the roads were covered and unable to be found in that area. He stated with vegetation, some of this may be excluded but it will not disappear entirely. Mr. Lounds stated he asked Mr. Mundt for his opinion because he also lives on North beach. Mr. Mundt stated yes. He stated there are areas that he has great concerns about being approved for residency construction. He stated the DEP has declined to come down and make any changes on the Coastal Construction line and continues to approve properties east of the new Coastal Construction line. He stated it depends on the specific site. There has been a lot of change in the dune line and the construction since the storms last year. He stated it varies from area to area. Mr. Mundt stated there is a DEP study that was done on November of last year, after Frances and Jeanne and it said in places that the County has lost up to one hundred feet of dune area. He stated the governor has appointed a seventeen member study to look at the coastal areas and makes some recommendations. Mr. Mundt stated with this particular project, he feels comfortable with the southern part being added to it. However, each project needs to be looked at very closely. Mr. Lounds asked if the applicant would be able to explain and let them know what the artificial dune construction is like, and how it is constructed so that they can have a better understanding. Mr. Reikenis stated everyone is a lot smarter today, then they were forty and fifty years ago when it was not a problem to come in and dredge inlets and put in when this was happening and the beaches started marching landward, then people began putting up concrete walls at their houses to stop the erosion. This took the wave energy that starts hitting a vertical concrete wall and directs it up and down, which further exacerbate erosion. Therefore wnow is that design of dunes and beach systems is really the best way to go. Therefore we go back to putting in 13 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency the sand. When the dunes are constructed, they have to use FDEP Beaches and Shores approved fill and it has to be beach compatible sand. They have to analyze what materials are on the beach right there and then when they are reconstructing. The material that they bring in to use to reconstruct it has to be very compatible with that. This past turtle nesting season, we may have seen more turtles nesting on these beaches because of the sand that we put on them for reconstruction of the dunes. He added there are very dense turtle nesting populations elsewhere in the County. There are slopes that you have to build, so that He stated you do not pile sand up in front of the ocean and leave it as that, but they put in plantings, grasses, vines and all of the natural beach vegetation that takes hold and helps that dune in place. He stated they put in temporary irrigation, while those plantings take root. However, according to the DEP permit, once that is done the irrigation has to come back out because they are not allowed to leave it there. Then Mother Nature takes over. Mr. Reikenis stated as far as the buildings and the houses are concerned, people used to build on in a regular foundation or footers. If they build in this zone (between the two coastal construction control lines, they will only be allowed to build with the permits that they get from DEP, which include all of the pilings going all the way down, so that if a catastrophic storm come and wipe out the beach and the dune in front of the residents, they will still be standing. If you look at the Florida Panhandle you will find that after hurricane Ivan, the houses that were built under the new codes were standing, while the ones that were right next to them that were built prior to the new codes could not be found anywhere. He stated people are learning a lot and all of the new knowledge that they currently have is going into building the system. Mr. Lounds asked when you get through with this construction, I should not be able to tell that the dune has been altered or changed in anyway and it should be more stable after construction than it is today. Mr. Reikenis . Chairman Grande asked if there were any other discussion. Mr. Hearn stated: after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including comments, from the standards of review as set forth in the Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Ginn 14 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency La- Island Residential District) Zoning District to the PUD (Planed Unit Development- Watersong South) Zoning District because it is a natural progression from the development to the north of it and it meets all of the minimum standards of the County Chairman Grande asked if there was a second. Mr. Mundt seconded the motion. He stated he feels that Mr. Knapp brought up a good point about the County taking this property off the tax rolls and if there is some maintenance cost with this. He stated that he realize that the Mosquito Control district goes in there, but he would like to know if they can have the easement for the Mosquito Control District and some how maintain this on the tax rolls and have the Ginn Company contribute something towards the maintenance of the property, if the County takes this over. Chairman Grande stated this will be in the minutes and between now and the County , he would hope that the County Ginn Company would get together and discuss what the best way is, for this to occur. Chairman Grande stated this area is more than ten acres of land to him and is highly valued. He stated he realize that it will never be built on; however it is a nifty thing to have on the tax roll. Mr. Hearn stated this should be included in the minutes but can not be included as apart of the conditions of approval. Mr. McCurdy stated although the intent is very good that they address that this is taken off of the tax roll, as a matter of reality, it has no use, other than its current present use which is minimal from the tax purpose. Chairman Grande stated that is between the owner and the County Ms. Hammer stated usually when there is a group of homes that are coming in, she makes mention of a hardened facility. This set of eighteen homes will be attached to the northern property. Over the last several months there have had several issues dealing with energy and electricity and she would like to encourage this developer. She stated she would like to see the County take a position wherein they are making the most efficient appliances required in the homes, so that we can work on the conservation of energy in our community, as well as look at any other ways of conserving energy. 15 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Hammer stated she has read about a new type of roof that actually has solar type of components, wherein the home runs completely with its own energy from the solar and would not have to be dependent on an electric company. The roll was called. Mr. Trias voted for the motion. Mr. McCurdy voted against the motion. Mr. Lounds stated his biggest concern with this is the dunes area. He stated he hopes that the Countyof the discussion that they have had. He voted against the motion. Mr. Knapp voted against the motion. Ms. Hammer voted for the motion. She stated ones of her reasons for voting for the motion is that she would rather have the County deal with evacuating people from eighteen homes, rather than the one hundred that would be allowed. Mr. Mundt voted for the motion. Mr. Hearn voted for the motion. Chairman Grande voted for the motion. Chairman Grande stated this application will be forwarded to the County Commission with a recommendation of approval. 16 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Agenda Item # 3 Kenneth Palestrant-PUD-05-020/RZ-05-031 stated Planner Diana Waite stated this is the request by Kenneth Palestrant for a Preliminary Planned Development Site Plan approval and a change in zoning from the Agricultural Residential Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned- Non Residential Development) known as the Midway Road Professional Plaza. This property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection at west Midway Road and Christensen Road. This item was previously reviewed in May, wherein the request was a change in zoning from AR-1 (Agricultural Residential one dwelling unit per acre) to Commercial Office and the vote was 3-2, recommending approval. During the forwarding of the request for a change in zoning in May, to the Board of County Commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners requested that the applicant prepare a Planned-Non Residential Development Plan for the project, which is why the applicant is here at this meeting. This project has been modified. The initial conceptual plans for this project included four buildings. At this time, the applicant is proposing a PNRD and two buildings, with a total of 12, 699 square feet. Dr. te an emergency medical clinic and other professional offices on the property. Staff has reviewed this and finds that it meets all of the County conforms to the standard of review, the conditions that are identified in the agenda. Staff requests that this be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Grande asked Ms. Waite to explain the advantages of the PNRD (Planned-Non Residential Development) versus the Commercial Office. Diana Waite stated the advantage of any Planned Unit Development is that it ties the zoning to a specific development plan. Therefore we will know exactly what is going to occur on the property as well as the type of uses that will occur on the property. This is done so that everyone surrounding the property and in the area will be more comfortable with the development. In a straight rezoning, anything within that zoning district could be constructed on the property. Chairman Grande asked if there were any questions of staff. Mr. Lounds asked if there is an access off of property or is it just Midway. 