HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-16-2006
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 November 16, 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 6:00 p.m.
15
ROLL CALL
16
17
18 William Hearn ....................................Chairman
19 Ramon Trias .......................................Vice Chairman
20 Craig Mundt .......................................Board Member
21 Susan Caron .......................................Board Member
22 Pamela Hammer .................................Board Member
23 Edward Lounds ..................................Board Member
24 (Mr. Lounds arrived at approximately 6:30pm)
25 John Knapp ........................................Board Member
26 Charles Grande...................................Board Member
27 Stephanie Morgan ..............................Board Member
28 Kathryn Hensley ................................Ex-Officio
29
OTHERS PRESENT
30
31
32 Robert Nix ..........................................Growth Management Department Director
33 Gilbert Backenstoss ...........................Assist. Growth Management Depart. Director
34 Heather Young ...................................Assistant County Attorney II
35 Hank Flores ........................................Planning Manager
36 David Kelly ........................................Planning Manager
37
ANNOUNCEMENTS
38
39 Mr. Nix congratulated Mr. Grande on his recent election to St. Lucie County
40 Commissioner.
41
DISCLOSURES
42
43 None.
44
45
1
AGENDA ITEM 1: Minutes
1
2 Minutes from the October 19, 2006, regular meeting.
3
4 Ms. Hammer requested a change on page 4, first paragraph with reference to the 2%
5 growth rate. She believed that Mr. Nix commented that St. Lucie County uses 3% and
6 would like that statement added.
7
8 Mr. Mundt motioned approval; Mr. Trias seconded; the motion carried unanimously.
9
AGENDA ITEM 2: Ordinance No. 06-048
10
11 The purpose of this public hearing is concerning amendments to the Land Development
12 Regulations (LDRs) regarding the Jenkins Road Planning Area Special District.
13
14 This item was presented by Mr. Nix who displayed the approved road system of the
15 Jenkins Road Plan and went over the proposed ordinance in great detail (displaying the
16 ordinance simultaneously). Mr. Nix gave an explanation of the planned roads;
17 mentioning the change in the Jenkins-Taylor Dairy Road plan because of the eagle nest
18 that is now present along a portion of the planned road.
19
20 After a thorough presentation by Mr. Nix, the Board members posed certain questions
21 (and pointed out certain typographical errors) to Mr. Nix, as follows:
22
23 Mr. Mundt would like the definition of Commercial Village (page 13, line 10) added.
24 At page 6, line 11 Ms. Hammer would like the date the plans were adopted and the
25 resolution numbers inserted.
26 The Board members were in agreement that the term Traditional Neighborhood
27 Development (TND) should not be referenced in this ordinance.
28 Ms. Hammer commented that the 75% number used with reference to parking areas in
29 plazas seemed too high (at page 16, line 24).
30 Ms. Hammer stated that the 10 foot encroachment into the front setback (on Page 19, line
31 11) was high. Mr. Trias mentioned that this concept is simply to encourage front
32 porches.
33
34 clearly defined by saying Growth Management Department Director.
35 There was discussion of the 42 inch clearance for sidewalks for outdoor restaurants, etc.
36 Board members agreed that was too small and should be increased to at least 48 inches.
37 Ms. Hammer also mentioned that she feels, with reference to the size of signs permitted,
38 that 48 inches seems too large.
39 Mr. Grande mentioned that he feels item 1 on page 27 should be deleted entirely. He
40 that there should be maximum widths imposed.
41 Ms. Hammer questioned (on page 29, line 17) what would determine the difference
42 between the 10 or 20 foot setbacks mentioned there. Mr. Trias explained that it was
43 simply to provide options which would also allow for some continuity.
44 Mr. Grande also mentioned that he feels line 21 (on page 29) should be deleted. There
45 should be no maximum widths imposed.
46 Ms. Hammer questioned (at page 33, line 23) how potential homeowners get notified of
47 their fiscal responsibilities when buying property. Mr. Nix explained that the provision
48 of said information is regulated by federal law. Mr. Nix stated that he would have the
2
1 County Attorneys office look into whether that can be regulated and what their
2 recommendations would be.
