HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-20-2006
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 July 20, 2006
5 6:00 P.M.
6
7 (A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file
8 along with these minutes as part of the record).
9
AGENDA
10
11
MEMBERS PRESENT
12
13 Chairman, Bill Hearn
14 Vice Chairman, Ramon Trias
15 Pamela Hammer
16 Craig Mundt
17 Susan Caron
18 Charles Grande
19 Stephanie Morgan
20 Edward Lounds
21 Kathryn Hensley
22
MEMBERS ABSENT
23
24 John Knapp
25
OTHERS PRESENT
26
27 Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney
28 Gilbert Backenstoss, Assistant Growth Management Department Director
29 Linda Pendarvis, Planner
30 Robert Nix, Growth Management Department Director
31 Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner
32 David Kelly, Planning Manager
33
CALL TO ORDER
34
35 Chairman Hearn called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
36 Commission and Local Planning Agency at 6:00 PM
37
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
38
39
ROLL CALL
40
41 Mr. Backenstoss called roll and all members were present except for Mr. Knapp.
42
ANNOUNCEMENTS
43
44 No announcements were made.
45
46
1
DISCLOSURES
1
2 Chairman Hearn asked Board members if there were any disclosures to be made. Mr.
3 Hearn advised that he spoke with one of the neighbors on the Carbara L.P. application.
4 No other disclosures at this time.
5
6 Mr. Backenstoss advised the Board members that any correspondence relating to any of
7 received by his office were copied and provided to each of
8 the Board members.
9
AGENDA ITEM 1: DCA Workshop
10
11 Mr. Bob Nix, Growth Management Department Director advised that Mr. Roger Wilburn
12 from the Department of Community Affairs will give a briefing on the new State law
13 requirements for concurrency management and Capital Improvement Programs and new
14 deadlines for products due to the State.
15
16
17 presentation ready. At that, Ms. Hammer suggested that the Board continue with Agenda
18 Item 2.
19
AGENDA ITEM 2: Minutes from the June 15, 2006 Regular Meeting
20
21 Mr. Lounds motioned to approve the minutes; Mr. Grande seconded.
22
23 Mrs. Hammer questioned Page 4 Line 9 did the City of Ft. Pierce really recommend that
24 project? Mr. Hearn stated that he believed they did not make an official
25 recommendation. Discussions continued.
26
27 Mr. Hearn requested that staff look into that before the final draft is made.
28
29 Mr. Hearn also questioned page 7 lines 35-37; he questioned whether the Board was
30 comfortable that there is no discussion of the racial remarks made that night. The Board
31 members agreed that the Minutes are not the place to handle that matter.
32
33 Mr. Hearn also pointed out that on Page 7, Lines 23 and 24 where Metzger Avenue and
34 Angle Avenue are referred to, it should be changed to Road. Staff agreed.
35
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37
AGENDA ITEM 3: Minutes from the June 29, 2006
38
39 Mr. Hearn acknowledged that the minutes were not available from the June 29, 2006
40 meeting. No action taken.
41
AGENDA ITEM 1: DCA Workshop
42 The Board returned to
43
44 Mr. Roger Wilburn, Regional Administrator with the Department of Community Affairs
45 introduced himself.
46
2
1 Mr. Wilburn gave an update on the capital improvement program changes that have
2 occurred recently in the statutes and what DCA is looking for.
3
4 Some of the points discussed by Mr. Wilburn are as follows:
5 Capital Improvement planning is an inter-related process between the future land use
6 plan, the future land use map, the future land use element and the capital improvement
7 element, the capital improvement schedule and financial feasibility.
8
9 Capital improvement planning must be based, but not conditioned on, the availability of
10 public services such as water, sewer, transportation, drainage, solid waste, parks and
11 recreation and schools. These items need to have an adopted level of service.
12
13 Financial feasibility of the comprehensive plan is very important. Local agencies must
14 show that adequate financial resources are, or will be available, over the next five years,
15 and for the long term, to ensure adopted level of service standards will be achieved and
16 maintained on all public facilities. It is the responsibility of local governments to ensure
17 financial feasibility of the comprehensive plan.
18
19 Mr. Wilburn went over briefly the steps of the planning process, such as projected
20 growth, established level of service standards for infrastructure and identifying
21 infrastructure deficiencies.