17 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Waite stated just Midway Road. Mr. Lounds asked if there is a reason for that. Ms. Waite stated yes. The County has a clause in the Land Development Code that does not allow access from a residential road into a commercial project. This section of to the north. Mr. Lounds stated he feels that it would be more convenient if the drivers get in Chairman Grande stated he understands that according to the current rules, they would not normally have access to a non-residential property from what is designated as a residential road. However, if you look at this particular configuration and think about traffic and egress, it would be more convenient to . He added the second access will prevent a lot of accidents from happening. Chairman Grande asked if there was some way, under the current rules for exceptions. Ms. Waite stated the Board of County Commissioners may be able to make an exception. Mr. Lounds stated as the area is developed widened or the standards will be brought up higher than the dirt road and it will give the people an opportunity. If drivers came out on the back end piece of the property on the northwest corner and wanted to go somewhere else besides directly onto Midway Road, at this th intersection (being that it is so close to 25 Street), this may be a problem. Mr. Trias stated he agrees with the discussion. He stated he feels that there are many rules like this one that may be a little out dated. He stated simplistically, these type of rule make sense, however, when you get into real design such as in this case, there needs to be different rules. He stated his suggestion is to go toward designing the projects in more detail, and make it a requirement to change those other more simplistic rules. Mr. Mundt stated he has the same concerns about it. He asked if there is a left hand turning lane and if there is not one, then what happens to traffic in that area. He asked if this in the area of potential midway road widening. He stated he saw that the County will be requiring and additional fifteen feet of right-of-way, and if that is for road widening in this area, if the County took that, then the will 18 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency be a very short entry into the parking lot area. He added that traffic congestion would be a problem. Mr. Mundt asked if staff had received the traffic impact study. Ms. Waite stated staff has received a study. She stated there will be a deceleration lane going into the project. Ms. Waite stated she does not have a request for a left-hand turn lane. Mr. Mundt stated Midway Road traffic will be stopped as someone is waiting to turn into the proposed project. Ms. Waite stated currently Midway Road is only a two-lane roadway. She stated she does not know if there are future designs for this roadway. Mr. Mundt stated this is a real problem. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of staff. Ms. Hammer stated the resident located to the north of the proposed project was concerned about the survey line going straight through their driveway. She asked Ms. Waite stated they have had a discussion about that at the Board of County Commissioners meeting and that has been resolved. She stated she has not spoken with the neighbors since then. She stated they would have been notified of this meeting. Ms. Hammer asked how far the dumpster from the nearest resident is. Ms. Waite stated it appears to be about forty feet from their property line. Ms. Hammer asked if there were any homes on the east side of the property. Ms. Waite stated there is a Commercial Office business on the east side of the property. Mr. Lounds stated s road is one of their recommendations, do they need to address the wall that appears along access safely, or is that something that the County Commissioners would address. Ms. Waite stated they might want to include a recommendation related to the wall. 19 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Waite stated at this time, there is residential zoning to the west, which may change over the years. Mr. Lounds asked if there is a twenty-five foot set back off of Midway Road of the property line, is that enough to be able to see Midway Road traffic, if you are Road, with that wall there. Ms. Waite stated she would have to ask the engineers to look at that issue. Mr. Trias it a choice made by the developer. Ms. Waite stated it is a code requirement and it is related to the requirements of Commercial and Non-Residential Developments adjacent to residential zoned Residential. Mr. Trias stated there is a street there. He stated it seems like another one of the code requirements that are against good design and proper urbanism. He stated he was driving down Palm Beach County the other day and they were rebuilding on each side of the road. He stated he felt like this was negative and inappropriate for the community and would like for this County to be more thoughtful when we are doing design. Ms. Waite stated Mr. Trias should include this in their recommendation. Chairman Grande stated he understands that the County currently has a regulation that requires the wall along the Commercial property, if the adjoining property is residential, but have we stretched an interpretation of that to say that we need that wall even if what is next door is a road and the road will be considered residential. Ms. Waite stated they have considered that the zoning goes to the center of the road. Ms. Heather Young, the assistant County attorney stated she agrees with Ms. Waite and that is a code requirement. However, the applicant may address the issues on the wall. Mr. Hearn stated that it is his understanding that the wall is not required if the adjoining property owner signs a waiver or grants a waiver. Ms. Waite stated she believes that, that is correct. 20 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Chairman Grande asked if they consider the adjoining property owner to be the County, since the adjoining property is a road. Ms. Young stated the code languages are referring to who ever own the property. It talks about the types of structures and the buffer between them. In the past they have looked at the next building structure versus the road adjacent to it, however that is something that the County needs to look into. The applicant has discussed this briefly with staff before the hearing. Chairman Grande stated asked if there were any other questions before the applicant speaks. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, an attorney with the law firm of Ruden McKloskey, speaking on behalf of Kenneth Palestrant the applicant stated they are back inform of the Planning and Zoning Commission because the County Commissioners were not comfortable with the straight CO (Commercial Office) rezoning of the property, but are comfortable in entertaining a PNRD (Planned- Non Residential Development) because they would at least have the plan in front of them at the same time. Mr. Ferguson stated they are in recommendation and with Planning and Zoning Commission He pointed out that the original conceptual plan with the straight CO (Commercial Office) rezoning that was in front of the Board of County Commissioners during the last time did show an interest on the Christensen. nterest was deleted from the current site plan, leaving a single entrance onto Midway Road. Based on the traffic report, there was only one right turn lane, warranted and there was not warranted left-turn lane. Therefore traffic coming from the east will have a turning lane, but traffic coming from the west will be in the traffic lane as it goes to make that turn. Mr. Ferguson stated as noted by staff, the amount of square footage was reduced. The buildings have moved to the south side of the lot and are as far away from the existing residential dwelling that is on the north side as possible. There will be a concrete blocked wall between the existing residents on the north end of the property as required by code. The survey issue was resolved and the property line that has been agreed to by the parties is now south of the existing driveway of that property to the north. The property owner has been satisfied and the survey issues have been resolved. 21 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency The changes include the fact that there is no longer an entrance onto Christensen additional buffer to the property to the west along that side and interpretation of the code is when you have a Commercial property that adjoins a residential property (the prop residential), it requires a wall. However, in the advantage of going through the PNRD (Planned-Non Residential Development) negotiated process, the County Commission would have the leeway to not require a wall in this instance if it makes sense. Meanwhile, the applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission enhancin eventually improved and paved. They are donating approximately twenty feet of additional right-of-way. Therefore there will be a sufficient right-of-way They feel that it will be a better overall project if there were not a wall forming a The house to the west of the subject property appears to be abandoned. There is a strong likelihood, given that the development patterns along Midway Road involve commercial uses, that that property will come in at some point in the future, potentially as a similarly type of Commercial use. This would then alleviate the code requirement for a wall, but unfortunately, the wall would have already been built and the damage would have already been done. As far as access onto they are not opposed to that. The original plan that was presented previously, showed access. If it meets engineering standards and the County Commissioners are agreeable to that and staff is agreeable, then they would certainly be agreeable to having a second He added that this would seem to make the wall unnecessary and it would probably do better for the project in the area to have landscaping in a nice entrance way into the back section of the parking lot off of Christensen Mr. Ferguson stated they feel that this project will be an enhancement to the area and the concepts of putting the buildings up close to the roadways is so that there is no see of parking and putting the parking behind the development, meets the County Mr. Trias stated he would like to commend Mr. Ferguson for representing a client that has actually has some design work done. He added that this way, they are able to make better decisions. He stated very encouraged by this development. 