HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-16-2006
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
Commission chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
February 16. 2006
6:00 P.M.
(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).
AGENDA
MEMBERS PRESENT
Chairman- Bill Hearn, Vice Chairman- Ramon Trias, Pamela Hammer, Craig Mundt,
Susan Caron, Charles Grande
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ed Lounds, Stephanie Morgan, John Knapp
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Gilbert Backenstoss, Assistant Growth
Management Director; Mr. Hank Flores, Planning Manager; Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner;
Mr. Robert Nix, Director, Growth Management; Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Hearn called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission and local planning agency at 6:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MEETING PROCEDURE
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chairman Hearn - Because many times speakers come from the audience to the microphone to
speak, if after you speak, you would complete the speaker information form indicating your name
and agenda item # or agenda item
Mr. Mundt disclosed that he had met with the developer and their staff of Grande Beach.
Chairman Hearn announced that items 6 & 7, Grande Beach Future Land Use Amendment and
Planned Mixed Use Development, are pulled from the agenda. He asked if anyone here for either of
these items would like to speak tonight that cannot attend when it is rescheduled.
Agenda Item 1 Meeting Minutes from January 19, 2006:
Chairman Hearn announced the agenda item for the approval of the minutes. He asked if there are
any corrections or additions.
1
Ms. Caron stated that she had some corrections.
Chairman Hearn asked the board if they would delay the approval of those minutes until next
month. They were received very late and the board members may have not had time to review them.
The members agreed to delay adoption until the next meeting.
Agenda Item 2: Maine Real Estate Holdings, LLC:
Ms. Linda Pendarvis, Planner, introduced the items as follows: Maine Real Estate Holdings, LLC
request approval for conditional use permit to allow the operation of a concrete manufacturing
facility for the property located on the east side of South Jenkins Road approximately 1300 ft north
of West Midway Road in the Midway Industrial Park Phase 3. The zoning district is heavy
industrial. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review set forth in section 11.07.03 of
the St. Lucie County Land Development code, and it is not in conflict with goals, objectives and
policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
Chairman Hearn Are there any questions of staff? If not, is the applicant or his representative
here tonight? Please state your name and address.
Joe Capra, representing the applicants stated that he has no objections to the comments made by
staff. He would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Hearn Opened the public hearing and seeing no speakers closed the public hearing and
came back to the board for deliberation.
Let if be known that Ms. Hammer just arrived at this time in the meeting.
Chairman Hearn asked the board members for questions, comments or a motion.
Mr. Grande asked if most facilities of this intensity were located west of the Turnpike?
Staff concurred that Rinker is located West of the turnpike, and confirmed for Mr. Grande that this
project is East of the Turnpike.
Chairman Hearn asked unless there were other comments or questions, he would entertain a motion.
Mr. Mundt made the motion to approve. After considering the testimony presented during the
public hearing including staff comments and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03
St Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend that the St Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval
to the application of Maine Real Estate Holdings, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
operation of a concrete manufacturing facility in the IH industrial heavy zoning district because it
meets the goals, objectives and policies of the St Lucie County comprehensive plan.
Mr. Trias - Second
2
Ms. Hammer asked if there was any public testimony in opposition to this item or additional
information from the staff.
Chairman Hearn responded no.
Chairman Hearn asked if the secretary would call the role.
Mr. Trias Yes
Mr. Mundt yes
Ms. Caron yes
Ms. Hammer yes
Mr. Hearn yes
Mr. Grande yes
Chairman Hearn stated that the petition will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation of approval.
Agenda Item 3: Finlay Development, LLC:
Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner, introduced the item as follows:
This application is from Finlay Development, LLC for a change in Future Land Use designation
from Industrial to Residential Medium with a maximum of 9 dwelling units per acre. Location is
he west side of US One. To give more
prospective, it is north of Lebanon Road which is also North of Tumblin Kling Road. The industrial
area has had that designation for sometime and what has occurred is that other areas to the north
have become commercial within the city and others to the south and west have become residential.