22
23 Mr. Wilburn also went over briefly the Capital Improvements Element and the Capital
24 Improvements Schedule, to wit: covering a five-year period and updating the schedule
25 by December 1, 2007 and thereafter by December 1 of each year. One important item
26 was that failure to update the plan by the December 1 deadline will prevent local
27 government from amending their future land use map.
28
29 Mr. Grande commented that it was his opinion that the applicant of future land use
30 changes will ultimately be the one punished if local governments fail to make the
31 December 1 deadline. Mr. Wilburn confirmed it is the obligation of local governments to
32 meet these deadlines.
33
34 Mr. Wilburn pointed out that beginning in 2008 a five-year financially feasible public
35 school capital facilities program will be required.
36
37 Ms. Hensley spoke briefly about the public school capital facilities program and the fact
38 that the School Board is anticipating having it done ahead of schedule. They have hired a
39 concurrency expert who will start pulling all the information together.
40
41 Some other points discussed by Mr. Wilburn were:
42 The 7-Year Evaluation Appraisal Report update, projected new growth and updating the
43 element Capital Improvement Element to reflect long term plans.
44
3
1 To demonstrate financial feasibility the new statute has changed in that there must be
2 funds committed to pay for what local governments are planning to do through the five
3 year planning period.
4
5 Proportionate fair share mitigation can be used for transportation and schools. By
6 December 1, 2006 local governments must adopt a methodology for assessing
7 transportation fair share. A model ordinance has been prepared by FDOT which can be
8 modifie Proportionate fair share can only be accepted
9 for something that is in the five year schedule of improvements.
10
11 Mr. Hearn asked for a brief history of how these changes came about. Mr. Wilburn
12 explained that over time capital improvement schedules have not been completed by
13 approximately 80% of local governments. Mr. Wilburn explained that one of the
14 strong beliefs is that local governments need to pay for their growth.
15
16 Mr. Hearn asked if anyone in the audience had any questions. Mr. Larry Storms
17 questioned financial feasibility. How do project revenues from impact fees fit into the
18 plan? Mr. Wilburn explained that they would be considered committed funds.
19
20 Mr. Nix discussed briefly the proportionate fair share tool and when can it be applied?
21 Mr. Wilburn explained that basically in years 3-5.
22
AGENDA ITEM 4: Apostle Faith Church of Deliverance, Inc.
23
24 Presented by Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner. This is a petition for a change in zoning
25 from the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/ac) Zoning District to the RF
26 (Religious Facilities) Zoning District. Ms. Pendarvis explained that this parcel is located
rd
27 on the south side of Avenue O, approximately 175 feet west of 43 Street and the
28 purpose of the rezoning is for the property to be included in the overall existing church
29 site and possibly allow for future development of the subject property for a child day-care
30 facility. Ms. Pendarvis went on to state that staff recommends that this Board forward a
31 recommendation of approval to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners.
32
33 Reverend Isaac Miller, Pastor of Apostle Faith Church of Deliverance and his wife,
34 Gracie Miller introduced themselves to the Board and were available to answer any
35 questions the Board may have had.
36
37 Mr. Grande asked for an explanation of lots 1 and 4 and whether or not they are privately
38 owned. Ms. Pendarvis explained that those lots are private residences and two separate
39 parcels.
40
41 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. There was no public comment on this item.
42
43 Mrs. Hammer questioned the aerial map displayed and asked for some clarification as to
44 what parcels were in question. Pastor and Mrs. Miller explained.
45
4
1 Mr. Grande moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St.
2 Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of
3 Apostle Faith Church of Deliverance, Inc. for a change in zoning from RS-4 to RF
4 because it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with the
5 surrounding community.
6
7 Ms. Morgan seconded the motion.
8
9 Roll Call
10 Mr. Grande Yes
11 Ms. Morgan Yes
12 Mr. Mundt Yes
13 Mr. Lounds Yes
14 Ms. Hammer Yes
15 Ms. Caron Yes
16 Vice Chairman Trias Yes
17 Chairman Hearn Yes
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
AGENDA ITEM 5: S&H Business, Inc.