3 Ms. Hammer also would like, on page 39 (beginning at line 34) and page 46 (at line 9),
4 where enforcement official is mentioned, it should be more clearly defined by saying
5 Growth Management Department Director.
6
7 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
8
9 Steve Ball, with Land Planning Systems, displayed a map of his proposed development
10 which includes light industrial, warehouse and commercial uses. Mr. Ball questioned if
11 the six land uses mentioned in this proposed ordinance are the only uses allowed. Mr.
12 Nix explained that was not the intention of this ordinance. Mr. Nix will add language to
13 clarify.
14
15 Greg Boggs, with Lucido & Associates, spoke and feels that this ordinance will be too
16 difficult to implement; it needs better understood language and better examples.
17
18 Bishop James Johnson questioned how property he owns will be impacted by this
19 proposed ordinance. Mr. Nix explained that there would be no impact to Bishop
20 ordinance.
21
22 There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
23
24 Mr. Trias motioned approval including all the changes suggested tonight; Mr. Grande
25 seconded.
26
27 The motion carried unanimously.
28
29 The Board took a break at 8:00 pm and reconvened at 8:15 pm.
30
AGENDA ITEM 3: P280 Land, LLC PUD 05-032/RZ 05-033
31
32 Petition of P280 Land, LLC for a change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural,
33 Residential 1 du/ac) and the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/ac) Zoning
34 Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Eagle Bend) Zoning District and
35 Preliminary Planned Development Site Plan approval.
36
37 David Kelly presented this item and explained that the proposed development is located
38 on the south side of Angle Road, approximately ¾ mile east
39 located on a parcel sized at 278.72 acres and there are 999 units being proposed.
40
41 Mr. Trias asked for an explanation as to how this proposed site plan is consistent with
42 what was just reviewed. Mr. Kelly responded by displaying
43 design which is consistent; recreation and open space areas are addressed and consistent;
44 alleyways are provided and consistent. Mr. Nix also stated same and also explained that
45 the developer will be presenting a detailed presentation tonight. Mr. Nix also mentioned
46 s, the
47 walk-ability provided, as well as the front porch type of environment, etc.
48
3
1 Mr. Kelly stated that staff is recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of
2 approval to the Board of County Commissioners, subject to the following conditions of
3 approval:
4
5 Roadway cross-sections are not totally consistent. The developer is being asked to
6 dedicate 100 feet for additional right-of-way for Avenue Q.
7
8 Staff would like to see a dedication of the school site as part of the Preliminary Approval
9 (or at least a binding agreement to do same).
10
11 The fire station needs have still not been determined.
12
13 The traffic impact report is still bein
14 some questions. A Certificate of Capacity or a Deferral of a Certificate of Capacity still
15 needs to be applied for.
16
17 Revised site plans need to be submitted by the developer to show varied front setbacks
18 and facades.
19
20 Staff is looking for a legally binding agreement to help fund some of the off-site
21
22 improvements, but are necessary.
23
24 Staff is requesting a breakdown of the open space. There are issues as to how big some
25 of the open space is and whether or not it is eligible to count as open space.
26
27
28
29 Kara Woods, with the City of Fort Pierce, confirmed that a revised memo was sent to St.
30 Lucie County on November 9, 2006 stating that the City has no vehement objections to
31 the project. Ms. Woods did mention, however, that there is a lack of a mix of land uses
32 in the project.
33
34 Julian Bryan, representing the applicant, spoke and displayed some aerial photographs
35 and a site plan of the proposed development. Mr. Bryan gave a detailed presentation of
36 the proposed development.
37
38 Paul Ezzo, EW Consultants, environmental consultant for the development, spoke of the
39 federal regulations pertaining to eagle nests, which affects this proposed development.
40 Mr. Ezzo confirmed that any required Protected Species Management Plans will be
41 included within the Preserve Area Management Plan. They are currently working with
42 state, federal and county staff ironing out species protection issues.