There is other commercial to the south east that borders on US One, so this 4.31 acres actually has
been isolated and looking at the zoning that appears to be isolated or spot zone but going back
historically it was part of a large industrial area. The applicant intends to change the zoning to an
RM-9 therefore allowing 9 dwelling units per acre and there is also another lot south of that with
intended zoning that is of a higher density of RM-11. These lots combined with another lot is
intended to have 215 multiple family dwelling. The site is within the Ft. Pierce utility area and is
also in the urban service area. The staff feels that it is consistent with the regional policies, state
policies and comprehensive plans as well as the county comprehensive plan. The recommendation
for this individual area is to be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners so that the particular lot
and parcel can be changed to an area of Residential Medium.
Chairman Hearn asked if there are any questions.
Mr. Grande stated that he is looking at a future land use change and two zoning changes and those
three in total do not make up the entirety of the proposed or suggested development. He stated
looking at the remaining parcels and guessing that they are to the East with the frontage on Rt. One
and that they are already in the city. He further stated that this is a development that is going into
the city virtually immediately and he would like to get some kind of explanation as to why these
applications are being brought to this board as well as a sense of the entirety of what is being
presented.
Mr. Szynkowski referred to the gentleman at the podium, Dennis Murphy, for a reply.
3
Dennis Murphy, Sr. Project Manager, Culpepper & Terpening, Inc., Ft. Pierce, representing the
Finlay Development Company, LLC on a series of petitions, specifically Items 3, 4 and 5 on
stated they are all related to each other. He asked if this image could be put on the
overhead. In response to Mr. Grande regarding the parcels being partially in and partially
out of the city of Ft. Pierce. The first one is receiving a change of land use from Industrial IND to
Residential Medium RM.
Pointing to overhead he stated the RH piece is the one they are seeking a change in zoning from
RM-11 to RM-15 which is consistent with the land use density permitted in ? category. It is also
concurrent with the land use plan change from the industrial piece we are seeking a change from
industrial light designation ? property right now zoning category to the RM-9 maximum zoning
destination permitting within the RM land use category. In addition to that, referring back to the
image, there is also one piece of property in the City of Ft. Pierce
Mr. Trias requested Mr. Murphy to outline the total project.
Mr. Murphy stated the total land holdings consist of that little piece of the panhandle or the pot
shaped parcel that is white on the map which is in the City of Ft. Pierce and is immediately south of
The piece that
is tagged IND (yellowish color) is the one that can be described as having the portable sign which
blew away in the hurricanes two years ago. We have the piece that is immediately south to that and
the pieces highlighted on the overhead are those pieces we are seeking a change in zoning and
change of land use on. Mr. Murphy requested that he would like to address briefly here tonight
items 3, 4 and 5 in their entirety.
Mr. Grande Could you outline on this one
Mr. Trias The previous image is the one that is most useful. I do not see the point of looking at
this.
Mr. Murphy stated the first petition tonight is to seek a change of land use on the industrial parcel.
The parcels that were immediately north of this were originally classified industrial by the County
use at that time under the IL zoning categories and on the parcels that when they were subsequently
annexed in the city of Ft. Pierce, they were reclassified to a C3 or their equivalent of commercials
general zoning. Since our piece is now an isolated track and it does not have frontage by itself on to
US one, we are seeking to change that to residential because it is our intention to ultimately develop
this as a residential track with accesses coming off US One. We will be consolidating all four of our
parcels into one development plan and in all probability it will be filed with the city of Ft. Pierce.
Mr. Grande asked why we are doing this here and not with the city. Very simply the City of Ft.
Pierce has some issues with their comp plan right now. We did discuss it with them a few months
ago. We filed a petition with them last summer on what best way to deal with properties that need a
change of land use. The instructions and recommendations we received from city staff was go to the
County get it cleaned up under the County and than annex into the City with the appropriate
category that you are seeking
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy if that was given to him in the form of a letter or some record
4
Mr. Murphy stated it was not and this was his testimony that came from Senior City staff. Basically
it allowed them not to have to deal with comp plan amendments within the city. We would come in
under the residential categories that we were trying to seek and we would default into those
categories from there. We are filing these as small area plan amendments, which basically under the
Florida rules, these amendments can be than handled here under the local level. They do not have
to go to Tallahassee for review since we are under the 10 acre threshold. I did notice a comment in
here which seems to imply that these needed to be transmitted to Tallahassee. This is handled in a
re-zoning matter. There is a report that is filed annually with Tallahassee, but this does not have to
go through the twice a year cycle.