22 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Knapp asked what the intended occupancy is is. He asked if the project will Mr. Kenneth Palestrant stated he has been a Physician here in the community for about twelve or thirteen years and has worked in the emergency department at St. Lucie Medical Center and has been the director there, for about nine of those years. He stated that he currently own and operates an urgent care center called This will be a second site for his urgent care center. An urgent care center is basically and emergency type of clinic. It is an alternative to people having to go to the emergency department. For example, the site that he operates down in Port St. Lucie is open from 9 A.M. to 7 P.M, Monday through Friday and they are open from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M on Saturday and Sunday. He stated patients are taken in on a walk-in basis. They do a lot of occupational Countykers, such as the City of Port St. Lucie, Wal- Department, and the Police Department in Port St. Lucie. He stated this is apart of their industrial medicine program. He stated they are an alternative for the corporations when they have an injured worker. Instead of sending patients directly to the emergency department, which is terrible overloaded now, there will be a local place provide for services. . He stated there is a fair amount of people who use them for their regular medical care and urgent and emergent type of problems. Mr. Palestrant stated one of the buildings will house his urgent care center, which is about 4500 square feet. Mr. Knapp asked if there were emergency vehicles coming to this urgent care center. Mr. Palestrant stated no. The only emergency vehicles are if someone comes in and is sick enough and needs to be transported to the hospital, just like any other have a vehicle that will transports patients to the hospital from his office. He stated the County to the nearest emergency facility and hospital facility. He stated he has left the emergency room after almost fifteen years and does not have any intent of going back in that type of situation. He stated his clinic is going to occupy about 4500 square feet in one building. The remaining 850 square feet or whatever is left will be for rental. The other 23 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency side will be similar. It will be rental. He stated his primary choice for looking for a tenant to rent it, is medial/ someone in the medical field or practicing medicine. If there is a professional that is coming in, then they can adapt to that. The site itself has adequate parking. He stated the requirements for parking was eighty-nine spaces and they have ninety-five. He stated all 12,700 square feet will be completely occupied by medical. There is more than enough parking there, if every square foot of the building was to be occupied by other medical providers such as Dentists, Chiropractors, and Intermits etc. Mr. Knapp stated he likes the design and the project, but there should only be one entrance into the project He stated his bigger concern is the traffic problems. He stated Midway Road is probably the busiest two-lane road in St. Lucie County. He stated this development will add a tremendous amount of traffic in and out of this area, along with 12,000 sq. ft. of Physician spaces and patients coming in and out all times of the day. He added es bumper to bumper. He stated if there is no turning lane going into the development, then his recommendation would be to wait until Midway Road is widened because Midway Road is already over capacity. Chairman Grande asked if there were any more questions. Mr. Mundt asked what the original square footage was before it was reduced. Mr. Palestrant stated the original square footage was 16, 000 square feet and he shaved off 3300 square feet to get into the PUD (Planned Unit Development) with the adequate amount of required parking for medical. Mr. Mundt asked what architectural style would be used to categorize this development in the exterior finish. Mr. Palestrant stated his architect is not here, however, he believes that they are looking at a CBS Construction, exterior stuckor wall. He stated it may have an old Florida type of appearance. Mr. Mundt asked if this includes a metal roof. Mr. Palestrant stated yes. He added that he believes that it will be a 5B- Crimpped metal roof. He added that they have hurricane resistant windows. Mr. Mundt asked if there will be an interior corridor to a suite of offices. 24 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Palestrant stated no. He stated with one of the buildings, there will be entrances on the middle of the courtyard area. Between the two buildings are the parking spaces as you come into the entrance? Mr. Mundt asked if each suite will have its own entrance to the exterior. Mr. Palestrant stated it depends on how many suites the building will be divided into. For example, his clinic is going to have two entrances. He wants to have an entrance on the north side and a main entrance on the eastside. He stated p, it is nice to have a separate entrance. Mr. Mundt stated his curiosity is the other suites that will obviously be rentals. He asked if those will have their own exterior entrance. Mr. Palestrant stated yes. Ms. Hammer stated on the diagram, there is an identified proposed grinder pump station. She stated there are considerable numbers of monetaries in that area of Midway Road, west of ninety-five. She asked if there is a back up power plan for the grinder pump. Mr. Palestrant stated during the last hurricane, his clinic was out of power for approximately four days, and he brought his generator in from home so that he could operate his clinic. He stated putting a generator in from a standpoint of an urgent care center, means that you may be able to run your x-ray, air conditioning and the whole clinic using at least 100 KW (kilowatt) generator. One of the things that he is doing for next hurricane season is contracting with a company, for his current clinic and probably will do the same for the proposed project because everyday that the business is closed, is lost revenue. Contracting will provide you with a premium and they will actually guarantee you a 100kW (kilowatt) generator that will be delivered within twenty-four hours. He stated it is his intention to be able to run his office, including X-Ray (which is a three phase system) and air conditioning, along with the other electrical needs for the clinic. He stated to run an grinder pump may not be that difficult, if they have enough power to be able to run an X-ray machine. Ms. Hammer stated she would suggest that as the applicant designs his development that he would set up a back up program for that grinder pump, especially in light of what Mr. Palestrant said in regards to using the large generator to run his facility. She stated, Mr. Palestrant will also need to be able to run the grinder pump as well, otherwise there will be problem. 25 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Palestrant stated it is difficult for him to retro-fit into his building, where he currently is, because it is rental space. However, he will have an external panel already hooked up. He stated to purchase a 100kW (kilowatt) generator for standby is cost prohibitive and he is not a hospital. However, to have one available where something can be brought in is more convient. He stated he will make sure that there is availability wherein there to have a significant amount of wiring, but that there will be a panel, that you can plug into which will back feed into all of the other systems. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. Mr. Patrick Angle stated he has problems the traffic impacts on the road he lives on. He stated he does not want 100 cars coming down the road where he lives. He stated the last time that he was here, this project was not suppose to be brought back up to the board for another two years and it has been less than a year and this project is back again. He stated it does not make sense to put the wall on Midway because the kids use that corner for their bus stop. He stated he is not in favor of this project. He also stated the property to the west is not abandoned, and person that lives there has been living there longer than he has. Chairman Grande asked staff to address the two year comment. He stated this project was not turned down previously, but the County Commission has asked this applicant to come back with a different application. Ms. Waite stated the County Commissioners were previously considering a change in zoning to Commercial Office and if this was denied, then the applicant would not be allowed to come back with another request for a change to Commercial Office. However, this is a different zoning district. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Mundt asked staff if they have any different feelings about a left-hand turn at -hand turn going into the site plan off of Midway, as it currently is now. Chairman Grande stated he does not think that there is a left-hand turn, planned off of Midway in either place. He stated there may be a right-hand deceleration lane. Mr. Mundt asked if there will be a left-turn off of Midway. Chairman Grande stated no. They are not going to have a left hand-turning lane. 26 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms Waite stated there is no median between on Midway Road. Intersection th improvements are being constructed at 25 Street and Midway Road. Mr. Mundt asked if something could be done at Christensenbe able to alleviate making a left-hand turn and permit eastbound traffic to continue on. Mr. Mundt stated Mr. Angle has a point, that whether you make a left-hand turn -hand turn into the site as it appears on the site plan, either way you could stop the flow of eastbound traffic on Midway Road, unless you get some relief by a turning lane at one location or the other. He stated he agrees with Mr. Angle that that is an awful road, down in that area. Mr. Mundt stated he does not have a problem with the overall project, but he would like to see some mitigation on the traffic. Mr. Knapp stated Midway Road will be widened in a couple of years. He stated unless a turning lane is constructed somewhere in there, it will just be a nightmare on Midway Road. Chairman Grande asked for a motion. Chairman Grande asked if there are four conditions recommended by the staff for this project. He asked if they choose to recommend that the plan include and County waive the (inauditable), should they be part of the motion and should they be added as conditions. Ms. Waite stated yes, she would recommend doing so. Mr. Lounds stated after considering the testimony presented during the public of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Kenneth Palestrant for the change in zoning to the AR-1 (Agricultural Residential one dwelling to the acre) Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned-Non Residential Development) which is to be known as Midway Road Professional Plaza zoning district. He stated he feels that it lends to the commercialism of Midway Road. motion, as well as the recommendation that they have an access to ve the requirement for the wall bordering commercial residential replaced with enhanced landscaping. 27 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency He stated they also need to add that the County consider a turning lane at Midway Road, either for traffic coming of He stated that needs to be apart of this so that the Board of County Commissioners are aware of their concern for the Midway Road traffic and the resident that lives in that area. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that there is a motion and a second and asked if there were any questions or comments on the motion. Mr. Knapp f of Midway Road and The roll was called. Mr. Mundt voted for the motion. Mr. McCurdy voted for the motion. Ms. Hammer voted for the motion. Mr. Knapp voted against the motion. Mr. Trias voted for the motion. Mr. Lounds voted for the motion. Chairman Grande voted for the motion. Chairman Grande stated this application will be passed on to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval with the conditions as stated. 28 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Agenda Item # 4 Indrio Crossing Phase II-RZ-05-005 Planner Diane Waite stated this is the petition of Jeffery Freedman for Change in zoning from Commercial General to the Residential Medium Zoning District. This property is located at the northeast corner of Indrio Road Highway. The property that is under consideration is known as Phase II of Indrio Crossings Shopping Center. This is a project that was approved in 1988 and Phase II was never built and the applicant has come forward with several applications, one of which is a Future Land Use Amendment that already reviewed and recommended for approval. The Future Land Use Amendment would change the Future Land Use Designation from Commercial to Residential Medium of the subject property. The next step in moving forward with this proposed mix use development with Commercial to the west is the g for the proposed residential portion of the project. In order to accomplish this, a rezoning to Residential Medium on the property is required. The intent of this coming to the Planning and Zoning Commission at this time is that the applicant would like to take all three petitions to the Board of County Commissioners at one time. We have a site plan that is under review and is very close to completion, it should be ready to go the Board of County Commissioners within the next couple of months. Ms. Waite stated at that time, they (Board of County Commissioners meeting) will present a Future Land Use Amendment, followed by the change in zoning followed by an adjustment to the site plan for the shopping center. The shopping center has vested rights on it and the applicant does not want to lose them. The shopping center was initially approved for 143,000 square feet of retail plus two out parcels that were previously approved and vested. The applicant now proposes to develop 84 multi-family dwelling units which will be on the subject parcel. She added that there will be 30,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses, adjacent to the west. She stated there will be pedestrian interconnectivity to the existing shopping center in the new retail area to the west that would front on Turnpike Feeder Road. Staff has reviewed the zoning designation and has found it to be consistent with the existing surrounding uses and can be designed in a manner that will be consistent with the Commercial uses that will surround the property. Staff 29 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency recommends that this request for a change in zoning be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Grande asked if there were questions of staff. Mr. Trias asked Ms. Waite if a site plan was included in their packets. Ms. Waite stated no. Mr. Trias asked Why not? Ms. Waite stated because hearing. A site plan is a separate issue that will be reviewed by the DRC (Development Review Committee). Mr. Trias stated he finds this to be inconsistent with the goals that they have tried to talk about in the sense that from a one point of view, it may be accurate not to have a site plan at this hearing for this item; however, it is very useful to have those documents when they are being prepared. He added that the site plan is the main document that he reviews and it would be useful to have one in this case. Ms. Waite stated she brought one site plan to the meeting because she thought that the Planning and Zoning Commission may want to look at it, however from a technical stand point and based on the process of review procedures, there is no guarantee that the site plan that they will see will be built on the property, as they are guaranteed in the planned-Non Residential development application process. Mr. Trias stated it is pointless to look at a rezoning without looking at what is being proposed, when it is being proposed. The site plan, as it exists, was placed on the screen so that the Planning and Zoning Commission board members were able to get a sense for what is being proposed. Ms. Waite stated the applicant has an electronic copy and she displayed it on the screen. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of staff. Mr. Hearn asked if the intersection of Indrio Road in the TVC (Towns Villages and Countryside Element) receiving areas. Ms. Waite stated she believes that this is within the boundary of the TVC (Towns Villages and Countryside Element). 30 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Hearn stated he is not referring to the entire land area surrounding the area, but the intersection itself. He stated one of the receiving areas indicated on the Special Area Pan and if that is correct then additional units will be able to be put here. Mr. Hearn stated his second question regards rezoning. He asked if the quarter mile radius requirement is in effect for liked zoned properties or if it was only for Future Land Use Amendments. Ms. Waite Land Use Amendments. Mr. Mundt stated he shares a site plan with this. He added that the site plan would have been helpful. He stated he likes the idea of the mixed use transition in this development. He asked if the County approves this petition as Residential Medium, is there a guarantee that the Commercial component of this will be executed. Chairman Grande stated the Commercial component of this project is not a part of this application. He stated this petition is for a change in zoning for the northeast corner of the overall property. Mr. Mundt asked if this exclude what is being shown as commercial on the site plan. Ms. Waite stated the petition that is before the Planning and Zoning Commission at this time is for a change in zoning from Commercial to Residential Medium for the eastern portion of the site plan. She stated right now, the entire track is zoned Commercial General. Mr. Trias asked if it is apart of a site plan application that is different that is different than the one that has been shown at this meeting. Ms. Waite stated no. She added that they both are apart of one site plan. Mr. Trias asked if the site plan as being proposed if the same as the one being reviewed. Ms. Waite stated yes. Chairman Grande asked if this zoning change and the site plan approval is considered to be sent to the Board of County Commissioners at the same time. Ms. Waite stated t 31 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Chairman Grande asked if the site plan that staff and the applicant has shown at this meeting, assuming that it does not get changed in the interim, will go along with this zoning change to the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Waite stated correct. She also stated that applicant has changed some of the uses on the site plan. She stated there was a storage facility that was part of this site plan at one time, on the Commercial portion. She stated this has now been changed and will be retail, restaurant and a bank and they can speak to their purposed uses. Ms. Waite stated the proposed project already has Commercial Zoning on part of the property, and also a Commercial Future Land Use Designation on part of the property, wherein the zoning does not need to be changed