Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 01-19-2006 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Special Meeting rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex January 19, 2006 6:00 P.M. AGENDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Grande, Chairman; Bill Hearn, Vice-Chairman; Stephanie Morgan, John Knapp, Susan Caron, Ramon Trias, Craig Mundt, and Kathryn Hensley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Lounds Ms. Hammer OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Gilbert Backenstoss, Assistant Growth Management Director; Mr. Hank Flores, Planning Manager; Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner; Wendy Clark, Senior Planner; Andrew Riddle, Planner; and Ms. Marsha Odom, Planning Technician. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grande called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEETING PROCEDURE Chairman Grande stated for the public benefit that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners. They will hear staff presentation of each application and then hear from the applicant. Following will be the opening of the public hearing to facilitate any public comments. During the public hearing anyone who wants to speak for or against a particular application can do so at that time. The public portion of the meeting will then be closed and the application will be discussed among the Planning Commission members. The Planning and Zoning Commission will then vote on a recommendation to send forward to the County Commission. Whether you agree or disagree with the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, you are encouraged to go to the County Commission meeting to voice your opinion. During the making of the motions the Planning and Zoning Commission members may read Page 1 of 26 a motion that has already been prepared. Please be informed that the application has not been prejudged but the motions have prepared for the recommendation that is to be made for a particular application; whether it is in favor of the application or not in favor of the applications so that when motions are made, the legal requirements for that particular application are met ROLL CALL Ms. Kathryn Hensley Mr. Ramon Trias Ms. Stephanie Morgan Mr. Craig Mundt Ms. Susan Caron Mr. John Knapp Mr. Bill Hearn Mr. Charles Grande DISCLOSURES Mr. Hearn disclosed that he had contact with the applicant for the RZ-05-026 application. Agenda Item 1: Election of Officials For the 2006 P&Z Board: There was a motion put forth to elect a new Chairman and Vice Chairman for the 2006 P&Z Board. Mr. Hearn name was submitted for the Chairman position. That motion was seconded and it was approved by a unanimous vote by the board. Motion made to nominate Mr. Trias, Vice President Motion passed unanimously Agenda Item 2: Meeting Minutes: December 8, 2005 Chairman Hearn stated he was pleased with the Minutes for December 8, 2005. Chairman Hearn made a motion to approve minutes if there were no corrections. Mr. Grande stated he was concerned with an item on page 14 where Mr. Lounds made a motion for an item and then on page 15, he made a motion opposing the same item. He question whether that occurred. Mr. Hearn stated that it was a mistake in the minutes. Motion made to approve the minutes with the change that reflected that mistake. Motion approved unanimously. Page 2 of 26 Agenda Item 3: Ordinance No. 06-005 (Formerly Ordinance No. 05-039) Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie-Smith presented this item. She stated that the item was an ordinance that would amend the Land Development Code section 7.0102 under Planned Unit Development. It would allow single-family detached dwellings to be placed in a Mobile home planned unit development. She stated that staff had recommended that the item be forward to the Board of County Commissions for approval. Chairman Hearn asked if there were any question from the board. Mr. Mundt asked Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith for clarification on an inconsistency that he found in paragraph three of this agenda item regarding the inclusion or exclusion of Spanish Lake One Community eligibility for the replacement of any damage mobile homes in that specific community. Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith responded by stating that the Emergency Orders that were previously passed by the County Commissioner included all the parks, the Wynne Development Corp. She went on to state that Spanish Lakes One does not fall under that designation. The Spanish Lakes One development is not a Planned Unit Development; that it has a RMHI zoning. She continued by stating that this modification would change the language in the Land Development Code under Planned Unit Development, therefore it would not affect the Spanish Lake One Community. Mr. Mundt asked whether it should have been excluded in the first portion. Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith acknowledges that a clarification was appropriate. She stated that it was included in the Emergency Order but that it would not be affected by this new language. Mr. Grande asks about the tax ramifications with regard to existing Mobile Homes on site. He went on to ask for confirmation that a mobile home is not taxed as a residence. Mrs. Katherine Mackenzie Smith acknowledged that his statement was correct. Mr. Grande continued his statement by asking if the mobile home is replaced by a single family home and the land under the home is not owned by the homeowners, which is the case in the Spanish Lakes Development. Are we going to see that situation here? If we do, are we going to be like Hawaii? That would be foreign to Saint Lucie County at this point. Assistant County Attorney Heather Young responded by stating that they needed to get clarification from the Property Appraisers and Tax Collectors Office, but from her understanding there would be taxes on the improvements to the site. She went on to state, that she was not clear on what the rate would be, but that it would be treated differently than the mobile homes that were previously there. This is handled by another agency. Mr. Grande stated that the problem occurs in places like Spanish Lakes where the home owner does not own the property. Page 3 of 26 Assistant County Attorney Heather Young went on to state that they would tax Spanish Lakes or the Wynne Corporation for an under lying fee for interest in their property. She went on to state that she was not sure, but she believed there would be assessments placed on the lease hold improvements and that the County will tax the new CBS homes built on site. Mr. Grande stated he thought that the ordinance is needed, however the County needs some clarification on what happens in the event of split ownership. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith responded by stating that she concurred with Mr. Grande previous statement. Chairman Hearn stated that he was also concern about that issue; he then asked if any other board members had anything else to say on that agenda item. Mr. Knapp asked if the ordinance in question applied to all mobile home parks in the County or is it unique to the Spanish Lakes area. