HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-21-2006
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 September 21, 2006 Regular Meeting
5 6:00 P.M.
6
7
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with these minutes as part of the record.
8
AGENDA
9
10
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
11
12
CALL TO ORDER
13
14 Chairman Hearn called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
15
ROLL CALL
16
17 Present:
18 William Hearn .......................Chairman
19 Ramon Trias ...........................Vice Chairman
20 Craig Mundt ...........................Board Member
21 Susan Caron ..........................Board Member
22 Charles Grande ......................Board Member
23 Edward Lounds ......................Board Member
24
25 Mr. Lounds arrived at 6:40 p.m.
26
MEMBERS ABSENT
27
28 John Knapp, Stephanie Morgan, Pamela Hammer and Kathryn Hensley.
29
OTHERS PRESENT
30
31 Robert Nix, ............................Growth Management Department Director
32 Gilbert Backenstoss ...............Asst.Growth Management Depart. Director
33 Heather Young .......................Assistant County Attorney III
34 Heather Lueke ........................Assistant County Attorney II
35 David Kelly ............................Planning Manager
36 Hank Flores ............................Planning Manager
37
ANNOUNCEMENTS
38
39 Mr. Nix announced that staff is requesting that Agenda Item 5 (Ordinance No. 06-048) be
40 continued to the October 19, 2006 meeting. Mr. Nix stated, though, that he would like to
41 make a brief presentation. Also, staff is requesting that Agenda Item 8 (P280 Land, LLC)
42 be continued to t
43 present and would like to address the Board tonight.
44
DISCLOSURES
45
46 Chairman Hearn disclosed that he had conversations with one person relative to Agenda
47 Item 5, which is one of the items being continued.
1
1 Ms. Young acknowledged that the Memorandum of Voting Conflict was completed by
2
3 Young read briefly into the record the explanation given for the conflict of interest.
4
5 Mr. Hearn requested that staff provide to the Planning and Zoning Board, the outcome of
6 the Board of County Commissioners meetings with respect to items this board has heard
7 and has made recommendations on.
8
AGENDA ITEM 1: Minutes
9
10 Minutes from the August 17, 2006, regular meeting.
11
12 Mr. Mundt moved approval of the minutes; Mr. Trias seconded.
13
14
15
16
17 Mr. Grande requested that on page 8, line 29 the sentence stating that he and Mr. Hearn
18 spoke in favor of the application be removed.
19
20 Mr. Mundt moved approval of the minutes with the corrections as stated; Mr. Trias
21 seconded.
22
23 The motion carried unanimously.
24
AGENDA ITEM 8: P280 Land, LLC PUD 05-033
25
26 Petition of P280 Land, LLC for a change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural,
27 Residential) and the RS-2 (Residential Single-Family 2 du/ac) Zoning District to the
28 PUD Zoning District and Preliminary Planned Development Site Plan approval.
29
30 Staff is requesting this item be continued to the October 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning
31 Commission meeting.
32
33 Cynthia Angelos spoke briefly stating that staff is requesting this item be continued;
34 however she and the applicant are prepared to move forward. Ms. Angelos also
35 expressed her concern with whether or not the new Land Development Regulations, not
36 yet in effect, would apply to this application.
37
38 Mr. Grande made mention of the discrepancy of the file numbers noted on the agenda and
39 on the application. On the agenda it is referenced as PUD 05-033 and on the application
40 it is referred to as PUD 05-032.
41
42 Mr. Nix explained that staff was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to
43 move forward with the Jenkins Road Area Plan. He also explained how cooperative the
44
45 project that would work for this area. Mr. Nix feels the continuance is necessary in that
46 more work needs to be done between the applicant and staff.
2
1
2 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Mr. Hearn closed
3 the public hearing.
4
5 Mr. Grande motioned to continue the item to October 19, 2006; Mr. Trias seconded.
6
7 The motion carried unanimously.
8
AGENDA ITEM 2: Ordinance No. 06-021
9
10 An ordinance amending Chapter 1-13.8, Noise Control of the St. Lucie County Code of
11 Ordinances and Compiled Laws.
12
13 Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney presented the item and spoke briefly about
14 the changes being proposed today. There have been numerous complaints and concerns
15 from residents that the current ordinance does not adequately address the noise issues
16 within the County today.
17
18 Ms. Young introduced Daniel Hess, Professor of Mechanical Engineering specializing in
19 acoustics. He has worked with
20 get a better understanding of the noise conditions within the community and he has made
21 several recommendations for changes to the ordinance.
22
23 Ms. Caron expressed her disagreement with the construction hours as noted on page 9,
24
25 on Sundays and holidays.