43
44 Mr. Trias questioned why the design for this project was not followed more closely to the
45 Jenkins Road Area Plan just heard. Mr. Bryan explained that his client chose not to do
46 TND. He explained that in the interest of cooperation,
47 they provided some rear-load garages, streets with lakefronts (rather than homes with
48 lakefronts), etc.
4
1
2 Cynthia Angelos, also representing the applicant, spoke briefly. Ms. Angelos explained
3 that this project has been around for a long time (pre-Jenkins Road Area Plan). She feels
4 the Jenkins Road Area P
5 County, in a spirit of cooperation, by including some of the items in the Plan that would
6 be satisfactory to County staff, etc.
7
8 Mr. Hearn expressed his concern that St. Lucie County needs to get value for the amount
9
10 be giving more to the community. Those thoughts were also echoed by Mr. Grande.
11
12 Ms. Angelos replied that the benefit to the community would be the proposed roadway
13 improvements.
14
15 Shawn McKenzie, with Kimley-Horn & Associates, representing the applicant, spoke of
16 the traffic study that was completed. Mr. McKenzie began going over the issues brought
17 up by an independent consultant who reviewed the subject report.
18
19 Mr. Knapp questioned whether or not these issues that Mr. McKenzie is going over
20 resulted in any change to the study originally submitted. Mr. McKenzie confirmed that
21 no change to the study resulted from the issues brought up by the consultant.
22
23 Mr. Nix interjected that staff has not had an opportunity to review the current study and
24 therefore has not verified that the applicant has met traffic concurrency.
25
26 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public
27 hearing was closed.
28
29 Mr. Trias motioned to forward, to the Board of County Commissioners, a
30 recommendation of denial of the application of P280 Land, LLC for a change in zoning
31 from the AR-1 and the RS-2 Zoning Districts to the Planned Unit Development Eagle
32 Bend Zoning District and Preliminary Planned Development Site Plan approval, because
33 it is not consistent with the proposed overlay for Jenkins Road.
34
35 Mr. Lounds seconded.
36
37 Ms. Young requested that the motion maker cite additional reasons for the denial since
38 the overlay has not been approved to date.
39
40 Mr. Trias recommends forwarding a recommendation of denial to the Board of County
41 Commissioners because it is incomplete, it has unresolved traffic issues, the
42 environmental conditions have not been resolved, and there is no value to the community
43 as required with a PUD.
44
45 Mr. Lounds agreed.
46
47 Roll Call
48
5
1 Mr. Mundt yes to deny
2 Ms. Morgan no to deny
3 Ms. Hammer yes to deny because of the number of children in the area, because of the
4 nominal recreation provided, because of the increase from the present zoning, because of
5 the lack of value to the County for the increased density, because the environmental
6 report has never been received by this Board, and because the current traffic impact
7 analysis has not been adequately reviewed by County staff.
8 Ms. Caron yes to deny
9 Mr. Grande yes to deny
10 Mr. Knapp yes to deny
11 Vice Chairman Trias yes to deny
12 Mr. Lounds yes to deny
13 Chairman Hearn yes to deny because it should be more self-contained and more in-line
14 with the parameters laid out in the Jenkins Road Area Plan.
15
16 The motion carried 8-1 with Ms. Morgan dissenting.
17
AGENDA ITEM 4: Pat and Joyce Rogolino RZ 06-032
18
19 Petition of Pat and Joyce Rogolino for a change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural,
20 Residential 1 du/ac) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential Estate 2 du/ac) Zoning
21 District.
22
23 Hank Flores presented this item and displayed a zoning map. Mr. Flores explained that
24 the subject parcel is located at 6250 Citrus Avenue. The proposed use is two additional
25 single-family residences. Staff is recommending that this Board forward a
26 recommendation of approval to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners.
27
28 Mr. Mundt complimented staff and the applicant on a thorough and complete application.
29
30 Mr. Hearn requested staff make better copies of aerial photos, etc. when included in their
31 packets.
32
33 Steve Ball, Land Planning Systems, representing the applicant, introduced himself and
34 stated that he was available for any questions Board members may have.