Mr. Trias asked how many acres are being dealt with on the land lease amendment?
Mr. Murphy replied 4.31
Mr. Murphy stated the total acreage is approximately 18 acres. He further stated that is their
intention to develop a residential project on the property accessing off Rt. One.
He has read the staff report and concurs with their recommendation of support of their requested
change of industrial to RM and the accompanying rezoning to it. I disagree with their
recommendation on the RH request which they are saying that you would forward a
sive
plan. I think we have satisfied the review policies set forth within the comprehensive plan itself and
we request that you forward a recommendation of approval for the RM-15 on the back property. I
can tell you right now that in all of our preliminary development work, I know one concern that we
may be accessing the roadways to the south, I believe its Lebanon Road that runs North and South
off there. I can tell you we have no intention of accessing that as a part of our primary development.
If any access at all is provided, it would be provided for emergency purposes only and it would be
gate restricted or otherwise limited to the necessity of a fire truck or rescue vehicle or something
like that. Lebanon Road is not big enough to handle anything more than glorified driveway type
traffic. The right away is not there the road condition is not there and the ability to expand it is not
there for us to do. We did receive some comments today. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, if you got
them from the School District.
Chairman Hearn We have not received them.
Mr. Murphy I am sure Mr. Sanders will be following me at some point today to talk about this.
This is the standard request of the school district to deal with issues where you change land use
intensities or designations from non residential to residential or do a substantial increase in your
residential land use density. Essentially it amounts to when the school impact fees were calculated
they were done in the manner that did not contemplate the non residential properties having any
changing from a zero sum residential designation up to 9 X 4 whatever that is 4.4 and change
there are impacts that were not previously addressed. We have been requested to deal with the
district and development of a supplemental payment agreement. I have spoken to my clients and at
this point in time we have no objection to discussing this further with the school board and by the
time this matter gets to the County Commission we fully expect to have a letter of intent or a letter
of understanding. I doubt we will have the full agreement done because of the time it takes to do all
of that, but we will have a letter of understandi
address what they need financially in order to allow us to proceed and for them to educate the
5
students of the community. In short, Mr. Chairman, I am here to answer and questions that you have
on this matter or any questions the public will have and I request time to address those specifically
as they come up or at the end of the public hearing. I will respectfully request that you forward a
recommendation of agenda items 3, 4 and 5 to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval of all of them and if you have any questions?.
Mr. Trias Mr. Murphy did the City of Ft. Pierce give you any comments recently or sometime ago.
Mr. Murphy No
Mt. Trias Did you have any contact with them or the staff regarding these issues.
Mr. Murphy I have not talked to anyone recently. We have filed an annexation petition that is in
progress. It is not completed as yet.
Mr. Trias Have they given you any feedback yet on any topic.
Mr. Murphy No
Mr. Trias County staff have you had any contact with the staff with the City of Ft. Pierce?
Mr. Szynkowski No
Mr. Trias Have they given you any input regarding this project?
Mr. Szynkowski None
Mr. Trias Is there any reason for that? I assume you contacted you submitted an application of
annexation
Mr. Szynkowski We have had the application mailed to them.
Mr. Trias and they have done nothing.
Mr. Szynkowski Not that I have received anything.
Mr. Trias - Given the fact that they are supposed to be working on the comprehensive plan right
from their point of view they should be addressing some of the issues that are being addressed by
you at this point.
Mr. Murphy Presumably they are aware of them and they are addressing them.
Mr. Trias How are they addressing them?.
Mr. Murphy- I have absolutely no idea. I have no first hand knowledge of exactly how they are
dealing with it. I can only assume at this point that as they update their plan and update their various
elements within it they are dealing with all the infill conditions that exist throughout the perimeter
6
of the city of Ft. Pierce. Not just on this property but all properties. As you know, there are quite a
few.
Mr. Trias We have no idea how it is being done.
Mr. Murphy I do not know.
Mr. Trias Thank you.