on this portion. The only portion that needs to be changed is the Residential portion. She stated it will provide a mixed used development, which is more consistent with the TVC (Towns Villages and Countryside Element) area. She added there is interconnectivity and will be sidewalks along the roads to the north as well as to the east that connect to the shopping center. Ms. Waite stated this project consists of many of the specifics that are requested in the TVC (Towns Villages and Countryside Element) area. Ms. Waite stated the overall trips that would affect the County reduced from that approved in the original resolution in 1998. Chairman Grande stated any more questions of staff before the public portion of the meeting is opened. Mr. Hearn asked if the applicant could have developed a PNRD (Planned-Non Residential Development)) if they would have chosen to. Ms. Waite stated it would have had to be two separate site plans. A plan mixed used development can not be done on this property, because it is not in a mixed future land use area. Mr. Hearn asked if the applicant could have developed a PUD (Planned Unit Development) so that the County would know exactly what the applicant is developing. Ms. Waite replied correct. Mr. Trias asked if this was a PUD (Planned Unit Development) would the open- space requirements be different than what is currently being proposed. He asked if this would or could be one of the reasons why the applicant would not develop a PUD (Planned Unit Development). 32 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Waite stated that this is one of the reasons why some applicants do not like Mr. Al Brodeur, from Thomas Lucido and Associates, representing the applicant displayed a general location of the property. He stated the property is currently zoned CG (Commercial General). He stated this item has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission previously, for a Land Use Amendment. Mr. Brodeur stated previously the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amendment from the existing COM (Commercial Medium) to the RM (Residential Medium). He stated the traffic rights are currently vested, as determined by the County Attorney. Currently the site is approved for 143,000 square feet of retail. The current design of the site follows the 1970s- majority of the planning revolved around automobiles. He added that the new owner of this site proposes new and different ideas for activity and development on this site. The applicant proposes to develop more diverse uses on this property. There is retail on the west side of the property, with Office on the second floor. There is pedestrian access to the residential portion on the east side of the site. The east side is a multi-family town home development. He added the town home development is also aged-restricted for people 55 years +. This site was chosen for s proximity to existing retail, and the grocery store which allow for non-drivers to be able to walk over to the site. This has been modified since the last that it was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and was in fact modified for the better. He stated that it has been expressed to them by the Countyaff that self storage may have not been the best use for this particular location. Therefore the self storage was replaced by the retail in the office. He added that Royal Palm Avenue is currently an existing right-of-way, however it does not exist. He stated the applicant is agreeing to pave Royal Palm Avenue to connect it to where the dead ends are. They have also included sidewalks on Miramar Avenue. He stated they are proposing 84 dwelling units at a density of approximately 8.69 dwelling units per acre. He stated they are trying to utilize some of the village development ideas; however, it is difficult under the existing St. Lucie County code. He stated under the COM future land use, you are not allowed to develop mixed land use developments. You can either rezone property to PUD (Planned Unit Development), develop residentially or rezone to PNRD (Planned-Non Residential Development), which does not allow for residential development. He 33 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency stated they tried to utilize the mixed use idea with what is existing code as of this day. Chairman Grande stated any questions of the applicant? Ms. Hammer asked if there is any pedestrian walk-way from near the building on south west corner on building six, in the new plan. Mr. Broudeur stated yes there is. He stated there is a walk-way located south of the building, and it leads to the property. He stated because of the difficulties that were raised regarding the existing retention area, which was required by a South Florida Water Management District permit that was activated when Phase I and Phase II was approved, they had to relocate the pedestrian walk-way. He added that they have also included another pedestrian access, which is located two buildings north of that. He stated there will not be a wall around the site. Mr. Lounds asked if the residential portion of the site will be for people 55 years of age or older? Mr. Brodeur replied yes. Mr. Mundt asked if the units will be rental or owner occupied. Mr. Brodeur stated they will be ownership. Mr. Mundt asked if there was a price point. Mr. Brodeur stated it is approximately 250. Mr. Brodeur stated when this project first appeared before the Planning and Zoning C-restricted and it le previous plans for this site may have not been in the appropriate location for a self storage. He stated they decided to enhance the plan. He stated the units will have private elevators, which in fact will raise the cost of them. However, they believe that the elevators will be an important amenity for elder retires that may live there. Chairman Grande stated item # 3 in the staff comments needs to be deleted before this goes to the Board of County Commissioners. 34 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Hearn asked if the paving of the road, located to the east of the property from where the road ends in the shopping center will go to Miramar Avenue. He asked if this will be done by the developer. Mr. Brodeur replied yes. Mr. Hearn asked if they would have any objections to the County Commissioners requiring that a PUD (Planned Unit Development) of both residential and commercial is done on this site instead of what is being proposed. Mr. Broudeur replied yes. He stated this project has been in process for approximately a year and because this site is less than ten acres, does not have any existing native vegetation, and is within an area that is fairly developed, they feel that this would not be an appropriate site for a PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Hearn stated the County would feel more comfortable if they knew what exactly is going to be done on this site. Mr. Broudeur stated the builder is present at the meeting. He stated this project is not a secular development that will be flipped or changed after an approval. He added that the building plans are done and the project is real. Chairman Grande stated staff has indicated that the site plan will being going to the County Therefore this project will be approved with the site plan. Mr. Hearn asked if there were new owners on this property. Mr. Brodeur stated there has not been new ownership since this application has been proposed. Chairman Grande asked if there were further questions. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Knapp asked if the Plaza have sold any property recently. He asked if the applicant is the Mr. Trigger stated he is involved in the residential portion of the project. He stated the shopping center has recently been sold, however he does not know if the transaction has already been closed. 35 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Chairman Grande asked if he is talking about the shopping center that is the southern half of the whole block on the proposed project. Mr. Trigger replied correct. He stated it has been sold for 11 million dollars. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Trigger if he is the owner of the property. Mr. Trigger stated he is representing Aniel Group and Aniel Group is the owner for the residential portion of the project. He added that they have an agreement with commercial portion of the project. Mr. Trigger stated they will be developing this residential and commercial site for the owner. He stated he does not commit to the hard construction of the building but as far as the underground infrastructure goes, that is between him and the owner as an agreement. He stated their agreement is not hidden, but can be shown. He stated the underground work, roads, and pavers information is available upon request from the engineer of this project. Mr. Lounds stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments in the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the 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 Jeffrey Freedman for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential Multiple-family 9 dwelling units per acre) Zoning District because he feels that it is a decent, good plan transition to the property that is to the north and northeast of this location. He stated he feels that considered recommendations should include the following: 1. Disasters or Hurricane disaster consideration are placed into the site because of the 84 units of 55+ residents living in the development. 2. There needs to be a central community location on the site. Mr. Lounds stated he feels that this project will enhance the area and bring more commercialism into the area. He stated he feels that this will be a good plan, if He stated this project will enhance the lapidated area being that the area is deteriorated. 