26
27 Dr. Daniel Hess spoke and gave a detailed explanation as to the approach he took in
28 making recommendations for an ordinance that can be enforceable and understandable by
29 Code Enforcement Officers. He spoke of the sound level limits based on receiving areas
30 residential, commercial and industrial. He used octave band measurements giving
31 them separate limits.
32
33 Mr. Mundt spoke briefly regarding aircraft noise. He requested that perhaps the Airport
34 Manager can clarify, before this moves forward to the Board of County Commissioners,
35 whether or not these standards can be enforced or if FAA rules and regulations take
36 precedence.
37
38 Mr. Mundt requested clarification of the sound level limits as noted in Table 1 on page 8
39 of the ordinance. Dr. Hess explained the difference between dBA and dB; dBA is
40 weighted and mimics what the human ear would hear. So although some of the numbers
41 noted in this table may seem high, they are measured to mimic what the human ear hears.
42
43 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
44
45 Chris Humphries spoke. He is concerned that it seems that this ordinance seems to be the
46 same as the initial ordinance. His problem is the skating rink behind his home. There
3
1 have been times where Code Enforcement staff has been to his home with their
2 measurement equipment, but the noise level was not high enough at his home for action
3 although his windows were vibrating.
4
5 Mr. Humphries suggested that these sound level limits be tested, specifically at his home,
6 before the ordinance is adopted. In this way, residents and staff will be assured that they
7 are workable levels and will help residents of the County such as him and his neighbors.
8
9 Tom Roe also spoke and expressed his frustration with the noise that he and his
10 neighbors have had to endure because of the skating rink.
11
12 Dr. Hess and Ms. Young confirmed that tests on the sound level limits were already done.
13
14 Mr. Mundt requested that staff ask Skate Town to cooperate with testing of these new
15 sound levels to determine that these new levels will indeed help the surrounding
16 residents.
17
18 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
19
20 Ms. Caron spoke about the hours of constructi
21 She does not approve of the hours of operation as noted. She feels there should be no
22 hours of operation allowed on Sundays and holidays and weekday and Saturday hours
23 should be reduced.
24
25 The Board members agreed that the hours should be reduced and that there should be a
26
27
28 Mr. Lounds and the other Board members expressed their agreement of construction
29 work on weekdays (7am 6pm) and Saturdays (8am 5pm), with no Sundays and
30 holidays. They also agreed that there should be an exception for special emergency
31 needs in order for construction companies to petition to work extended hours.
32
33 Mr. Mundt stated that he feels that the Building Official should have the authority to
34 grant an exception and not just the Board of County Commissioners.
35
36 Mr. Lounds motioned approval; Mr. Mundt seconded.
37 The motion carried unanimously.
38
AGENDA ITEM 3: Ordinance No. 06-045
39
40 An ordinance of the County of St. Lucie, Florida, amending Chapter 1-10.2 of the St.
41
42
43
44 Presented by Heather Lueke, Assistant County Attorney II, she explained that the
45 Historical Preservation Committee has not received enough applications to fill vacancies
4
1 on that board and therefore the Committee is requesting that the Historic Preservation
2 Committee be dissolved and that the Historical Commission take over those duties.
3
4 Mr. Trias expressed his frustration with the lack of progress after the years of work on
5 this and feels that County staff should work harder in implementing the ordinance and
6 preserving the history of St. Lucie County. He also expressed his frustration that the
7 County has not retained a Historic Preservation Officer yet.
8
9 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
10
11 Carlene Goodman spoke and feels that there are not enough people out there aware that
12 they can serve as volunteers on committees such as this. She feels the County needs to
13 get the word out to more individuals.
14
15 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
16
17
18
19 The motion carried unanimously.
20
AGENDA ITEM 5: Ordinance No. 06-048
21
22 An Ordinance of St. Lucie County, Florida, amending Chapter IV of the Land
23
24
25
26 Mr. Nix confirmed that this is one of those items staff is requesting be continued to the
27 October 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; but mentioned that he
28 would like to make a brief presentation.
29
30 Mr. Nix gave a presentation and displayed the Ordinance. Mr. Nix explained that this is
31 being requested by the Board of County Commissioners in an effort to improve the
32 quality of development in the Jenkins Road area. Therefore, Section 4.12.00 will be
33 added to the ordinance, which will be the Jenkins Road Area Plan Special District. Mr.
34 Nix explained the road system currently being proposed. Mr. Nix briefly explained the
35 design standards for residential developments and mixed-use developments within this
36 new section. Mr. Nix confirmed that a copy of this ordinance will be made available to
37 the Board members before their next meeting.