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated that the ordinance would address any mobile home park set up as a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Knapp asked are there any minimum lot size specification required for these homes to be built to code or can they be built on any size lot that is existing. Assistant County Attorney responded that the built home could not be any bigger than the mobile home that could have been on the lot. She went on to add that there are set back requirementsin place. Mr. Knapp asked are there a separate set of requirements for the mobile home lots, will it be something that is already established, or a new set of standards for this? Assistant County Attorney responded by stating that it was specified in each PUD, that it would be the standards that were set up when the development was set up. Mr. Knapp responded by asking whether the standards were set up for conventional housing. Growth Managements Planning Manager David Kelly responded to the question Mr. Knapp ask by stating that each PUD, when it is approved, has its own set of standards. It will have its own setbacks, which will vary with the various approvals. He continued by stating that a conventional built home that would be placed on the lot has to meet the same setbacks that were establish for the PUD when it was approved and they may vary for the various PUDs. Mr. Knapp responded by asking whether they could now expect to see 30 x 60 foot homes, or do they have to be same sizes as mobile homes. Are they going to be able to vary? I want a clear understanding of what they will look like. Planning Manager David Kelly responded by stating that in general they will be the same size and shape as a mobile home that could go on the lot. PUDs are more modern than the old 8x30 mobile home parks. They are designed for double Page 4 of 26 wide, at least 24 feet wide. As it relates to the Wynn Corporation, they have a couple of floor plans that they are working on which are 24 ft wide small homes that will go on the lots that will meet that requirements. He continued his statement by stating that it would be rare if they got an application for something other than the doublewide 24 ft minimum. He summed up his statement by stating that no applicant has approach the department applying to built a 8 ft wide home .It did not make sense to him. Mr. Knapp questioned the language of the ordinance that allowed for 8 ft wide homes. Planning Manager David Kelly responded to the question by stating that he was not aware of any PUD ordinance in Saint Lucie County code that would allow for that. If there were, it would be the exception rather than the rule. He went on the state that if an applicant presents a building permit, that the County would be obligated to accommodate their application. He went on to make mention that the idea that a conventionally built 8 ft wide home may be safer than an 8 ft wide mobile home. Mr. Grande stated that he thought we had an example in parks that are going to CBS construction on-site. He stated he was not sure if they were PUD but that the projects allow for unique designs that allow for zero lot line on one side of the street. He continued his statement by saying that he thought it was a good concept for a park, although not to be misinterpreted as design standards that would apply to single-family home areas. Planning Manager David Kelly responded to Mr. Grande by stating that most of the applications are not PUDs they typically are for VP for recreation vehicles on the island. The County started out allowing the conversions of movable recreation vehicles that became park models that never moved, to conventionally built structures on those sites. Some are small, but people seem to be happy. He continued by stating that most likely the new structures are stronger than the older ones and that they were probably safer than what they replaced. Chairman Hearn asked whether the newly built CBS homes have to meet the minimum lot size requirements that the homes in Saint Lucie County have to meet or do PUDs supersede these requirements. Planning Manager David Kelly responded by stating that there are no minimum lot size He continued by communicating that many years ago there was an 800 square feet minimum requirement, which was deleted from the code. He disclosed that it may have been a legal reason why the ordinance was removed from the land use code. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias asked whether there were any maximum size requirements. Can you build a two-three story building within the same footprint? He continued by asking whether the County envisioned being relevant to this code. Planning Manager David Kelly responded to the question by stating that it is not addressed in the code. He stated that it never came up and it was not anticipated. He concluded his statement that the concept could be a comment that is forwarded to the committee for further review. Page 5 of 26 Vice President Ramon Trias stated that he thought there was a potential for conflict unless there are some architectural regulations that deal with neighbors. Mr. Mundt ask what the smallest set back will be in any manufactured home park located in the County. He continued by stating that he was concerned about the spacing. Planning Manager David Kelly responded that he was not sure with out having done any research on the subject. He stated that the smallest side set back was 7½ feet, which is consistent with RS-3 and RS-4 zoning district for single-family homes. Chairman Hearn asked Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith what was the potential for existing mobile home residence to be forced off their property if they do not build in accordance with this ordinance. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith responded by stating that the ordinance does not create that danger. She continued by stating that it gave the parks owner the option that would be available if there was no mobile home there. She summed up her statement that she was unaware of the various park rules and regulation associated with mobile home parks. Chairman Hearn stated that he was troubled with the language of the ordinance that did not provide any protection for the residence. He continued by questioning the jurisdiction of the state with regard to a local ordinance. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith responded by stating that the specific item in question was a mistake in the transcript that needed to be corrected. . PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC: Chairman Hearn asked if there are any comments from the public. Don Helm stated that he lived at 1403 Palisades in the Spanish Lakes Fare ways Mobile Home Community. He continued by stating that the park he lived in was once a PUD. He went on to state that he was concerned that the protections that are afforded under Florida State Statute 723 would impede the parks homeowner right to a guaranteed rent, which was based on their prospectus, their rights to bargain with the parks owners. He questioned the validity of the ordinance and the authority of local jurisdiction to rezone land use in the mobile home park. He summed up his statement by stating that their homeowners association was concerned that they did not get notification of a proposed zoning change as well as voice their concern that ultimately they would be forced out one day. Chairman Hearn states that he understood the process as follows that during an emergency the special acts by the state supersedes in local ordinance that may be in place. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated that the application was not for a zoning change. It would remain a PUD. She addressed Mr. Helms question that Florida State Statue 723 still applied to parks with more than ten mobile homes, and to parks that went below 10 mobile homes due to conversion. She continued by stating that the new CBS homes Page 6 of 26 would not fall up under that specific Statute. Instead, Florida State Statue Chapter 83, Florida Residential Land lord and Tenant would apply. Florida Statue 723 would still apply to all the mobile homes regardless of the remaining number if it originally was greater than 10. Chairman Hearn asks the public whether the answer he had heard was satisfactory. Mr. Helm responded by asking whether elements of Florida State Statute 723, which guarantees chase the park if the owner agrees to sell the property, would still apply even though the new CBS homes will be there. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated that Florida Statue 723 still applied to the entire mobile homes in there. 6 Chairman Hearn states that he suggests that Mr. Helm contacts staff so that he is informed of all the relevant information to make sure your answer are clear before the Board of county meeting. Mr. Grande states that legal staff should seek expert advice on what the legal ramifications are in the event of single family home owners not owning the land their homes are built on and the rights of the tenant collectively. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith responds by stating that park would remain a designated park per Florida State Statute 723. She went on to state that she will consult the Division of Mobile Homes Park on the specific of Florida State Statute 7: 23 as it relates to the rights of tenants collectively. Chairman Hearn asked the public if there were any more comments from the public. Mrs. Linda Vallarta, President of the Homeowners Association at Spanish Lakes Fairways. She stated that initially there was a specific section that was set aside to site new CBS homes. After hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, they began siting these same homes throughout the park wherever there was a damaged mobile home. She then questioned the timing of the ordinance and went on to ask how they received approval before the ordinance was approved by the board. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith responded to the previous question by stating that the owners of the park got authorization from the Board of County Commissioners to use their emergency powers that authorizes them to build up to 500 replacement homes. Mrs. Vallarte stated that she was concerned for both the mobile home owners and the CBS homeowners. She went on to ask how the pending approval of the ordinance affect existing CBS homes that were constructed prior to the establishment of the new ordinance. Planning Manager David Kelly responded to this question by acknowledging that Mrs.Vallarte was correct in her understanding of the phases and the areas that the original CBS homes were constructed. He continued by stating that the park owner did comply with County standards in securing permits to build CBS homes in the Spanish Lakes development. Page 7 of 26 Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith concurred with Mr. Kelly that the CBS were sited legally. Chairman Hearn asked whether there were any more comments from the public. Mr. Knapp the ordinance will affect. Planning Manager David Kelly stated that it was less than ten. Ms. Vallarte asks staff for clarification on the specific state statue that regulated the residential landlord tenant relationship. Assistant County Attorney responded to the question by stating that the specific Florida Chapter regulate CBS homes. Frank Morthe, President Mobile Home Association of Florida, stated that he was notified by a concerned resident in the mobile home community of the public meeting. He questions the process whereby the approval was facilitated. He then asks for a copy of the newspaper ad that announces the public notification. Assistant County Attorney Katherine Mackenzie Smith responded to the previous question by stating that the approvals were a part of an agenda request item that was approved by the Board of County Commission. She went on to state that she was not sure whether an advertisement was ran in the newspaper. Chairman Hearn ask is there a motion to approve Mr. Mundt makes a motion to approve the ordinance and recommend to the boards for approval. Chairman Hearn asked is there a second? so that staff will have an opportunity to research the issues and come back when they are prepared to respond to any unanswered questions. Chairman Hearn stated that he wanted to see the item moved forward with the understanding that they had 30 days to get answer to any questions that they may have. Planning Manager David Kelly stated that committee had two choices. He suggests that they could send the item forward to the Board with the comments as directives that you recommend this item for approval, however, there are some outstanding questions that they wanted staff to answer before it gets to the board or continue and have it come back for those answers at a later date. Chairman Hearn stated that he thought that the item needed to be moved forward given the projected agenda the committee has for the up coming months. He went on to state that the Board Page 8 of 26 of County Commissioners would ultimately make the decision to approve or disapprove the P/Z board is only here to raises points that the Board should consider when making decisions between now and then they can obtain the answer that the public raised in order to make an informed decision. Mr. Mundt makes a motion to amend the motion to include staffs comment and research to be forwarded with the motion to approve to the Board of County Commissions for approval. Mr. Trias seconds the motion. Assistant County Attorney Heather Young states that the next opportunity for this to come before the Board is February 7 or the 21, and that date would give staff enough time to prepare to respond to any outstanding question in time to present to the Board of County Commission. Mr. Grande states that he will support the motion although there are outstanding issues that are unanswered. He went on to state that he did not see any benefit of holding the item up as long as the information regarding these issues are brought to the Board attention before they are asked to vote on them. Chairman Hearn asks for roll call. Mr. Mundt yes Mrs. Caron- yes Mr. Knapp- no Mr. Trias- yes Mrs. Morgan- yes Mr. Grande- yes Mr. Hearn- yes Chairman Hearn states that the motion for recommendation of approval with staff comment, with the P & Z, comments are to be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. If there is any further concern, call local representative to express your concerns. Page 9 of 26 Agenda item # 4 Orchids RZ -05-026 Chairman Hearn asks, when dealing with a conditional use application, when staff sends out letter to residence within 500 feet, do the letters contain the right of use of that property with the zoning change with special exception and the accessory uses so that the public will know whatis going on. He continued by stating that he would like to see the above mention information included to provide for a better understanding. Planning Manager David Kelly responded to the previous question by stating no! We will review this item to see how we can better facilitate the request for all those concerned can understand the issues more clearly. Growth Management Senior Planner Wendy Clark stated that the Agenda item before you is an application that includes multiple properties under common ownership. The property is located on Jenkins road just North of Graham Road. She went on to state that the intended purpose of the zoning request was to expand an existing plant nursery operation. Currently the parcel is located in an area that is used for light agricultural uses as well as residential uses. Directly to the East is a proposed development known as Celebration point, which consist of 755 dwelling units. The area to the North, South, and West are large lot development. In the past staff has suggested that the Agricultural Residential zoning is more consistent with the current Residential Urban future land use. She went on to state that in this case it is more compatible with the development patterns in the area. She continued by stating that based on that reason previously stated staff is recommending denial of the requested AG-1 category and recommends approval for the Agricultural Residential 1 zoning. If the AR-1 zoning district is approved by the Board of County Commission a conditional use permit will be required in order to expand the plant nursery. Chairman Hearn asked if there are any questions for staff. Mr. Grande asked staff had she discussed the recommendation for a different zoning with the applicant, and have you gotten a reply to why they do not want to conform with your recommendation? Senior Planner Windy Clark responded to the previous question by stating that she had spoken to both the representative and the applicant of the request. She continued by stating that in talking to the owner it was a matter of keeping it consistent with the current zoning with their other properties in which they hold ownership, which is AG-1. Chairman Hearn asked staff whether the applicant had to have a conditional use permit if he agreed to the AR-1 zoning district. Mr. Mundt asked does the applicant live on the parcel that that is subject of the change in zoning. Chairman Hearn responds to the previous question by stating that the owner lives on the white strip on the map, between those that are being rezoned, all of which falls under common ownership for tax purposes. Chairman Hearn opens the floor to the public. Page 10 of 26 Project Manager Dennis Murphy from Culpepper and Terpening stated that he was representing the applicant -2 to AG-1 for the property listed on the Agenda Request, Item number 4 for RZ-05-026. He continued by stating that has operated in Saint Lucie County for over 30 years. around the At that time it was zoned Agriculture 