Mr. Grande Can we display one of the pictures aerial views that show what is on the
surrounding property. We are looking at Lebanon Road specifically, which is the piece that is
immediately south of the one that you are asking for 15 units per acre.
Mr. Murphy Yes
Mr. Grande Are those single families off Lebanon?
Mr. Szynkowski - Yes
Mr. Murphy Lebanon Road is not contiguous to our parcel. You need to go south on the visual.
Mr. Grande No, but Lebanon is the closest existing residential community
Mr. Murphy Yes
Mr. Trias Mr. Murphy have you done any kind of preliminary layout of the project. Do you have
any idea what it would mean in terms of buildings to rezone at these densities. Can you compare it
something that we may know.
Mr. Murphy We have not done a physical layout of it as yet. We have done a couple what-if
scenarios but they have been basically some maximum intensity kind of things. As you know, you
go through these very early what-if scenarios and I do not give them much in terms of the final
product into it. The site does have several design constraints that we would have to work with. We
have Platts Creek along the south side of it. We have a large pond area at the north central part of
the property to work with. We know that as every developer, as every property owner in the world
looks at first what can I get most and then what actually fits.
Mr. Trias What kind of building types have you looked at
Mr. Murphy We have been looking at different types. We have been looking at flat on flat type
multi family units two story you may have a third story in the center part of it It is different
variations into it you could have two story town houses into it it just depends upon what actually
fits best on the property. As you can see from the aerials, besides what appears to be the large stand
of Australian Pine Trees roughly at the center of the property, there are several other large tree
communities here. Some large Oak trees I am sure given what I know of the soils and land in the
area that we will be working around and trying to protect as best we can.
7
Mr. Trias Thank you.
Mr. Mundt Mr. Murphy could you amplify on the RH-15 looking at some adjacent properties
there are some good size home sites in there 3, 4 and RM-11 is the highest so justify the 15 for
me, if you would.
Mr. Murphy Well when the county laid out its original land use designations back some 15 years
ago it looked at this part of the county roughly running south from this industrial area south bound
towards Midway Road as being a potential higher intensity residential area. Over time there have
been a couple of projects approved in this area that have ranged in development densities from just
under 11 units to the acre to I believe there is one down in Tomain Claim? Road of just over 13-14
units to the acre.
Mr. Mundt
Mr. Murphy They are not physically adjacent to this that is correct but they are within the same
land use category and it fits for the general If you are looking at it from the immediacy of the
adjacent property, your analysis is correct, it may not be an appropriate use. However, if you look at
it from the more macro point of view of the overall area, I believe that it is an appropriate
designation for this particular parcel.
Ms. Caron Mr. Murphy has there been a discussion regarding work force housing in this area with
these types of densities with your client knowing the need we have in this area with the possibilities
being able to walk to
Mr. Murphy To the best of my knowledge we have not gotten down to that level of unit
evaluation which is essentially workforce housing kind of questions. Our intention is to provide an
earlier discussion, market rate type development we are not looking to do anything less than
market at this point, however, we are open to any discussions that may come up that may provide or
fill in a nitch for the community.
Ms. Caron- So that would be a possibility. Also concurrency is obviously an issue. I do see that Rt.
One right now is an F and putting more on the road would make it a worse F and more obviously
intense density is going to complicate that.
Mr. Murphy We are keenly aware of that. Yes, Mamm.
Ms. Hammer I guess I am confused on a number of things. I cannot understand why we would
want to change our industrial land which is fairly scarce in our county and we would want to take
all of this and do the future land use amendment and also to do the zoning changes from industrial
to such a high density residential. We are talking about US One I do not understand why we are not
talking about commercial properties or a higher commercial use on US One instead of residential. I
just see problems down the line with now we have 15 units per acre next to the single family lots on
Lebanon.
deliver and all the noise. I think we are creating a problem for ourselves that we do not need to. I
am very uncomfortable with dealing with a piece meal project of one piece and another piece if it
is 18 acres, if we have to do something jointly with Ft. Pierce than we do something jointly to
develop a plan that works for everyone. When there was the joint meeting with the commissioners
8
from the county and from the City of Port St. Lucie and Ft. Pierce the other day in these chambers.