36 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Trias seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that there is a motion and a second on the floor and asked if there were any questions or comments. Ms. Hammer asked if there is a community center for the 84 homes. Mr. Brodeur stated yes there is a clubhouse community center for the 84 homes and is shown on the plan. Mr. Lounds stated he would like for the community center to be hardened for minimum care for the residents during hurricanes or disasters. Ms. Young stated you can not attach conditions to the rezoning request. However, the developer and staff is present to hear the comments and since they are in the process of reviewing the site plan, comments and recommendations can be addressed as apart of the review process as it proceeds to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Lounds stated he wants his motion to reflect that he supports the zoning change. However, he would like for his considerations to be carried along with the site plan when this items goes before the County Commission. Mr. Trias stated he agrees. Mr. Hearn stated they are not allowed to attach conditions to rezoning requests because if they rezone the property, the whole site plan can go away or may change. He added that this is one of the reasons why he is very uncomfortable with this application. He stated he is in favor of the site plan, but if he knew that it would be built or developed the way that it is being presented at this hearing, then he would support it. He also stated that there is no RM-9 Zoning around this property at all. He added that the highest density is five dwelling units per acre. Chairman Grande stated their recommendation, along with the comments made at this hearing and the site plan will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. He stated if the proposed plans change, then the County l understand why the Planning and Zoning Commission have a reluctant about the project. Mr. Hearn stated the Board of County Commissioners are not able to attach conditions to this rezoning project. 37 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Young stated that is correct. However, the Board of County Commissioners will be looking at the site plan and at the same time, reviewing the comments made at this meeting. Chairman Grande stated he would hope that if the County this rezoning without the site plan, that they would not approve the rezoning, based on the comments of this board. Ms. Hammer stated in the rezoning, the applicant testified and stated that the project will be over 55 housing, but she does not see it in the report. Chairman Grande stated at the time that the County Commissioners hear this rezoning application; they should have these minutes and understand that the applicant is expected to have a site plan for approval at the same time. Ms. Hammer asked if a site plan will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Chairman Grande stated a site plan will not be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Hammer asked if a site plan and a rezoning application can go simultaneously to the County the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Grande stated because the County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency to review site plans. Mr. Hearn asked if this site plan is approved, along with the rezoning, by the Board of County Commissioners and the applicant comes back at a later date and revise their site plan, will they appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency or the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Grande stated they certainly can request a revised site plan approval. However if it were a major site plan change, then they would appear before the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other comments. The roll call was made. Mr. Mundt voted for the motion. Mr. McCurdy voted for the motion. 38 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Hammer voted against the motion. She stated if she had a guarantee that the site would definitely be senior housing, then she could live with that. However, to change from Commercial to Residential (9 units per acre), without presenting an idea as to what the development may be forced to be like, is unpromising and she does not support that. Mr. Hearn voted against the motion. He stated his reason for voting against the motion is because there is not RM-9 in the surrounding areas. He stated there is no guarantee that what they are approving for the rezoning will be developed. He added that if this project was a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and there was certainty to it, then he would vote for it. Mr. Knapp voted for the motion. Mr. Trias voted for the motion. Mr. Lounds voted for the motion. Mr. Grande voted for the motion. Chairman Grande stated this application will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. 39 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Agenda Item # 5 stated IP Acquisitions Corporation-PA-05-007 Planner Diana Waite stated this is the application of IP Acquisition Corporation for a change in Future Land Use Designation for Commercial to Residential Medium. The subject property is located on the north side of Orange Avenue, approximately a quarter mile west of Hartman Road. The property consists of 6.69 acres of a 63 acre parcel that is proposed for development through the planned development process. The portion of the property that is subject to the proposed Future Land Use Amendment has commercial zoning to the east of the property and industrial zoning to the west. To the north of the property will be residential high and commercial zoning is on the south side of Orange Avenue. All of the Future Land Use Designations surrounding the property are either higher density or intensity Land Use Designations. The applicant has proposed the Future Land Use Amendment change to residential to match the remaining portion of the Milcreek Planned Unit Development, which is currently under review, by staff. The property under review is separated from Orange Avenue by a North St. Lucie River Water Control District Canal, 70 feet wide. The petition is required to allow the applicant to incorporate the amendment lands into the overall Milcreek PUD (Planned Unit Development). The Millcreek PUD (Planned Unit Development) under review is a 411 unit project with 109 single-family lots and 302 town houses. The Future Land Use under consideration at tonight will not increase the number of units in the proposed project. However, it will allow for this piece of property to be incorporated into the overall PUD (Planned Unit Development). Staff has reviewed this against the CountyLand Development Code and Comprehensive Plan requirements for a Future Land Use change and has determined that it is consistent with the elements and criteria required to approve such a Land Use Change. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Grande asked if there were any questions of staff. Mr. Hearn stated in this project. He stated staff should consider using a better word to identify the usage and purpose of a buffer. 40 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Waite stated she has received similar calls. She stated staff will be careful to send out notices that do not include the buffer because it does not affect surrounding residents, but is just an evaluation method. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of staff. Mr. Mundt asked if the 411 units that are mentioned, are included in this property or is it an inclusion of the prior property. If so, then would this property be approximately 56 to 57 additional units over the 411 units. Ms. Waite stated no. She stated this is the total amount of units proposed at this time. Mr. Mundt asked if there was an access to Orange Avenue from this property. Ms. Waite stated the proposed development plan provides access from the eastern side of this property. Chairman Grande stated this portion of the project is not intended to be a commercial part of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) but will have residences in it. Ms. Waite stated this part of the project would include residential and is along a substantial commercial corridor between Angel Road and I-95. She stated once approved, this would break up the commercial strip, there will be 22 to 23 commercial acres on the east side of what would be the entrance into this property. She stated the site plan does have a vehicular connection to the commercial piece as well as pedestrian connection from the resident to the north, into the project. Chairman Grande stated the southern part of the cul-de-sac that comes all the way up to Orange Avenue, but does not open up to Orange Avenue would be more appropriate for commercial development, rather than residential. He stated it does not make sense to approve houses that are positioned up against Orange Avenue. Ms. Waite stated because of the size of the property and because there is such a large strip of commercial zoned land along the Orange Avenue corridor, concerns such as the positioning of the houses up against Orange Avenue has not been raised. She stated there is also a 70 ft canal which somewhat serves as set back and a large right-of-way on Orange Avenue. She stated she will ask the applicant to take a look at the distance and the buffering. 