21
22 Presented by Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner. This is a request for a change in zoning
23 from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/ac) Zoning District to the RS-2
24 (Residential, Single Family 2 du/ac) Zoning District. Mr. Szynkowski distributed a
25 letter expressing concerns from a neighboring resident that he received on this
26 application. Mr. Szynkowski went on to state that staff recommends that this Board
27 forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
28
29 Mr. Szynkowski gave a brief explanation of this application and noted that it was located
30 at the northeast corner of Tilton Road and Silver Oak Drive. The intent is to provide a
31 single-family dwelling. He gave a brief explanation of the surrounding zoning.
32
33 Ms. Hammer asked questions
34 Szynkowski acknowledged that those items referenced by Ms. Hammer are typographical
35 errors.
36
37 Mr. Mundt questioned the density issues of the surrounding area. He also wanted
38 clarification of whether or not utilities were available in this area. Mr. Szynkowski
39 explained that right now it is well and septic, but utilities may be available in the future.
40
41 Mr. Trias had concerns over the increase in density with this single-use project. He went
42 on to question, with reference to the presentation by DCA earlier this evening, with the
43 emphasis placed on concurrency for projects, why the County would make a
44 cy for the
45 project. Mr. Nix explained that concurrency management does not apply to rezonings;
46 and as of now there is no project. It is simply a rezoning. Discussions ensued.
5
1
2 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
3
4 Mr. Don Bergman, representing the owners of this property, spoke briefly. He stated that
5 it was his understanding that the owners were going to proceed with single-family
6 development on the subject property.
7
8 The following people from the public spoke in opposition of this application:
9 Mr. Wally Saitta, Mr. Bob Baum, Ms. Michelle Smith, Ms. Kathleen Baum, Mr. Eddie
10 Smidtsrod, Ms. Marie DeAngelis. Each expressed their concerns that this area is
11 basically an equestrian area with one unit per acre and this is an application to allow
12 increased density.
13
14 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing. Ms. Caron expressed her opinion that because this
15 is a large-acreage area this application would disrupt the quality of life of the people
16 living in this area.
17
18 Mr. Trias moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie
19 County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of S&H Business, Inc. for
20 a change in zoning from the AR-1 Zoning District to the RS-2 Zoning District because it
21 is incompatible with the neighborhood.
22
23 Mr. Grande seconded the motion.
24
25 Roll Call
26 Vice Chairman Trias Yes to deny
27 Mr. Grande Yes to deny
28 Mr. Mundt - Yes to deny
29 Ms. Morgan Yes to deny
30 Mr. Lounds Yes to deny
31 Ms. Hammer - Yes to deny
32 Ms. Caron - Yes to deny
33 Chairman Hearn - Yes to deny
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 The Board took a break at 8:00pm and reconvened at 8:19pm.
38
AGENDA ITEM 6: Grace Baptist Church
39
40 Presented by Larry Szynkowski, this is a petition for a zoning change from the AR-1
41 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/ac) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities)
th
42 Zoning District. Mr. Szynkowski explained that this parcel is located at 4695 S. 25
43 Street on the west side approximately 680 feet south of Devine Road. The proposed use
44 is a church; there are no accessory or conditional uses proposed at this time. Mr.
45 Szynkowski gave a brief explanation of the zoning and uses of the surrounding area and
6
1 stated that staff recommends forwarding the petition to the Board of County
2 Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
3
4 Mr. Hearn and Mr. Grande questioned whether the lot isolated to the west is land-locked.
th
5 Mr. Szynkowski explained that there is an easement (from 25 Street) to that lot.
6
7 Ms. Caron questioned whether there is commercial surrounding this parcel. Mr.
8 Szynkowski explained that there is quite a bit of commercial in that area.
9
10 Mr. Eric Grimsly, as representative of the Church and Reverend William Richardson
11 introduced themselves and were available to answer questions from the Board.
12
13 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
14
15 Mr. John Ferrick spoke that he has no problems with the church; but would like to see
16 turn lanes and something done in the future that would alleviate the traffic conditions that
17 will be created as a result of the three churches in this small area. Mr. Mundt requested
18 that Mr. Ferrick put a letter together to the Board of County Commissioners on some of
19 his ideas on road cuts, etc.
20
21 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
22
23 Mr. Grande motioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St.
24 Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Grace
25 Baptist Church for a rezoning from AR-1 to RF because it is consistent with the future
26 plans of the area and consistent with the area currently.