1, which represents one unit to the acre. In 1984 the County did a Comprehensive Rezoning of the County, as a result there was a reclassifying of old terminology to reflect the new language that was being utilized at that time. was reclassified to AG-1. He went on to state that the applicant holds ownership to 3 contiguous lots that are adjacent to the one lot that they live on. Overall it represents a large block of land in the area. He continued by stating that all the surrounding properties all have AG-1 zonings for the current land use designation and that they are owned by independent owners. Chairman Hearn asked Mr. Murphy if he could repeat what he said for clarification purposes. Mr. Grande asks Mr. Murphy for clarifications on the old zoning classification. Project Manager Dennis Murphy responded to the previous question by stati property was previously zone AR-countywide Comprehensive rezoning was specifically rezoned in recognition of its particular Agricultural use. The adjoining properties had residential uses at that time were defined as RS-2. In addition to that there is one lot to the North that currently has some Agricultural uses occurring on it is zoned RS-2. At this time they are interested in unifying all of the parcels up under the AG-1 zoning category over the entire property. He went on to state that over time his applicant has acquired properties from adjacent neighbors and only now are they interested in defining all of the lots under one common zoning designation in order to facilitate a uniform Horticultural operation. He continued his statement by stating that he believed that his applicant is fully in compliance with Saint Lucie county Comprehensive Plan, and that they are conforming to the development standards of the Saint Lucie County Land Development Code. He summed u found that AG-1 was consistent with the RU future land use. Except for their final recommendation in standard 4. He stated that what has change is that the applicant has acquired the property and that they are interested in establishing a tree nursery in addition to their Orchid operation. It is a low impact operation that does wholesale base operation, and that he respectfully requests that the Board forward a request for AG-1 instead of AR-1 to the County Commission for approval. Chairman Hearn asked if there were any question for Mr. Murphy. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias ask how RU land use is consistent with the AG-1 category. Project Manager Dennis Murphy responded by stating that the RU land use category under the Counties Comprehensive plan terminology means Residential Urban. He continued by stating that the category allows from 0-5 units to the acre. In the Counties land use matrix it identifies those zoning districts that are compatible with that land use designation. He went on to state that AG-1 was one of the categories that are consistent with RU future land use. He went on to say that although AG-1 is at the low end of the use spectrum. It was designed for peripheral area initially however we have seen over the years some interest in having infill encroachment of an AG or AR-1 designation , a lower density designation closer to the Urban Service Boundary. Page 11 of 26 He summed up by stating that he believed that the request designation is consistent with that, given its geographic location in the County, as well as the over all boundary of the RU and that there not in violation with the Counties Comprehensive Land Use Development Plan. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias stated thank you. Chairman Hearn stated that he thought Mrs. Caron had something to say. Mrs. Caron asked Mr. Murphy could he be more specific why the applicants are against the AR-1 designation. She said that she thought that giving them an AG-1 would open up a can of words if they wanted to relocate or sell, given the fact that an individual could at their discretion, broaden the spectrum in that it allows for an open kennel, farm animals. The AR-1 zoning designation gives them more option than they have now. She went on to state that she did not think they were giving up anything and that it was more consistent with the surrounding land use with a AR-1. Project Manager Dennis Murphy responded to the previous comment by stating that farm animals can be kept under the AR-1 zoning designations either as an accessory or as a conditional type use. He continued by stating that he primary reason for the request in zoning was that they wanted a uniform designation across all of there property. He cited that the AG-1 designation was easier to manage. He then compared the similarities in the application process. When you look at the uses we believe what we are trying to do is more suitable under the AG-1 designation than it is under the AR-1 designation. He continued by stating that a request for an AR-1 Zoning designation was more convoluted and complicated than an AG-1 and that his client hope to keep the process as simple as possible. Chairman Hearn asked Mr. Murphy if the applicant lived on the property and they were granted a AR-1 designation, would they have to go through a conditional use application process? Project Manager Dennis Murphy responded that he did not think that a conditional use would be required to expand their operations. It would depend on a couple of questions that I prefer to defer to the County Attorney for comment. Mr. Mundt stated under the AR-1 zoning designation animals are not permitted. Project Murphy responded to the previous question by stating that under the AR-1 zoning having farm animals is not a permitted use. However, when you look at the option under an accessory use Agriculture Farms and Ranchettes, and when you look at the old SIC -1 codes break down, it includes the ability to maintain animals. Mr. Mundt asks if under the AR-1 designation it would be a conditional use, would they need approval from the County Commission? Project Manager Dennis Murphy responded, not as he sees it. It would be an accessory use under the zoning. Chairman Hearn stated that under that AR-1 designation, animals would have to be housed 100 feet from the property line. Page 12 of 26 Project Manager Dennis Murphy stated that there are set back requirements for certain types of animal housing activities under the AR-1 zoning district, but there is nothing with regard to the open range for the animals and they could come up to the fence line. Chairman Hearn asked Mr. Mundt, does that answer your question? Mr. Grande stated that it seems that with AR-1 you need a conditional use to move a head and with AG-1 you do not. Is that correct? Project Manager Dennis Murphy stated that is the essence of the case. Mr. Hearn stated that it was unclear whether they would need a conditional use since they live on the property. Assistant County Attorney stated that they do need a conditional use application. Project Manager Dennis Murphy stated that is why they are insistent on their request for an AG-1 rezoning. So as to avoid the Conditional Use application process. Chairman Hearn states, is there any one from the public who would like to speak for or against the application? Mr. Charles Warden stated that he lived at1245 South Jenkins Road and that his family has owned the land since 1941. He asks if anybody in attendance was familiar with Jenkins road? Do you know what is on Jenkins road? There are animals: Horse, and Cow pastures. He continues by stating that he inherited his Grandmothers estate. He lives on one side and his uncle, who has lived there for 60 years, lives on the other side. He then stated that thand they keep their property up. Mr. Pendarvis had a nursery. He then stated that he has owned his property for over 30 years and that when you walk across it, it is like walking on carpet. He summed up his statement by saying that basically he wanted the area to stay as it was. They want to protect there property and not lose what they have. They are not interested in going in putting dog kennels or anything else like that. Chairman Hearn asked the speaker where his property was located with respect to the applicants property. Mr. Warden stated that his property was North of the applicant property. He then stated he was in favor of the AG-1 zoning. He summed up his statement by saying that residence in the area were not interested