41 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions of staff. Mr. Trias asked what the density of the overall PUD (Planned Unit Development) is. Ms. Waite stated 6.45 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Trias asked does this include the big lakes in the middle of the site. Ms. Waite stated that is the density of the entire 63 acre parcel. Mr. Mundt asked if they applicant will be bridging the 70 ft. canal. Ms. Waite stated yes. She stated the road, as proposed at this time crosses a canal, so it would have to be built. Mr. Richard Wolfire, the president of CCLI (BI Consultants), and representer of the consulting engineers, planners, and surveyors on the property, stated they have considered the concept of keeping the corner commercial. He stated the reasons for their current proposal is because to the west of their site is a proposed self-storage. Secondly, along the southern side of the property is a 70 ft. canal. Chairman Grande stated because there is a self-storage to the west, does this make the site better for residential development. Mr. Wolfire stated no. The ability of going back and forth is a very finite break and the connection of going further to the west with commercial, does not exist. He stated to the south of the site is the DOT (Department of Transportation) right-of-way canal or the canal that provides drainage for the road. To the east, they were trying to get further back into their property and they are trying to provide a view corridor to break up the commercial strip. He stated they did not view their highest density, but their single-family to soften the look and to put buffering on the site. He stated buffering is provided behind the houses, between the house and the canal, in order to shield the houses from Orange Avenue. He stated on the property, as you come into the entrance, there is a recreation center with a pool for the residents and over to the east side, what used to be a lake is now a nice big green area. He stated in meeting with the commissioners to find out what their likes/dislikes are about the proposed project, they were told that a place was needed on the site for the kids to go out and play or may be 42 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency throw a Frisbee. Therefore we reconfigured and looked at the lake and used it to be the nice green park. At the front of the entrance, we have provided for a bus turn around. Another supporting reason why they want to bring the commercial or the residential down to the south is that when the kids are coming out to go to school in the morning, there will be a bus stop and a bus pick up in one place. He added that they want the kids to be able to walk down the green area. He added that there are all kinds of sidewalks throughout the whole project. He added that he also wants them (the kids) to be able to be next to residential and not next to commercial. Mr. Wolfire stated this is a relatively small parcel of land to be a stand alone commercial piece and with its surrounding land uses to the west and to the south; it would be very awkward to try to develop in the future. Therefore their decision is to put the single-family development into the project. He stated they have proposed this project and are asking the Planning and Zoning Commission for their permission and support the small scale Amendment and they will be back in a month or two with the PNRD (Planned-Non Residential Development) or PUD (Planned Unit Development) approval to go through the site plan. Chairman Grande asked if there were questions of the applicant. Mr. Trias asked if the only street or entrance into the project is from Orange Ave? Mr. Wolfire stated no. He stated they started out with only one entrance into the project. He stated Avenue D to the north, is coming into the project. He stated they ended up pushing the subdivision south and they now have a 60ft right-of- way across the north end of their property and they hope that this will be extended further to the west. As for right now, you will be able to go out the north end of the property and go easterly and then north, which will take you into other portions of the County. Therefore there are two entrances. Mr. Trias stated it does not look like it is connected. Mr. Wolfire stated the roadway is connected. He stated roadway D where the cul-de-sac is, will be continued westerly. He added that they have committed to continue the road all the way west. He stated they will connect the existing roadways in the parcels to the north of their property. He stated they will build the roads across the entire northern end of their property, even on right-of-way that already exists. Mr. Lounds asked if there are any plans in regards to the transportation on this st site or does the current plan put traffic out on North 41 Street. 43 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Wolfire stated no. Mr. Lounds asked why not. Mr. Wolfire stated there is a large canal over to the side of the property and they were trying to look at some protection and to have connections made on Orange Avenue and on the north of the property. Mr. Lounds asked if the canal will prevent you from going in the direction where st the street is in front of the apartment place which is also where 41 Street will be joined. Mr. Wolfire stated yes. Mr. Lounds asked if the only access is off of Orange Avenue or off of Avenue D extension where the traffic is fed up through Metzger Road. Mr. Wolfire stated that is correct. Chairman Grande asked if there were any other questions. Chairman Grande opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Chairman Grande closed the public hearing. Mr. Mundt stated in the total project, there are 1.44 recreational acres. He asked if this number is correct. Mr. Wolfire correct. Mr. Mundt stated for a project this size, that amount of recreational acres seems minuscule. Mr. Wolfire stated that amount is strictly for the recreation center itself. He stated the overall open space on the property is 23.32 acres of open-space, out of the 67 acres. Mr. Mundt asked what the applicant plans to do on the 1.44 recreational acreage. Mr. Wolfire stated it will be a small Cabana, a pool, a tot lot and a small parking area. Mr. Mundt stated the Cabana, the pool and the tot lot will take up majority of the whole site and will not leave a play area for the kids. Mr. Mundt asked the 44 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency applicant if he has given any thought to any basketball courts, football fields or tennis courts for the kids to have more play area. Mr. Wolfire stated they have given thought toward the various play courts. He stated based on the comments from this hearing, they will have a more detailed plan on the play area. Mr. Trias asked what the dimensions of the typical lots for the single-family houses are. Mr. Wolfire stated 47 ft X 110. Mr. Trias asked if the other building types are attached Row houses. Mr. Wolfire stated they are town houses. Mr. Trias asked how many there are per building. Mr. Wolfire stated there are six and eight per building. Ms. Hammer stated they have seen so many of these types of applications. She asked if they have already approved the lay out for the part of the subject property that is north of the commercial area. Chairman Grande stated he does not believe that they have. Ms. Hammer asked if they have ever seen this whole application. Ms. Waite stated no. She stated the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency have not seen the PUD (Planned Unit Development) yet. In order for this party to be able to provide the Planned Unit Development as proposed with the residential component, a Future Land Use change is required. She added that this is the first step Comprehensive Plan and to have this commission as well as the Board of County Commissioners review to see if the Plan Amendment will be looked upon favorably before the PUD (Planned Unit Development) is brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Grande stated this is a very localized application. He pointed out that it is the lower piece on the site. He also stated it is a Future Land Use change and it allows the inclusion of the lower piece which also brings in the entrance way for the whole PUD (Planned Unit Development). He stated the applicant is providing them with an idea to show what they are connecting to and this board is not doing anything at this meeting, rel 45 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Hammer stated she could not imagine that the County would approve something with this design. Mr. Trias stated he shares that view. Mr. Lounds stated he understands that they are not suppose to be concerned with the big pi He stated he does not have a problem with the request to change the commercial end of the site to residential so that the applicant develops his site. He stated he feels that the whole project lends itself to good transition between what is north and east of this property and the developments that are going to go in on the south side of the project, across Orange Avenue. He stated he understands Mr. Mundt comment. He stated the families that will be going into this project will be young families with young children, which may include teenagers to younger children. He stated there is not enough space on the site for him to feel comfortable with this project, for play area. He added that He stated he would rather see fewer buildings in the development, in order to enhance the green space in the development for the young families that will live in the houses. Mr. Trias stated he agrees with Mr. Lounds. He stated he can not support projects that are designed in such a lazy way. He stated he feels that the County has higher standards than the proposed project. He added that he is tired of seeing the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process used for one purpose, which is to make the smallest possible lot that an applicant can and still have a single-family house as well as attach as many attached units as possible. He added to him, this is not making towns or neighborhoods. He stated the County must demand a better quality of design for PUD (Planned Unit Development). Ms. Hammer stated the problem that she has with changing the zoning at the bottom end of the site is that there needs to be commercial zoning district next to the residential zoning district so that walking to the neighborhood, grocery store or dry cleaners is encouraged. She stated she does not have a problem with the entrance off of Orange Avenue and she is not sure how the mixture of the commercial and residential was accomplished. She added that she will not support rezoning this commercial. She stated she does not think that Chairman