38
39 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
40
41 Mr. Howard Kubitscheck spoke and expressed his concern that this is a large area of
42 potential developments and asked if consideration has been given to community parks
43 required for the area? Open space is not addressed in this ordinance are retention ponds
44 part of open space? Mr. Nix explained that that issue is not part of this ordinance.
45
46 Paul Shaw expressed his displeasure with the Board skipping over Agenda Item 4.
5
1
2 William Talley spoke and questioned whether this is an attempt to combine all the parcels
3 within this area into one? Mr. Nix explained that they are creating a zoning district, not
4 combining parcels.
5
6 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
7
8 Mr. Trias motioned to continue this item to October 19, 2006; Mr. Grande seconded.
9
10 The motion carried unanimously.
11
12 Ms. Young confirmed that the continued items will be heard on October 19, 2006 at 6pm
13 or as soon thereafter as possible.
14
15
16 agenda, the next item to be heard will be Item 4.
17
18 The Board took a break at 8:35 pm and reconvened at 8:45pm.
19
20 Mr. Hearn mentioned that he had a request to re-open Agenda Item 3 (Ordinance No. 06-
21 405) concerning the Historic Preservation Committee. Mr. Trias disclosed that he had a
22 conversation with Mr. Culverhouse who indicated that he has some important
23 information for the Board members.
24
ITEM 4: Ordinance No. 06-047
25
26 An Ordinance of St. Lucie County, Florida, concerning Amendments to Land
27 Development Code (LDC); providing for Amendments to Chapter 5.
28
29 Mr. Nix gave a presentation displaying the ordinance. Mr. Nix thoroughly went over the
30 changes being proposed to this Ordinance for the Board members. He explained that this
31 is coming before the Board as a result of the passage of Senate Bill 360 by the Florida
32 Legislature which mandates that the County needs to have a proportionate fair share
33 provision with concurrency management in place, adopted and submitted to the State by
34 December 1, 2006.
35
36 Some of the items reviewed by Mr. Nix were: new definitions being added; for phased
37 developments concurrency tests will need to be conducted after two years of a
38 development receiving a Certificate of Capacity; there will be case-by-case exemptions
39 for developments that do not impact public facilities or services; and road levels of
40 service was discussed at length.
41
42 There was an extensive review of the changes to the ordinance.
43
44
45 section. Mr. Nix agreed.
46
6
1 Ms. Caron complimented Mr. Nix and his staff on the hard work put into this ordinance.
2
3 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
4
5 Jonathan Ferguson, Esq., with the law firm of Ruden, McClosky, et al. spoke of his
6 concerns with the substantive differences between a Developer Agreement and a
7 Proportionate Fair Share Agreement. A Proportionate Fair Agreement needs to be clearly
8 defined in this ordinanc
9 order expires what happens to the capacity rights a developer has paid for and is entitled
10
11 be some reconsideration where the capacity runs with the land. Mr. Ferguson stated that
12 he will be getting some written comments to Mr. Nix soon.
13
14 There being no other public comment, Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
15
16 ommendation; Mr. Trias seconded.
17
18 The motion carried unanimously.
19
20 Mr. Trias then motioned to reopen the public hearing on Agenda Item 3: Ordinance No.
21 06-045; Board members agreed.
22
23 Brad Culverhouse, Chairman of the Historical Commission spoke about the amendments
24 to the ordinance having been unanimously approved by the members of the St. Lucie
25 County Historical Commission. He confirmed that it is their desire that the Historic
26 Preservation Committee and the Historical Commission be one and the same. It is their
27 desire to strengthen the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
28
29 There was a discussion between the two commission and committee. Mr. Culverhouse
30 suggested that if there is a need for experts in such fields as architecture, engineering, etc,
31 they c
32 membership on the commission.
33
34 Mr. Trias motioned to rescind the original motion to recommend denial and that the
35 Commissioners look seriously at retaining a Historical Preservation Officer and
36 subsequently recommend approval to the Board; Mr. Grande seconded.
37
38 The motion carried unanimously.
39
th
AGENDA ITEM 6: 25 Street, LLC PUD 05-025
40
th
41 Petition of 25 Street, LLC for a change in zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-
42 Family 2 du/ac) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development The Estuary)
43 Zoning District and Preliminary Planned Development Site Plan Approval. Hank Flores
th
44 presented this item explaining that it is located on the east side of South 25 Street,
45 approximately 1.5 miles south of Edwards Road and 1 mile north of Midway Road. Mr.
7
1 Flores explained that staff recommends that that this Board forward a recommendation of
2 approval to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners.