in increasing the intensity of the land use. We are not asking to do something different we just want to keep it as it is. He thinks the area is nice and that they are not interested in seeing many houses coming in. He then indicated that he was in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Hearn asked if there was any one else who wanted to speak? John H Ward He then stated that his daughter lives on small lot on Jenkins road that he gave her to build her family a home. He went on to state that his family has owned its property since 1941 and that he was from a family of eleven kids,of which he, his nephew and his father purchased the property from the rest of the eleven siblings. He summed up his statement that he was in favor of the application. In addition to that he stated that he Page 13 of 26 did not want to see homes everywhere and that to his knowledge several of the surrounding properties have been rezoned to AG-1 on Jenkins road. Mr. Grande asked the speaker was he in favor of the request as applied by the applicant. Mr. the speaker responded, yes as requested by the applicant. Chairman Hearn stated, are there any other comments from the public? He then asked Mr. Murphy if he wanted to come back to sum up his comments. Project Manager Dennis Murphy summed up his comments by stating that he respectfully requested that the Board forward a recommendation of approval for the original application request for AG-1. Chairman Hearn stated are there any further questions? Mr. Grande stated, after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, which includes staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in section 11: 0603, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Saint Lucie County Board grant approval to Orchid for a change in zoning from RS-2, Residential Single Family zoning district to the AG-1 zoning district because it is consistent with the surrounding area and poses no threat to any of the existing owners. Mrs. Caron seconded. Chairman Hearn stated that it has been and second are there any further discussions? as pleased with the flowers. She then stated that she thought it was good that they were going to expand their business. She went on to state that she was concerned that some of the new developments coming into the area may one day claim that the operation was a nuisance. Chairman Hearn ask for a roll call: Mr. Mundt yes Mrs. Caron- yes Mr. Knapp- yes Mr. Trias- yes Mrs. Morgan- yes Mr. Grande- yes Mr. Hearn- yes Chairman Hearn stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commission with a recommendation for approval for the AG-1 zoning district. Page 14 of 26 Agenda Item #5 Petition-Paulette Gallo CU-05-016 Chairman Hearn ask if Mrs. Linda Pendarvis was the planner assigned to this project. is stated that Agenda item CU-05-016 is a petition by Mrs. Paulette Gallo request for a Conditional Use permit that would allow a child day care in a Commercial Neighborhood Zoning District. The Petition request is located at 5222 Winter Gardens Parkway Lakewood Park. The petitioner proposes to lease the property to Ann Prestige for the operation of a child day care facility, for approximately 40 children between the hours of 7:00AM to 6:00 PM Monday thru Friday. There will 4 to 5 full time staff and 2 part time staff. Approval of this Conditional Use permit application will allow the applicants lessee to apply for the required Zoning compliance certificate and State certification in order to operate the subjects property as a child day care facility. Staff finds that the petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Saint Lucie County Land Development Code and is s Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the committee forwards the application to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions that limit the hours of operation to 7:00AM to 6:00 PM, Monday thru Friday. Chairman Hearn stated, are there any questions of staff? Mr. Grande states that they have two communications from residence in the area. Planner Linda Pendarvis responded to the previous question by stating yes. Mr. Grande asked if the Growth Management Department received the communication before making the recommendation. Planner Linda Pendarvis stated that the communications were received late that afternoon by email. Mr. Grande asks if the communication influence her to change her recommendation. Response was no. Chairman Hearn states that if there is any question for staff. Mr. John Knapp asks whether the parcel was service by Central water and Sewer. Planner Linda Pendarvis responded to the previous question by stating no, it is on septic. Mr. Knapp responded by ask about the amount of time until the Lake Wood Park area would be service by Central Service. Chairman Hearn stated that he was under the perception that the Lakewood park area was moving forward with water. Mrs. Caron stated that in order to obtain Central Services a petition would have to go out and that there must to be so many residences in agreement for the change from septic and well. Chairman Hearn opens the meeting to the public. Page 15 of 26 Ann Prestige stated that she was there to request a Conditional Use for a day care center in Lakewood Park. She went on to state that there is a need for the service due to the number of working families in the area. She stated that she chose the location because of its practicality. The parents who are using the center will not be dumped onto a busy road, there is red light at the intersection of Winter Park Parkway and the Turnpike Feeder Road. She then continued by stating that she expects to service children ages 2-5 and some after school children. She summed up her statement by stating that the child day care center will operate between the hours of 7:00AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and that they will be closed on most major holidays. Chairman Hearn ask the previous speaker how she was connected to the application. Ann Prestige responded to the previous question by stating she will be leasing the property. Chairman Hearn asks if there was any one else who wanted to speak. Julie Orban stated she was a property owner in Lakewood Park. She continued by stating that she was concern about the day care center being there since it is a residential neighborhood. Although there is a single light the intersection of Winter Garden Parkway is a dangerous intersection if you come out from Pandora onto Winter Garden Parkway it is impossible. She went on to state that during the early morning and afternoon hours with the school buses and their various stops. She then stated she could imagine parents pulling in and out of the day care center at 7 and 8 am in the morning. She went on to state that she thought that it would be a very dangerous situation. She summed up her statement by stating that she was aware of the by-laws that do allow residence to operate a home business as long as it does not generate more traffic, and that she was interested in what the septic system capacity is concerning the number of children who will be serviced by the establishment. She then questions whether there was any type of inspection from the Board of Health before any approvals for the project are passed. Chairman Hearn asked staff could they respond to the concerns of the previous speaker. Planner Linda Pendarvis responded to the previous question by stating that the applicants would be required to obtain Certification from the State as well as pass inspection by both the Health Department and the Building Department. Chairman Hearn asks staff to respond to the concern concerning provision for off loading children off a public street onto private property where the business is going to be located. Planner Linda Pendarvis responded by stating that the applicant will have a driveway area where the children can be dropped off. Chairman Hearn asked if provisions for a driveway area can be a condition of the Conditional Use. Planner Linda Pendarvis responded by stating that the County could ask for a site plan layout that shows the driveway improvements where the children will be dropped off. Julie Orban stated that the front of the property fronts Winter Garden Parkway, which is only 100 feet from the op. She went on to state that there have been a number of accidents of people pulling out of the beauty shop. She thought that they would need a Page 16 of 26 circular driveway to drop children off. She then stated that once there was a business operating out of that location, however, they never generated any more traffic, which is what made them consistent with Lakewood Parks existing By Laws. Mrs. Caron asked for clarification on the specific road that the property fronts. She then stated that from looking at the map the property in question seem to be fronting Pandora and not Winter Garden Parkway. If that is the case, to access the property they would have to go to Pandora to drive up and drop off the kids. Chairman Hearn stated that he concurs with Mrs. Caron on the entry points for accessing the property in question. Mr. Grande stated that from looking at the map it seems to indicate a single entry point to access the driveway. He then asked, would there be accommodation to off load up to 40 children? Mrs. Orban asked if you have 20 kids coming in there between 7 am and 8am in the morning. She continued by stating she takes Winter Garden Parkway to school and that between the school buses and traffic Winter Garden Parkway is like a major highway, which makes it extremely dangerous. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias stated that the committee could make the provision for a driveway a requirement for approval for a Conditional Use Permit. He then stated that the condition would state that the site layout be designed with adequate area from Pandora Avenue to the drop off point. Mrs. Orban asked, could the conditional use be utilized for something else in the event the business shuts down? She summed up her statement by disclosing to the Committee that there is a new large day care provider opening near the Indian River County line. Chairman Hearn stated that this was a public meeting are there anyone who would like to be heard. Mrs. Paulette Gallo stated that she owned the property at 5221 Winter Garden Parkway. She then stated that her physical address was 5848 Sunberry Circle in Portofino Shores Fort Pierce. She continued by stating that she had purchased the property in hopes that some one would use the property for that specific use. There are day care centers operating now in Lakewood Park. Many people are taking there kids to private homes for day care services. There are no day care centers along the Turnpike Feeder Road, or in the vicinity of Portofino Shores, Holiday Pines, or the front part of Lakewood Park for people to take their children to for day care services. She stated she had pictures that demonstrate that there was sufficient parking that could be a drop off point on Pandora where it is not as busy as the Winter Garden Parkway. Chairman Hearn asked Mrs. Gallo to pass the pictures to Hank Flores. Mr. Grande ask Mrs. Gallo what was the square footage on the building, as well as the number of rooms, bathroom facilities where they are proposing to use as a day care center. Mrs. .Orban stated that the building was recently painted and completely renovated with improvements that included storm shutters and new kitchen facility. She went on to say that the street access is from Pandora onto the side. Page 17 of 26 There is gravel in front of the house and a privacy fence that encompasses the back portion of the property where the children will be. There is no access that would allow the children to access the road. Mrs. Caron asks Mrs. Orban is there a privacy fence to the rear of the home. She then ask if there was anything in the front near the drop off the area. She then stated that it appears that there is a double door and ask if that door would be the entry point to enter in and out of the day care center. There appears from the layout that there is lot of excess to the road. She summed up her statement by asking will there be any additional fencing? Mrs. Orban responded to the previous question by stating that there is a door that leads into a room that will be locked at all times. She then stated that she will not be running the day care center. She summed up her statement by confirming that the double door will be the entry points for accessing the day care center. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias asked for clarification on the existing drive way material. He then ask staff if the code allows for using gravel as a surface material on a Commercial property. Planner Linda Pendarvis responded by stating that the property will need to be brought up to Code, which requires an all weather surface materials. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias ask if there were any requirements for landscaping associated with the parking area. He then asked if that was a part of the application process that the property will be brought up to Code. Planner Linda Pendarvis responded to the previous question by stating that landscaping requirements would be a part of the Zoning Compliance Application. Mrs. Kathryn Hensley stated that the Center will be inspected by the Health Department, as well as the Department of Children and Families, and they will make sure of the safety of the children. She went on to state that this application was the starting point for a lot of different hoops they will have to jump through. Chairman Hearn ask if the application is recommended for approval and does get approved are there any type of requirements to buffer Commercial properties from Residential properties with a wall or a fence. Planner Linda Pendarvis asked for clarification on which residential homes that would require buffering from the proposed Day Care Center. Chairman Hearn responded by stating the RM-5 to the Northwest of the proposed Day Care Center. Planner Linda Pendarvis responded to the previous question by stating that there are no requirements to mandate that they put fencing in front of the property. Chairman Hearn responded to the previous answer by stating that he thought that a wall or a fence was required to buffer the two land uses from each other, which include the street. Page 18 of 26 Planner Linda Pendarvis responded to the previous statement by stating that the Landscaping requirements will give them screening from the right away. Chairman Hearn asked Hank Flores to comment on the question asked of staff. Senior Planner Hank Flores stated that he was not sure if there is a requirement due to the intervening street. Although it could be included as a condition of the Conditional Use application. Vice Chair Ramon Trias stated that he recall from a previous discussion that the requirement was not a good idea to have walls along a street. He went on to state that the landscaping requirements sound like a good solution. Chairman Hearn responded that he was more concern about the safety of the children rather than the aesthetics of what it look like from across the street with proper landscaping. Chairman Hearn ask if any one else want to speak? Mrs. Darlene Koons stated that she was a property owner in Lakewood Park and that she has friends that live on Liberty Way, which is the Trailer Court to the left off of the Feeder Road after you turn onto Winter Gardens Parkway. She travels along the Feeder Road to visit her friends and that due to She has to travel down to Fort Pierce Boulevard because it is impossible to go there early in the morning. She then stated that she picks up people to take to Lakewood park to visit the art gallery. She summed up by stating that the traffic is so bad that she is afraid she will be hit from behind by the traffic. She thought it would be very unsafe because there already been a lot of accidents with deaths at that intersection. Chairman Hearn closed the floor to the public, and returned to the Board for discussions for a motion. Mr. Mundt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing including staff comments as provided for by the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the Saint Lucie Land Development Code, I hear by move that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application for Paulette Gallo to allow for a Child Day Care Facility in the CN Commercial Neighborhood zoning district because the proposed facility is compatible with zoning and the needs of the community. Mrs. Caron stated she would second the move if we add the language that requires an adequate driveway for pick up and drop off points. She then asked staff if the