Mayor Benton said would you guys please talk to us about what you are doing to us because we are
going to annex these lands, you know that. And I do not understand why they did not respond
Maybe we need to reach out even more but what really bothered me is to find out because we look
at a 4 acre and a less than 10 than we do not have to go to the state. But if we look at the entire
parcel, it does have to go to the state. I think w
looking at it this way.
Chairman Hearn - Your point is well taken. I am very concerned that some representative from the
City of Ft. Pierce is not brought in on this project.
Mr. Trias I fully understand the issues Ms. Hammer has raised and frankly I cannot blame the
developer for trying to take advantage that perhaps the fact that the city of Ft. Pierce is incapable of
getting their act together in the issue of their comp plan and in fact their staff appears to be
completely incapable of doing the most simple issues of follow-up. To me as a tax payer in Ft.
Pierce I am very frustrated by that fact and frankly to be able to look at this type of project which I
find completely irresponsible, if we were to approve something like this without any context or
effort on the part of the city. I am very frustrated by that and I am frankly very disappointed and
clearly cannot support this.
Chairman Hearn Ok, if there are no further questions or comments
Mr. Mundt Can I just ask one more question of the staff. How long has the City of Ft Pierce had
your documents? More than 30 days or ample time to respond?
Mr. Szynkowski - Less than 30 days
Chairman Hearn Frankly, I am very amazed that someone from the City of Ft. Pierce is not here to
address and give us some feedback on this project because it is going to be in their city. I just hate
making these decisions and turn it over to the city and be concerned as to why we did or did not do
this or that
Mr. Murphy Mr. Chairman, can I just make on comment for the record. Please understand that
we are not trying to pull anything developer slipshod or whatever you perceive it to be. What we
are doing is following the rules rules are very clear you file a plan amendment less than 10 acres
it is by state law considered to be a small area amendment. That is what it is in that piece of
property. The rest of the stuff is rezoning issues that as they bring forward and we bring forward ?
development plans of the property we know full well we applications on to it and that will address
the joint development issues and the joint participation issues. These whole processes take time
there are many steps involved into them and this is the first step of a very long journey. I would
hope that you would take that into consideration and forward positive recommendations.
Ms. Caron What is appears to me to be a bit of a communication problem between the city than
the county with less than 30 days to respond. It is very unnerving and makes me very
uncomfortable personally to make decisions for other people, if in fact, that just have not had the
9
chance hopefully not the effort, but just have not had the chance to respond to this and I clearly
think that we should make another effort to try to communicate with them to try to find out what
they are looking at.
Mr. Grande
this is an application that should be going through the city. A concept of bringing it to us is
technically correct but I have a real ethical problem with this. The annexation process should go
forward and the city should hear the application, whatever it is. Bringing us applications on some
of the parcels that will make up the total of the project for a project that is this intense and this
inconsistent with the surrounding areas with the impacts that this would bring, I really believe that
we would be the next group acting out of our area if you will, if we would make decisions on this.
This should not have come to us and I cannot support any of the three of these. I appreciate the
recommendations for approval for the future land use change in the first of the zoning changes were
made simply because there is a level of technical compliance rather than any kind of judgment in
there.
Chairman Hearn I would like to weigh in on that a little bit. I look at this project as far as being
industrial in the middle of this area I think clearly it needs to be changed to some type of a lot less
intense use whether it be residential or some type of commercial neighborhood or whatever it
clearly is not a correct place for an industrial site.
Mr. Trias
that the City of Ft. Pierce is intending to deal with a comprehensive plan in a very comprehensive
way. That is the whole point of those plans and that the most important point of that effort is to be
able to achieve some kind of sense of the areas just immediately outside of the city that are
currently in the county. He surely is aware of that and to me it is just shocking that the better
cooperation has not happened. I am not blaming him for it but, I am saying that given the fact that
the city of Ft. Pierce says that they are going to deal with their comp plan and given the fact that
they say that their main issue or main concern is the areas immediately outside of the city. Frankly
to do it this way is something that is very inappropriate and ultimately will be detrimental to both
the city and the county.