3
4 Mark Mathes, Lucido & Associates, representing the applicant, spoke briefly.
5
6 Gary Priest, with Engineering Design & Construction stated that drainage and flood plain
7 compensation will be within the lake system surrounding the proposed development. He
8 also stated that they will be bringing in fill to raise the finished floor elevation.
9
10 Mr. Mathes displayed a graphic of the proposed site plan.
11
12 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
13
14 John Ferrick spoke of his concerns with the flooding that currently happens in this area
15 and how the flooding can only get worse with the increase in units. Mr. Ferrick
16 distributed handouts to the Board members and read briefly from it.
17
18 Mr. Lounds expressed his concern with too many units being proposed at the basin of
19 Ten Mile Creek. He feels that units 31-45 should be eliminated from the proposed site
20 plan to allow for a more natural flood plain.
21
22 Ms. Caron expressed her belief that this should be a straight zoning project rather than a
23 PUD, as did Mr. Trias.
24
25 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
26
27 Mr. Lounds motioned that this Board forward a recommendation of denial of this
28 application to the Board of County Commissioners because it would be better to have
29 straight zoning rather than PUD zoning and further consideration needs to be given to the
30 height of the homes and the flood plain.
31
32 Mr. Trias seconded.
33
34 Roll Call
35 Ms. Caron yes to deny
36 Mr. Mundt yes to deny
37 Mr. Grande yes to deny
38 Mr. Lounds yes to deny
39 Vice Chairman Trias yes to deny
40 Chairman Hearn yes to deny
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
AGENDA ITEM 7: Daniel and Lisa Nelson RZ 06-031
44
45 Petition of Daniel and Lisa Nelson for a change in zoning from the CO (Commercial,
46 Office) and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural,
8
1 Residential 1 du/ac) Zoning District. Mr. Kelly presented this item and explained that
2 the subject parcel is located on the east side of Oleander Avenue, approximately 700 feet
3 south of Midway Road. Mr. Kelly displayed a graphic of the area. Mr. Kelly went on to
4 explain that the Ne
5 same property their farm is on. This is essentially going back to a previous zoning
6 district that was on this parcel in the past. Staff is recommending approval of this
7 rezoning request.
8
9 Mr. Grande questioned ownership of the surrounding parcels. Mr. Kelly confirmed that
10 they are all owned by the Nelson family.
11
12 Lisa Nelson spoke briefly and explained that she and her family desire to build a
13 residence on this parcel for their family solely. They feel, for their family, it would better
14 to reside on their farm and that is the reason for this rezoning request. Ms. Nelson also
15 explained that the home they are proposing to build is conducive with White City
16 architecture.
17
18 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Mr. Hearn closed
19 the public hearing.
20
21 Mr. Grande motioned that this Board forward a recommendation of approval of this
22 r-
23 all plan of the area and it will be beneficial to the area; Mr. Trias seconded.
24
25 The motion carried unanimously
26
AGENDA ITEM 8: P280 Land, LLC PUD 05-033
27
28 Petition of P280 Land, LLC for a change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural,
29 Residential) and the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/ac) Zoning District to the
30 PUD (Planned Unit Development Eagle Bend) Zoning District and Preliminary Planned
31 Development Site Plan approval.
32
33 Staff is recommending that this item be continued to the October 19, 2006 meeting.
34
35 Mr. Trias motioned to continue this item to October 19; Mr. Grande seconded.
36 The motion carried unanimously.
37
38 (Note: Agenda Item 8 was inadvertently acted on twice both times were for
39 continuation to the October 19, 2006 meeting.)
40
AGENDA ITEM 9: The Preserve PUD 06-001
41
42 Petition of Fort Pierce Angle Road Trust for a change in zoning from the IL (Industrial,
43 Light) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development The Preserve) Zoning
44 District. Mr. Kelly presented this item and explained that this Board has heard this
45 application before, but its back with some changes. The property is located west of
46 Angle Road, east of Canal 29 and Westwood High School, north of Metzger Road and
9
1 south of Avenue M. Mr. Kelly explained that the proposed use is for 945 units of
2 Multifamily Residential, 3% Neighborhood Commercial and 1.6% Mixed Use. This is a
3 slight decrease in units from the previous submittal.
4
5 a
6 signal warrant study when 75% of the development is completed, construction of Avenue
7 K; a 35 foot dedication for 41st Street; a 35 foot dedication at the northern boundary of
8 Monticello Street; 6 foot sidewalks along Metzger Road; concerns with on-street parking
9 if there is no approval for on-street parking, the number of units will need to be
10 reduced; with regard to the 10-10 (affordable housing) Program, a commitment to a
11 maximum offering price for those units is required.