Health Department and Division of Children and Family would be a part of making sure there is adequate drop off and pick up points. Mrs. Hensley stated that the State has various restrictive guide Mr. Grande stated he was concern that the location was not appropriate for the proposed use and that with out seeing a layout of the site that demonstrates a workable plan he would not be able to support the application. Chairman Hearn stated he was concerned with the size of the property and the safety issues with regards to Winter Garden Parkway as a result he could not support the application. Page 19 of 26 Mrs. Caron stated that she echo both of there concerns as well as safety issues with regards to the water and septic capacity. She then stated she thought it was a dangerous situation as a result she could not support the application. Chairman Hearn asked for roll call: Mr. Knapp yes Mr. Trias- yes Mr. Grande- No Mrs. Morgan- yes Mr. Mundt- yes Mrs. Caron- No Mr. Hearn- No Chairman Hearn stated that the application will be sent to the Board for approval. Page 20 of 26 Agenda item # 6 Barbara Smith RZ-05-028 Staff Planner Andrew Riddle stated that the application is a request by Barbara Smith for a change in Zoning from Commercial to Industrial Light for the property located at 5100 Saint Lucie Boulevard Fort Pierce. The surrounding Zoning is RM-5 to the North and to the West, Industrial Light to the East and South. He then stated that the indicated purpose for the Zoning request is to allow for a potential buyer to build a construction service for swimming pool construction material at a future date. He went on to state that the subject property is in an area designated by the Comprehensive plan as being compatible with the Industrial Light Zoning District. Staff has reviewed the petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He then stated that staff is recommending a rezoning to a Planned Nonresidential Development Zoning District. He then stated that a rezoning to a PNRD would allow the use of the property for the construction service with out allowing other uses that may not be compatible with the surrounding area. Chairman Hearn asked if there were any question. Mr. Grande asked staff if he had discussed his recommendation with the applicant? Did the applicant give you an indication why they did not favor a PNRD. Staff Planner Andrew Riddle stated that he had spoken to the applicant, the applicant has a potential buyer. Chairman Hearn asked if there were any other comments. He then stated that he shared staffs concerns that they wanted to see the least amount of impact to the surrounding properties while at the same time give the applicant what he is looking for. He then stated a straight rezoning w give us that. Mr. Mundt stated he was also concerned and he agreed with staff recommendations. In addition, he stated that once an Industrial Light designation is granted the Committee would have no control. He added that a PNRD would insure that they are aware of what is going in there. He added that something other than what is proposed could go in there. Mr. Hearn stated that although the residences to the North of the property are Mobile homes residents, he respected the fact that they are homes to the people living there. He summed up his statement by stating that a PNRD would give the Committee the power to control what is allow in there. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias stated that a small part of the area has a future land use MXD Zoning designation. What was the background that went into defining it to a MXD Future Land Use in that area? He went on to state that we are looking at some different uses of residential with industrial right next to it with a future land use of MXD. He stated he wanted to know what their feelings were if they are proposing to change the land use so drastically. Staff Planning Manager Hank Flores stated that the MXD allows for the conversion to Commercial or Industrial type uses. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias stated that t. He then stated that he wanted to know what the future plans are for the area. Why is there a MXD use there? Page 21 of 26 Staff Senior Planner Hank Flores stated that the future look at that area was to have Commercial and Industrial type uses. That is why the made MXD airport with the possibility if you were to rezone to Commercial General or Industrial type uses. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias asks if there was any other staff member that could answer his question. County Attorney Heather Young stated that given the adjacency to the Western edge of the airport. The ideal was that it, a MXD airport, was appropriate because any new development would be related to the airport or given the nature of the operation occurring there it would be more suitable for a MXD designation. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias ask if she thought the request was consistent with that explanation. County Attorney Heather Young responded by stating yes that the use was classify under a permitted use. She then stated that s given case. She then added that Industrial Light goes along with Mix Use close to the airport. Chairman Hearn stated that it was his opinion when changing zoning that adjacent to people homes, we should never consider a straight zoning change. He then added that it should be a PUD of some kind to provide some protection for the homes of the people who live there. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias stated that his concern was that there is a request. No one can tell me if the change makes sense. He then added that we have a MXD designation that is quite ambitious and Mr. Grande stated that we should listen to the applicant before they discuss the petition among the Committee Members. Chairman Hearn states that the Board can hear from the applicant. Barbara Smith stated that her mailing address was 5100 Saint Lucie Boulevard. She then stated that she had lived there for 32 years and that it was a beautiful place to raise her family before the two hurricanes destroyed her property. She went on to state that the property was up for sale because it was too large for them to maintain it. The people who have shown an interest in purchasing the property want it to build swimming pools and that they will be bringing in tractor and trailers to move there product. Chairman Hearn ask the applicant, does she live on the property, had she discussed with the buyer the use of a PNRD to accommodate what they want to do. Mrs. Barbara Smith stated that yes she had discussed the zoning with the buyer and that is why they specifically requested a place be created storage for swimming pool materials. Chairman Hearn asked if the person with her is the potential Buyer of her property? Ms. Patricia Bennett stated that she is a realtor with Allen Realty and that she represented the applicant. She then stated the applicant neglected to disclose that she has applied with FEMA and Page 22 of 26 local Banks to get the money to fund placing a home on the property. She stated that it did not work out with FEMA because they wanted to replace it with a mobile home. The Bank denied her because the did not want to approve a Commercial loan on a Residential piece of property. She summed up by stating the applicant really needed the sale to go through in order to move on and get another home. Chairman Hearn asked if the potential Buyer present. Ms. Patricia Bennett stated no, however, there was a representative of the Buyer in attendance who could explain how there plans can conform to commercial property regulations. Daniel Beckman stated that she work with Caldwell Bankers Commercial in Vero Beach. She then stated she was there on behalf of the potential buyers of the property. She then stated that she had done some research on the feasibility of changing the current zoning to Industrial Light. She stated her clients signed a contract that is contingent on the change in zoning. Mr. Grande asked staff if he had fully explain to the applicant the full advantage of a PNRD for there application. Staff Planner Andrew Riddles stated that he spoke to the property owner. He then stated that she felt because it was under contract. He then stated in order to have a PNRD they would have to submit a site plan and go through the process with from that approach. Mr. Grande asked staff what would be the disadvantage of that approach, other than a little time spent for there investment? I believe there has been a failure to communicate. This application would have a better chance if the applicant had submitted based on what staff recommended to the Committee. He then stated if enough communication has occurred between the applicant and staff to have the application submitted at all. Chairman Hearn stated that he recalls an application about two years ago that was similar, and that they were considering what was appropriate for adjacent Land uses. He went on to state that the application ultimately was approved by a close vote. Although it passed, it made the Committee begin thinking about what uses are appropriate to be next to each other. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias stated if the property was not properly zoned, why did the applicant think that it was appropriate for what they wanted to do? Ms. Patricia Bennett responded that its proximity to major transportation systems. Vice Chair Ramon Trias asked if she thought that any of the properties were properly zoned? Ms. Patricia Bennett responded, not like this one! Vice Chairman Ramon Trias asks the applicant to clarify her statement. Ms. Bennett stated that the search for property began with searching for a building over 5000 sf. She then stated a potential Buyer is forced to purchase land that can be zoned properly. She stated they look at the Comprehensive Plan in Saint Lucie County and discover this area. She stated she inquired about the future Land Use and felt it would be appropriate. She summed up that there Page 23 of 26 specific use is a permitted use allow under the Industrial Light designation. She then stated that she was told by Mr. Harris that the County had plans to develop a larger Industrial Park to the South of their lot. The lot to the East is already Zoned Industrial Light, however, they have not done anything with their property. She stated that the applicant is aware of a commercial lot next to a residential family. The future buyers are aware that they must be sensitive to existing resident living there, that is why they are looking at their building orientation so that it would not negatively impact the area mobile home residents. Mr. Mundt asked Ms. Bennett, had she discussed a PNRD with the Buyer? He went on to explain that designating a straight Industrial Light zoning would open the area to land uses other than what the applicant is requesting. By taking the PNRD approach both the County and adjacent landowners can anticipate the land use since it must be submitted along with a site plan application. The site plan can be adjusted to accommodate the adjacent landowner. Mr. Grande ask if the PNRD approach, that requires a site plan is acceptable to the applicants. He then stated that a PNRD approach would be flexible on the specific requirements with regards tolot size and dimension specification. It would allow the County to maintain oversight on what land use is occurring on the site, whereas IL will be fixed once it is in place. It is a good safety net for the County and the neighbors all the way around Ms. Bennett stated that she was speaking on behalf of the applicant and that she had no problem with recommendation. Mr. Hearn stated, when there is no communication between the applicant and staff, the applicant is obligated to contact staff to find out where they are coming from. He went on to state that due to the number of Development Applications, staff is inundated. He went on to state, had the property adjacent to this site been vacant he would be more inclined to approve the application. He then stated that the residents that live next to the site in question have lived there for over 40 years. Despite there absence in the audience, they are very concerned about what is there. He then asked whether the entire site be develop. Mr. Mundt asked, if the buyer was entertaining leasing out rental units. Ms. Bennett stated that they did have plans to lease out a small percentage of the site. Mr. Mundt stated that he was concern with the miscommunication between the applicant and staff. He thought that there should have been more communication. Staff Planner Andrew Riddle stated in response to the previous question that he had spoken to the applicant and that he was told that she had a family emergency and was unavailable at that time. Mrs. Hensley asked staff if the applicant gets the same information package that the Committee members get? If it is not, we can address that by making sure that they get the same information. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias states that it is clear that they are interest in developing an Industrial Park. The buyer has disclosed that they want multiple tenants. He summed up his statement by saying that he would need a PNRD at the minimum to begin review the application to decide if it feasible to him. Page 24 of 26 Mr. Grande asked staff if it was normal for the P/Z Committee to approve a PNRD without a site plan? Assistant Planning Director Gilbert Backenstoss stated that they recommended it go to a PNRD, which will trigger a master plan at that time the applicant will have the option of preparing a master plan between now and when it went before the Board, or they can request a delay. Mr. Grande ask for clarification whether the item before them would bypass the P/Z Committee with by utilizing the PNRD approach. Assistant Planning Director Gilbert Backenstoss stated that the application could be continued and come back at another time. been received. She went on to sty that it appears that the applicant has come with a request that really should have not been requested. She recommended that the applicant withdraw, or come back if they agreed and apply for a PNRD, and then the P/Z could move forward with the application. It should not hold you up for to long. Chairman Hearn asked if the applicant and everyone concern is in agreement to continue the item and come back next month. Ms. Bennet stated that she was not sure if that is what they want. She went on to state that she did not know if they were ready to build. Vice Chairman Ramon Trias stated that he moved that the item be continued and come back later next month. Chairman Hearn asked if there was any further comment from the public. Assistant County Attorney Heather Young stated that if the applicant wanted to do a PNRD they need to go through that process which will include staff review and the submission of a site plan. She went on to state that it would require some time for them to adequately prepare for the requirements of the application. That if they are interested in moving forward with what they really would like to do is begin that process and work closely with the County staff. Mr. Mundt stated that he agree with the previous recommendation. He then ask the applicant if she clearly understood her options of discontinuing the item so that she could come back at a later time, or that if she insisted on proceeding with her application as is, the Committee will be obligated to make a decision based on the application that is presented at that time. He then stated, in that case, the Committee would have to say no to the request for a change in zoning from Commercial to Industrial Light. Barbara Smith states that she will redraw the application. Mr. Grande states that staff makes an effort to keep in touch with the applicant. Page 25 of 26 Chairman Hearn asked the County Attorney whether they needed to do anything to officially acknowledge the applicants withdraw of the application. The answer was no. Mr. Knapp ask if a new Planning Director been hired? Assistant County Attorney stated yes. Assistant Planning Director acknowledge that the County Hired Robert Nix. He went on to state that he is from the City of Deltona and has functioned in the capacity of Planning and Growth Management Director. He summed up his statement that the department was still understaffed and that the Department looks forward to Mr. Nix joining the department to assist with the pressure of the enormous growth coming to St. Lucie County. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 PM Respectfully submitted : Approved By: ____________________________ ____________________________ Page 26 of 26