Ms. Hammer May I ask our attorney a question. Heather, on agenda item #3 change in future
land use designation If that fails at this level, than do we still have to take action on agenda item #
5 or does that immediately disqualify it?
Attorney Heather Young I think you still have to have the public hearing that has been advertised.
There may be people who wish to speak Let me just ask is that the same parcel, 3 & 5? It
appears to be to me. I would still have the public hearing. I think your recommendation would be
obvious at that point but you need to forward something on to the board. As I said, there may be
people here that wish to address it because they would like their comments in the record, if they are
not able to attend the board meeting.
Chairman Hearn- I see no other questions or comments from the board so I will open the public
hearing.
10
Attorney Heather Young Just a reminder, the public hearing is on the first petition #3 on the land
use.
Marty Sanders Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission My name is
Marty Sanders Executive Director of Growth Management Land Acquisition and Inter-
Governmental Relations for the St. Lucie County School District. Mr. Murphy gave a pretty good
explanation of both the reason I would be speaking to you tonight and the technical explanation and
many of you have heard this before but I will go through it once again. As we develop the impact
fees for educational facilities in St. Lucie County, there is a process you go through that determines
both the cost and revenue to pay for those facilities. Part of the revenue to pay for educational
facilities are made up in credits that future residents that would occupy these residential units will
pay in the form of ad valorum taxes, sales taxes and other revenue so there are credits as part of that
cost to pay the total facilities. For instance, in a residential unit and as, Gill Backenstoss passed out,
impact fees for a multi-family unit are the total cost for capital is about $4000 worth of capital
about 2/3 and the last 1/3 is made up of those credits I spoke of. The problem we have with the
conversion of the land use this land use is industrial and many cases in commercial would also
pay ad valorum taxes and generate additional revenue that will be replaced now. Those revenues
would have been a surplus to the school board because there would not have been any children
showing up from those units so the school board and board of county commissioners have made it
through previous actions at Vero Vista De Salvatore that the comp plan is very clear is calls for new
development paying for 100% of the cost. One of the ways the comp plan designates they can pay
for cost is through voluntary contributions. So we are asking that if you do approve this land use
consideration, that you do so with a requirement that they provide a voluntary contribution or enter
into an agreement with the school board to make up the deficits of cost. I will say since the last time
I have explained this to you Senate Bill 360 was approved last year by the legislature and amended
Chapter 163.3177 of the Florida Statutes that requires availability of public services. Ultimately we
will get to school concurrency. That does not have to be in place in St. Lucie County until 2008. But
even before concurrency, one of the measures that local government and the Dept of Community
Affairs looks at are there adequate public facilities for this land use change including schools. I will
capital in it to make up new student stations that we would not have adequate public facilities. Any
questions?
Chairman Hearn Any questions of Mr. Saunders? Listening to your testimony it appears that you
have some real concerns about this land use change at this time without an agreement in place.
Mr. Sanders Without an agreement in place I believe it is appropriate. We have had other
have had time to work it out before the county commission meetings but I believe it is very
appropriate. It is clear in the comp plan that new development is supposed to pay for 100% of the
cost so I think it is very appropriate that we move forward with those agreements.
Chairman Hearn nt needs to pay for its
impact on the community and I am a very strong supporter of that. Than you have the other side of
the coin, looking at the cost of homes and affordable housing and it is a difficult situation. My
concern with granting a land use change like this is that it gives the land owner the right to that
11
amount of density without an agreement in place and that is where I am having some heartburn over
this.
Mr. Sanders That is correct. And on that note we believe that the impact fee study is very clear
that once they get that right all we have the legal right to ask for after that is the impact fee amount
is adopted in the county ordinance.
Chairman Hearn Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this item? Seeing no-one
the public hearing is closed. We will go back to the board for discussion.
Mr. Grande After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing including staff
comments, I hereby move that the local planning agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Why does this look like two motions to
approve? Am I reading this wrong?
Ms. Hammer Mr. Chairman, I apologize if I was not paying attention. Did we open this piece to
the public?