35
36 Mr. Ball acknowledged that he and his client have no issues with any of the requirements
37 of the proposed zoning district and will follow them.
38
39 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public
40 hearing was closed.
41
42 Mr. Grande motioned to forward, to the Board of County Commissioners, a
43 recommendation of approval of the petition of Pat and Joyce Rogolino for a change in
44 zoning from the AR-1 Zoning District to the RE-2 Zoning District for the purpose of
45 adding two more building lots because it is consistent with the surrounding community
46 and it would be a plus for the area.
47
48 Ms. Hammer seconded; the motion carried unanimously.
6
1
AGENDA ITEM 5: Divine Holiness Church of God RZ 06-036
2
3 Petition of Divine Holiness Church of God for a change in zoning from the RS-4
4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/ac) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities)
5 Zoning District.
6
7 Hank Flores presented this item and explained that the subject parcel is located on the
8 west side of Oleander Avenue, approximately 400 feet north of West Midway Road. The
9 purpose for the rezoning request is to allow for the property to be used as a religious
10 facility. Staff is requesting that this Board forward a recommendation of approval to the
11 Board of County Commissioners.
12
13 Mr. Knapp questioned the size of the property and the building lot coverage. Mr. Flores
14 explained that it is a 1.18-acre piece of property. The zoning designation requires 30%
15 building lot coverage.
16
17 Dorcas Greenaway, representing the applicant, introduced herself.
18
19 Ms. Hammer questioned whether they plan on keeping the four buildings on the property.
20 Ms. Greenaway explained that they would be keeping all the buildings; converting one to
21 a church. Ms. Hammer expressed her concern with the fact that this property currently
22 has well and septic, which does not appear to be adequate for the proposed use.
23
24 Mr. Grande mentioned that this lot currently has a non-conforming use. With this change
25 in zoning, it would still be a non-conforming use.
26
27 There were discussions between board members and staff on the issues of non-
28 conforming uses. Ms. Young explained that the existing use of a piece of property can
29 remain even after a rezoning. Ms. Young mentioned that they will do a little more
30 research on the history of this property.
31
32 Mr. Lounds suggested that this item be continued to a later date so that it can be brought
33 back. Board members did not want to vote on something that may put the applicant in a
34 at would be a disservice
35 to the applicant. Board members suggested that staff bring this application back with
36 some more information on what can be done.
37
38 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the public
39 hearing was closed.
40
41 Mr. Lounds motioned to have the applicant put this petition on hold so that it can be
42 brought back to this Board on the soonest date possible so that the applicant can be
43 assured of doing what they want without any adverse effect to them or to the surrounding
44 neighborhood.
45
46 Mr. Mundt seconded.
47
48 Ms. Young requested that the item be continued to a date certain.
7
1
2 Mr. Hearn and Mr. Lounds clarified that it would be continued to December 14, 2006 at
3 6pm (or as soon thereafter as the item can be heard).
4
5 Mr. Grande suggested voting against the motion on the floor and that the Board
6 recommend approval of this application, in a subsequent motion, with a condition that it
7 be acceptable to Legal and Growth Management before it goes to the County
8 Commission.
9
10 Mr. Hearn explained that he would like to see this application come back rather than go
11 right to the Board of County Commissioners because of the fact that they would be
12 recommending approval of a non-conforming use before any of the issues could be
13 satisfactorily explained (such as well and septic, etc).