Grande stated this is not a rezoning to Commercial, but this is a change in the Future Land Use. He added that his guess would be that the applicant will come back with a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and this PUD 46 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency (Planned Unit Development) may include whatever the applicant thinks that he can get pass the County, and it may be a commercial zoning district. Chairman Grande stated he thinks that the applicant is listening to some very direct comments, particularly Mr. Lounds and Mr. Trias, about the chances that they will have of getting this particular PUD (Planned Unit Development) through this board even if this Future Land Use change is passed. Mr. McCurdy stated he knows and respects every member on this board, but he feels that we often get lost in what they are supposed to be doing. In doing so, he feels that this board is creating a disservice to themselves and to the people who the County is suppose to serve. He stated he feels that they need to stay focused on the matter at hand and manage what they are suppose to manage and not try to micro-manage the issue. With that being said, before this board today is a proposed future land use change and they need to decide among themselves if it is appropriate or if it is in inappropriate. He stated he feels that they should conduct that decision in a reasonable logical fashion, rather than try to look at repeated potential site plans, that may not have anything to do with reality. Mr. Lounds stated the County go through a piece of commercial property to get to residential. He asked if there a way to amend that code requirement for this piece of property so that can be done or does that code requirement simplify this issue. Ms. Waite stated the situation is that you can not go through residential zoned or designated property to get to commercial. She stated based on the discussion that they had earlier, the roadway coming into the project may need to be maintained in the commercial zone, unless changes will be made to the Land Development Code. Chairman Grande asked if there was a motion. Mr. Knapp stated after considering the testimony presented during the public Agency of the St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of the IP Acquisition Corporation for the change in the Future Land Use Designation from Commercial to Residential Medium because he feels that it will fit with the area which ties into the other piece of property that they are proposing to development. Mr. Lounds stated seconded the motion. Chairman Grande announced that there is a motion and a second and asked if there were any comments or questions on the motion. 47 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Chairman Grande stated he will be supporting the motion because he believes that it is logical to attach this piece of property to the Planned Unit Development. He stated he hopes that the developer and the minutes understand that this is a sensitive area and they would expect that when the Planned Unit Development comes back that they take a serious stab at doing something that fits into this area. Mr. Lounds stated he seconded the motion because of Mr. McCurdy pointed out that they are focusing on the proposed project on the property. However, he hopes that the applicant takes heed to the comments and suggestions that were made at this meeting about the green space/area and the land usage and activity for the incoming residents, as well as some of Mr. Trias He stated he is not sure if the applicant is allowed to take the residential area that they are trying to develop and put that much traffic on Avenue D or on Metzger Road without having the access on Orange Avenue. He stated this is why he seconded the motion and support it, but he hopes that the applicant listens to what they are telling them. The roll was called. Mr. Mundt voted against the motion. Mr. McCurdy voted for the motion. Ms. Hammer voted against the motion. Mr. Hearn voted for the motion. Mr. Trias voted against the motion. Mr. Lounds voted for the motion. Mr. Knapp voted for the motion. Mr. Grande voted for the motion. Chairman Grande stated this application will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. This is the end of the agenda items. Chairman Grande stated he has two questions of staff before they entertain a motion to adjourn. He stated they receive a notice that was handed out about FPL. He asked if there was an explanation for the notice. 48 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Ms. Young state Mr. Hearn handed those notices out. Chairman Grande stated on the item prior to the last item, Ms. Waite kept referring to vested rights. He stated he hopes that the legal staff will look into that before the next meeting. He stated his understanding is that at the time they went to the two year process, if you look in the Land Development Code they gave them five years and a five year renewal period and this was in 1992. He added that he believes that all of those vested rights expired in 2002. He stated that he could be wrong, but they have already had this come up on a project and found that there are no vested rights today, from site plans that were approved prior to 1992. He stated he would appreciate getting a review of that and a report of that at the next meeting. Ms. Young stated just as a reminder, the next Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency meeting is December 8, 2005 as opposed to the normal third Thursday scheduling. Mr. Hearn stated he would like an explanation on the FPL notice that he passed out. He stated this notice was published in the newspaper on Tuesday. happy to address the board on this notice. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson stated he is not here officially on the behalf of FPL but he does have information that may shed light on that to a certain extent. He stated as part of the Power Plant Siting Act and as a requirement of the PSC, whenever FPL or any publicly regulated electric utility proposes to build a new power plant, they are required to put out and RFP for competitors for the private market to come in and propose an alternative, and then the PSC will evaluate it and they will pick the lowest cost alternative so that utilities like FPL do not have a captured market and they have to be honest in what they are proposing. He stated from his understanding, FPL had two projects but currently have one projects that is under review which is the west County project in West Palm Beach County which is a gas-fired power plant. They put out an RFP for two projects, one in the west County project and one in the south west St. Lucie power project, which was denied at the County Commissions meeting and is now dead. However, in anticipating this process, they put out an RFP that includes both. He stated he does not know if the submittal of that advertisement was in response to the gas-fired project in Palm Beach County or was it a response to the coal-fired project. He stated his understanding from FPL is that the RFP for the coal-fired project is going to have to be a coal-fired power plant as an 49 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency alternative. In other words, someone could not come in and propose a gas plant in lure of the coal-fired plant. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Ferguson if he has seen the notice. Mr. Ferguson stated he has seen the notice. Mr. Hearn stated he is confused about the fact that the notice says that it will be located on the west side of Highway 609. He asked if this is Shin Mr. Ferguson stated based on his understanding it is Range line. Mr. Ferguson stated there was a proposal by CPV. He state there is a piece of property in that approximate location that has a utility zoning and it has been proposed as a gas fired plant by an outfit called CPV which was turned down in part because of stack height, in relationship to the development south of it. He stated this is the site that they were contemplating and they do not identify it. He stated that it may be a gas plant. However, they call it a thermal plant. He stated they will be generation heat some how. He stated he does not know if this has been filed in response to the gas plant in Palm Beach County or was anticipating an alternative to the coal plant. Mr. Hearn stated as a member of the public, when he reads something like this, he would like to be able to understand it. He added that this is not understandable. Mr. Ferguson stated other than FPL having to put out an RFP; they would have nothing to do with that outfit or what ever the notice is for. He stated he is not sure where more information or detail on the notice could be derived from. Mr. Hearn stated he would like to ask staff about the transmittal to DCA for the TVC and for the Cloud Groves project. He asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency privileged to copies of the transmittal or what do they have to do to review the transmittal. Mr. David Kelly, Planning manager asked Mr. Hearn if he wanted the transmittal transmittal; however, they are available upon request. Ms. Young asked Mr. Hearn if he is talking about the Rural Land Stewardship Program. 50 November 17 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Mr. Hearn stated yes. Ms. Young stated she thinks that copies may have been sent to Mrs. Hearn, but may have not arrived yet. Ms. Young stated she has spoken with Michael Brilhart and she indicated to him that Mrs. Hearn has requested that. She stated if anyone else would want a this is available. Chairman Grande asked if there was a motion to adjourn. The Planning and Zoning Commission Board members replied, so moved. Chairman Grande thanked everyone for coming. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: ____________________ ______________________ Talea Owens, Charles Grande, Chairman Senior Staff Assistant Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency 51