Chairman Hearn Yes
Attorney Heather Young Mr. Grande or Mr. Chairman - Mr. Grande it does appear to be the same
motion. I think you would either say that you recommend that they deny the petition or recommend
-
Mr. Grande The motion is deny the change in future land use designation from industrial to
residential medium because technically it is inconsistent with any of the residential areas that exist
nearby and perhaps more importantly this is the wrong board to be hearing this particular
application. This should be brought to the city or the city should have given us their input on this
before we heard it. That is the end of the motion. I did not mean that motion to imply that the city
has done anything wrong. I think they have clearly had insufficient time to come forward on this or
they are really out of the loop.
Mr. Trias Second motion.
Chairman Hearn Is there any further discussion.
Madame Secretary Please call the roll.
Secretary Roll Call
Mr. Mundt Yes
Ms. Caron Yes
Ms. Hammer Yes to deny
Mr. Hearn Yes to deny
Mr. Trias Yes
Mr. Grande Yes
Chairman Hearn Mr. Murphy do you wish us to proceed on the other two items?
12
Mr. Murphy Yes, Mr. Chairman you may as well take an action on all of them so that we have
that for the record.
Agenda Item 4: Finlay Development, LLC:
Mr. Hearn Agenda Item #4 are you taking this too, Larry? Is there any further information you
want to give us?
Mr. Szynkowski No there is no further information on that.
Chairman Hearn This is a request to change the zoning from RM-11 to RM-15. Is that correct?
Mr. Szynkowski That would be #5
Chairman Hearn Item 4, yes. Now Mr. Murphy, can you show us where that piece of land is
exactly.
Mr. Murphy If you can move that hand a little bit to the left- right there it is that box.
Chairman Hearn Down to the yellow line?
Mr. Murphy- Yes
Chairman Hearn Are there any questions of Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Trias Mr. Murphy, you attempted to describe to me what 15 units per acre was and I think
you failed. Can you try again because we are talking about a very small parcel basically15? units,
almost net density. What kind of buildings are you talking about?
Mr. Murphy As you know, from your design experiences, you are talking basically town house or
flat on flat type multi-family.
Mr. Trias
and other things and you include maybe 20% for circulation, perhaps we are talking about 3 or 4
story
Mr. Murphy We are not talking about vertical structures of that height (?)
Mr. Trias
Mr. Murphy
Mr. Trias I think that sums it up we do not know. Thank you.
Chairman Hearn Mr. Murphy
13
Mr. Murphy I would like to make one comment. Just for the record, my name is Dennis Murphy,
Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. here representing Finlay Developing, LLC for a change of zoning
from RM-11 to RM-15. We stand by our prior comments on the discussion of this matter and would
respectfully request that you forward a recommendation of approval to board of county
commissioners. If you have any questions, we will try to answer them. Also Mr. Chairman, if I
could, just as a matter of referencing the prior discussion I would also assume that included as part
of the official record would be all the staff reports and staff files and everything else in this as well,
too. I look to the attorney for verification of this.
Chairman Hearn That was not said, but assumed. Thank you. Any further questions of Mr.
Murphy? Is there anyone from the public?
Mr. Grande If I may, Mr. Chairman the zoning map
that is undeveloped at this point that is anywhere near this intensity(?). Am I right in assuming that
what you are trying to do is use this parcel to get the allowable density for the entire project that is
the part that is both outside the city and inside the city.
Mr. Murphy- Well just as any property owner would who has multiple legally described parcels, the
ultimate development plan would be an aggregation of those tracts. That is what any property
owner would do.
Mr. Grande Ok.
Chairman Hearn Is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this
application. Seeing no-one, the public hearing is closed. Back to the board for questions or a
motion.
Ms. Hammer - Mr. Chairman, since the applicant has asked that all of the records be included, I
would like to make sure that we have one thing in this report that is absolutely correct. On page 4
the next to last paragraph under comments Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it,
I assume, that it is not in conformity to the standards of review as set forth in section 11.06.03 of the
St. Lucie County Land Development Code. This is my question
ls, objectives and policies
Mr. Szynkowski - No. The second statement would be in conflict with the goals, objectives and
policies. You are right
Ms. Hammer And it is in conflict, so we have to delete th
are so important, I want to make sure that we have the absolutely accurate one that is being
Mr. Szynkowski That is correct.