14
15 Roll Call
16
17 Ms. Morgan yes to continue to December 14, 2006
18 Mr. Knapp no
19 Ms. Hammer yes to continue to December 14, 2006
20 Mr. Grande no
21 Ms. Caron yes to continue to December 14, 2006
22 Vice Chairman Trias yes to continue to December 14, 2006
23 Mr. Mundt yes to continue to December 14, 2006
24 Mr. Lounds yes to continue to December 14, 2006
25 Chairman Hearn yes to continue to December 14, 2006
26
27 Motion carried 7-2 with Mr. Grande and Mr. Knapp dissenting.
28
AGENDA ITEM 6: Zentex Ventures, LLC PUD 05-029
29
30 Petition of Zentex Ventures, LLC for a change in zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1
31 du/ac) and R/C (Residential/Conversion) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit
32 Development Breckenridge) Zoning District.
33
34 Hank Flores presented this item and explained that the subject property is located on the
35 west side of Gordy Road, approximately ¼ mile south of Okeechobee Road and west of
36
37 is 616 multi-family dwelling units. Mr. Flores stated that staff is recommending that this
38 Board forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
39
40 Mr. Trias requested staff to elaborate on how this is compatible with the surrounding
41 area. Mr. Flores responded that the proposed project is located in an area that currently
42 has approved multi-family developments. Mr. Flores also explained that there are two
43 is area.
44
45 Ms. Hammer questioned whether a review of the traffic report has been done by an
46 outside consultant. Mr. Flores explained that the traffic report was reviewed by in-house
47 staff.
48
8
1 Mr. Trias commented that there are no streets, no blocks and no real design to this
2 proposed project.
3
4 Greg Boggs, with Lucido & Associates, representing the applicant, spoke and explained
5 that this project has been designed as a rental project; an attainable workforce housing
6 project that will meet the need of affordable housing. Mr. Boggs explained that they
7 have worked with staff to cluster the project, preserve the nearby oaks, provide open
8 space and recreation areas and also keep the rents attainable.
9
10 Mr. Boggs also displayed a PowerPoint presentation.
11
12 Ms. Hnot only St. Lucie County that is looking at ways to
13 provide affordable housing -- rather all the counties within the area, including
14 Okeechobee County are attempting to provide affordable housing.
15
16 Mr. John Donahue, representing the applicant, explained that a portion of this project is
17 within the 100-Year Flood Plain. They have done the flood plain calculations and
18 provided a method of management of same.
19
20 Mr. Hearn opened the public comment.
21
22 Mr. Louis Forget, a resident of Gordy Road, spoke of his concerns with the agricultural
23 entities surrounding the proposed project and the threat of trespassing on these
24 agricultural lands, as well as the amount of traffic that will be generated by this project on
25 Gordy Road.
26
27 There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
28
29 Mr. Gary Zentner spoke on behalf of the applicant and feels that this is a well-designed
30 development. They have provided for the services of Cagen Management to provide
31 management services for this rental development. They are a high-quality management
32 company. He also feels that the location of this project (especially the proximity to I-95
33 and the Turnpike) provide a plus for the development.
34
35 Mr. Grande motioned to forward, to the Board of County Commissioners, a
36 recommendation of denial of the application of Zentex Ventures, LLC for a change in
37 zoning from the AG-1 and R/C Zoning Districts to the Planned Unit Development
38 Breckenridge Zoning District because this PUD would not be a net contributor to the
39 County.
40
41 Mr. Trias seconded.
42
43 Roll Call
44
45 Ms. Mundt yes to deny
46 Ms. Morgan yes to deny
47 Mr. Knapp yes to deny
48 Ms. Hammer yes to deny
9
1 Ms. Caron yes to deny
2 Vice Chairman Trias yes to deny
3 Mr. Lounds yes to deny
4 Mr. Grande yes to deny
5 Chairman Hearn yes to deny
6
7 The motion carried unanimously.
8
OTHER BUSINESS
9
10
11 A.Growth Management Department Director Comments:
12
13 Mr. Nix explained that staff is working on the report of BCC actions on
14 recommendations made by this board as requested. He expects it will be done in time for
15
16
17 Mr. Nix reviewed the process of applications received for Preliminary and Final
18 Development Site Plan approval. The Development Review Committee reviews the
19 application to make a determination on the deficiencies of an application and the
20 applicant gets notified and given a certain amount of time to rectify those issues brought
21
22 forward. The Code will be amended where staff will be able to recommend denial of
23 applications that are incomplete, etc.
24 matter will be scheduled before the Planning & Zoning Commission soon.
25
26 Mr. Nix also confirmed that the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
27 will be December 14, 2006 at 6pm.
28
29 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
30
10