27
28 Mr. Mundt seconded the motion.
29
30 Roll Call
31 Mr. Grande Yes
32 Mr. Mundt Yes
33 Ms. Morgan Yes
34 Mr. Lounds Yes
35 Ms. Hammer Yes
36 Ms. Caron Yes
37 Vice Chairman Trias Yes
38 Chairman Hearn Yes
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 Ms. Hammer made a second motion recommending that the St. Lucie County Board
43 County Commissioners review the letter Mr. Ferrick will be addressing to them on the
44 issue of the traffic and roads related to this application.
45
46 Mr. Lounds seconded.
7
1
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3
4 The Board convened as the Local Planning Agency.
5
6 Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney briefed the board. She explained that this is
7 part of the Comp. Plan Amendment Schedule. She recommends having one
8 comprehensive public hearing to cover all three applications. She recommends that the
9 Board open the public hearing, allowing staff to make their presentation and
10 recommendation, having members of the public address the Board and having the Board
11 act on each application individually.
12
13 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing on CPA 02-2006.
14
AGENDA ITEM 9: Grande Beach North Hutchinson Island, LLC
15
Large Scale Plan Amendment
16
17 This is a petition of Grande Beach North Hutchinson Island, LLC for a change in the
18 Future Land Use Designation from COM (Commercial) to MXD (Mixed Use
19 Development Medium Density).
20 The Board of County Commissioners has asked that this item not be heard by the
21 planning and zoning commission until such time as the previous small scale amendment
22 is officially repealed.
23
24 There was no applicant presentation. There was no public comment.
25
26 Mr. Trias moved to continue this item to the August 17, 2006 Planning & Zoning
27 Commission meeting at 6pm, or as soon there after as possible.
28
29 Ms. Morgan seconded the motion.
30
31 Ms. Hammer advised the Board that she would probably not be at the August meeting.
32
33 Roll Call
34 Vice Chairman Trias Yes
35 Ms. Caron Yes
36 Ms. Morgan Yes
37 Mr. Mundt Yes
38 Mr. Lounds Yes
39 Ms. Hammer Yes
40 Mr. Grande Yes
41 Chairman Hearn Yes
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
AGENDA ITEM 7: St. Lucie County Board Of County Commissioners
45
Large Scale Plan Amendment
46
8
1 This is a petition of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to modify the
2 St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.7, specifically Objective 2.7.1, to
3 recognize the August 2002 adoption of the updated Airport Master Plan to find the
4 adopted Airport Master Plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and to incorporate
5 the adopted Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan by reference.
6
7 Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager gave a brief presentation of this item to the Board.
8 He explained that, upon approval, the Airport Master Plan would be adopted as a Sub-
9
10
11 Mr. Grande questioned some missing pages from his packet. Mr. Kelly stated that he
12 would provide the missing pages 7.1 through 7.10 to all the Board members.
13
14 Mr. Grande questioned whether or not additional land is needed for the runway. Ms.
15 Diana Lewis, Airport Director, confirmed that land acquisition has been finished and no
16 more is needed.
17
18 There was no public comment on this item.
19
20 Mr. Grande moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the St.
21 Lucie County Board of County Commissioners transmit the amendment to the
22 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons stated by staff in their
23 recommendation.
24
25 Mr. Trias seconded. Ms. Hammer opposed.
26
27 Motion carried 7-1 with Ms. Hammer dissenting. Ms. Hammer explained that she was
28 told the Board would not be voting on this document, and therefore did not read it and
29
30
AGENDA ITEM 8: Carbara L.P. Large Scale Plan Amendment
31
32 This is a petition for a change in Future Land Use Designation from AG-5 (Agricultural -
33 5, Maximum 1 du/5 acres) to RE (Residential Estate - Maximum 1 du/acre). Mr.
34 Szynkowski reviewed the application stating that the property is located on the west side
35 of FFA Frontage Road, west of the Florida Turnpike. The proposed use is a single-
36 family planned unit development of 62 units. Mr. Szynkowski gave a brief review of the
37 surrounding zoning and uses and stated that staff recommends that this petition be
38 forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that the
39 petition for Future Land Use change be adopted as a Large Scale Development
40 Amendment.
41
42 Mr. Hearn acknowledged receipt of the two letters received in opposition to this proposed
43 project.