12
13 Mr. Kelly stated with the satisfaction of the conditions of approval, staff is
14 recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of
15 County Commissioners.
16
17 Mr. Trias made reference to the letter from the City of Ft. Pierce wherein the Mayor of
18 Ft. Pierce suggests that this project be denied. Mr. Trias questioned whether there is a
19 more current letter where the City states they are in favor of this project. Mr. Nix
20 explained that there has not been a more recent letter received, but they have been
21 working with the staff of the City of Ft. Pierce.
22
23 Mr. Grande voiced his opinion that if the Mayor had changed his mind about this project,
24 he would have sent another letter.
25
26 Ms. Caron discussed the 10-10 Program. She feels that the price range for 2 and 3
27 bedroom homes are still not affordable for police officers, teachers, etc. Therefore, she
28 does not feel it is an accurate or favorable aspect of this project. Ms. Caron also stated
29 that she feels the density proposed is excessive.
30
31 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Mr. Hearn closed
32 the public hearing.
33
34 Mark Mathes, Lucido & Associates, representing the applicant displayed a PowerPoint
35 presentation and explained that there is no County-sponsored 10-10 Program. This 10-10
36 Program is being offered by the developer without any pressure from the County and this
37 is a program with no subsidy from the government.
38
39 Mr. Mathes explained that they have met with City of Ft. Pierce commissioners and staff
40 letter is no longer valid. Mr. Mathes went on to explain
41 that he feels this project is consistent with this type of area within St. Lucie County. Mr.
42 Mathes pointed out the large variety of open space being proposed within this project.
43
44 Mr. Trias and Mr
45 not accurately depicting the proposed development, but rather showing cartoons from
46 other developments.
10
1
2 Mr. Lounds expressed his concerns. He does not like the idea of on-street parking. He
3 feels it can present a danger to pedestrians. He also feels there is not enough open space.
4
5 Mr. Grande expressed his disapproval with this parcel being developed as mostly
6 residential rather than light industrial. Mr. Grande feels that a light industrial
7 development, on this site, would contribute to the community. There would be a net
8 gain. A development with this much residential development will be a net loss. Mr.
9 Grande feels that the biggest problem facing this county is not affordable housing, but
10 affordable taxes. The burden on the current taxpayers in St. Lucie County, if this
11 development is approved, would be too high.
12
13 Ms. Caron also expressed her desire for less density in this project.
14
15 Mr. Lounds motioned that this Board forward a recommendation of denial of this
16 application to the Board of County Commissioners because the density is too high, he
17 does not approve of the concept of on-street parking and because of the negative impact
18 on the tax base that will be created by adding such a large number of residential units.
19
20 Mr. Trias seconded.
21
22 Roll Call
23 Mr. Mundt yes to deny
24 Ms. Caron yes to deny
25 Mr. Grande yes to deny
26 Vice Chairman Trias yes to deny
27 Mr. Lounds yes to deny
28 Chairman Hearn yes to deny
29
30 The motion carried unanimously.
31
AGENDA ITEM 10: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners: RZ 06-038
32
33 Petition of St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners for a change in zoning from the
34 RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/ac) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural,
35 Residential 1 du/ac) Zoning District.
36
37 Board members and staff commented on the patience of the residents still sitting in the
38 Commission meeting room waiting for this item to be heard (at approximately 12:45am).
39
40 Presented by Mr. Kelly, the subject parcel is located on the south side of Peterson Road
41 along the east side of Interstate 95 to Bennett Road. Subsequent to a prior
42 Comprehensive Plan this area was rezoned to RS-2. The residents in this area live an
43 agricultural, rural lifestyle and they would like to go back to a zoning district which
44 would allow them to have their horses, etc. Mr. Kelly explained that staff is
45 recommending approval of this application.
46
11
1 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Mr. Hearn closed
2 the public hearing.
3
4 Mr. Grande motioned that this Board forward a recommendation of approval of this
5 application to the Board of County Commissioners because this rezoning is consistent
6 with the Comprehensive Plan, it meets the needs of the area residents
7 everyone in the County; Mr. Lounds seconded.
8
9 The motion carried unanimously.
10
OTHER BUSINESS
11
12
13 A.Growth Management Department Director Comments:
14
15 Mr. Nix briefly mentioned that, to keep everyone up-to-date on what is happening in the
th
16 County, in the area of Orange Ave., between I-95 and 25 Street, there are roughly 4400
17 dwelling units either approved or to be approved. Mr. Nix mentioned that the Board will
18 hear more about this at a later time.
19
20 The meeting was adjourned at 12:53 am.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
12