44
45 The Board and staff (Mr. David Kelly was also involved in the discussions) had various
46 discussions ranging from the secondary urban service boundary, mixed-use, well and
9
1 septic use for a project that is increasing density, future utility annexation, the Housing
2 Element (sprawl rather than workforce housing as reflected in the staff report on page 7),
3 and the Transportation Element (as reflected in the staff report on page 6).
4
5 Mr. Trias mentioned that he does not see enough analysis to prove the consistency of the
6 policy mentioned. He feels there is not enough mixed-use in this project.
7
8 There was an extensive discussion on water/sewer and the possible high water table.
9
10 Mr. Hearn commented that he feels this is the County giving away density without
11 having any direct benefit (like preserving density in other areas of the County).
12
13 The Board took a short break at 9:35 pm and reconvened at 9:50 pm.
14
15 Mr. Hearn invited public comment.
16
17 Mark Mathes, representing the applicant, spoke briefly about what he feels will be
18 benefits to the County, such as horse riding trails and a public park that will be donated to
19 the County.
20
21 Anthony Gettler, Esq., representing the applicant, also spoke briefly. He made mention
22 of the fact that the developer will be paving and making infrastructure improvements to a
23 one-mile portion of FFA Road.
24
25 The following residents spoke in favor of the application (although most expressed
26 concerns with cars and trucks traveling at high speed and felt traffic calming mechanisms
27 would be needed): Mr. Ron Chumchal, Ms. Beth Yarborough, Mr. Rodney Nieves, Ms.
28 Kym Payton, Ms. Barbara Horger and Mr. Bob Goldstein.
29
30 Ms. Pam Stephenson spoke in opposition of the project. She feels it is not consistent with
31 the current 1 unit per 5 acres.
32
33 Mr. Jesus Cardenas spoke of the concern he has with regard to access to his property. He
34 has an easement running north to south through his property which would provide access
35 to his lot. According to the site plan, access to his property would no longer be available
36 because of the proposed horse trail. Mr. Cardenas also stated that he was not contacted
37 by the developer. Mr. Gettler was not aware of an easement through that property, but
38 would certainly work through any potential issues with Mr. Cardenas.
39
40
41 increase in development west of the Turnpike. Further discussions among the Board
42 members and staff ensued.
43
44 Ms. Hammer expressed her concerns with this application and stated she cannot support
45 it. She feels the land west of the Turnpike should be left as it is.
46
10
1 Mr. Lounds motioned that the Local Planning Agency recommend that the St. Lucie
2 County Board of County Commissioners deny the adoption of the petition of Carbara
3 L.P. for a future land use change from AG-5 to RE because the timing is not right, it is
4 adding density to an area that does not need it at this time and it would be opening the
5 door for future land use west of the Turnpike.
6
7 Ms. Caron seconded.
8
9 Roll Call
10 Mr. Lounds Yes to deny
11 Ms. Caron Yes to deny
12 Mr. Mundt Yes to deny
13 Ms. Morgan No
14 Ms. Hammer Yes to deny
15 Mr. Grande No
16 Vice Chairman Trias - No
17 Chairman Hearn Yes to deny
18
19 Motion carried 5-3 with Ms. Morgan, Mr. Grande and Mr. Trias dissenting.
20
21 At the request of Mr. Nix, Mr. Hearn announced that the Board is continuing amendment
22 cycle CPA 02-2006 to August 17, 2006 at 6pm.
23
OTHER BUSINESS
24
25
26
27 meeting. Staff took that request under advisement.
28
29
30 accusing some of the public speakers of racism. Mr. Grande would like the Board
31 members to review the tape carefully. Only if there is agreement among all Board
32 members, Mr. Grande feels the Board should consider filing a complaint with the Florida
33 Bar Association. Mr. Grande stated that he does not want to see this type of conduct in
34 these meetings again. Mr. Nix agreed that he would have tapes made available to the
35 Board for them to review.
36
37 Ms. Caron questioned the difference between Small Scale Plan Amendments and Large
38 Scale Plan Amendments. Mr. Nix explained that Small Scale Plan Amendments are
39 future land use map amendments on properties of 10 acres or less; only 100 acres in
40 Small Scale Plan Amendments are permitted per calendar year and a residential Small
41 Scale Plan A
42
43 Ms. Hammer requested an informal workshop be scheduled for a more detailed review of
44
45
ADJOURN
46
11
1
2 The meeting was adjourned at 11:27 pm.
3
12