Chairman Hearn Thank you, Ms. Hammer.
14
Mr. Grande Mr. Chairman After considering the testimony presenting during the public hearing
including staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Board of St. Lucie County
recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners deny the application of
Finlay Development, LLC from the change in zoning from Residential Multi-Family to Residential
Multi-Family 15 for the reason stated in the staff recommendation.
Mr. Trias Second
Chairman Hearn It has been moved to second. Is there any further discussion?
Madame Secretary Call the Roll, please.
Secretary Roll Call
Mr. Mundt Yes
Ms. Caron Yes
Ms. Hammer Yes to deny
Mr. Hearn Yes to deny
Mr. Trias Yes
Mr. Grande Yes
Chairman Hearn Ok, on agenda item 4 we are moving to recommend denial of that application
and we move to #5. Mr. Murphy do you have any further comments?
Agenda Item 5: Finlay Development, LLC:
Mr. Murphy No Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, Dennis Murphy, representing
Finlay Development, LLC here tonight. It is almost moot at this point, since the prior action, but we
stand-by our prior comments and if you have any questions, we are here to answer them.
Chairman Hearn- Any further questions of Mr. Murphy? If not, I will open the public hearing. Any
members of the public wish to comment on this, please come forward. Seeing no-one, we will close
the public hearing and come back to the board for questions or a motion.
Attorney Heather Young Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the staff comments will be included as
part of the record of the written comments you all receive.
Chairman Hearn Thank you.
Mr. Grande I have one question of the attorney for the record. Would not the proposed zoning be
inconsistent with the future land use?.
Attorney Heather Young It would be, if it stays unchanged so I think that may be a factor in the
motion that you make.
Mr. Grande We have opened and closed the public hearing?
Mr. Chairman We have.
15
Mr. Grande - Mr. Chairman, after considering the testimony presented during the public hearings
including staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Board of St. Lucie County
recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of
Finlay Development, LLC for change in zoning from industrial light to residential multi-family
because the requested zoning would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Trias Second
Chairman Hearn Moved and second any discussion?
Madame Secretary Call the roll, please.
Secretary Roll Call
Mr. Mundt Yes
Ms. Caron Yes
Ms. Hammer Yes to deny
Mr. Hearn Yes
Mr. Trias Yes
Mr. Grande Yes
Chairman Hearn - Mr. Murphy, your petition will be forwarded to the board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of denial on all three requests and your work is cut out for
you.
Chairman Hearn Items 6 & 7 have been postponed, but again if there is anyone here who wishes
to comment, we can open the public hearing. We move onto other business. Do any of the
commission members have anything to bring up.
Ms. Hammer I wanted to get an idea from the rest of the board their feelings on the following.
One thing we have experienced a great deal lately in PGA Village is the impact from burning
vegetation and the smoke and the debris is so bad that you can even sit out on your porch or your
deck and enjoy this cool weather for a change. I wanted to see if there has ever been a proposal that
we do something to eliminate the burning. There are a lot of people with asthma conditions and
health conditions that surely the burning and the breathing of the smoke cannot be good for them. I
vegeta
I would like us to suggest as a board to the county commissioners that they look at the possibility of
requiring some other way of disposing of vegetation rather than burning it.
Chairman Hearn Any comment from any of the other board members? I certainly understand what
you are saying and concur. Large lot burnings really tend to continue on and on for days at a time.
If the staff would look into that concern, and possibly get the fire department involved in our
district.
Attorney Heather Young I believe the fire district is involved when someone gets a permit to do
open burnings such as that but we can certainly look into any type of further restrictions that we can
put on it and report back to you.
16
Chairman Hearn Ok
Mr. Grande Mr. Chairman, I would like to get an update from Mr. Backenstoss on the request you
sent out. Do you know where we are as far as the special meeting?
Mr. Backenstoss - As of this evening I have received two responses. One is a yes and one is a no
and Mr. Hearn thought he could attend. I have two yes and one no.
Mr. Grande We really have not gotten the majority of the answers back as yet.
Mr. Backenstoss That is correct.
Mr. Grande - Thank you.
Ms. Hammer We can respond tonight right? So here is a yes.
Chairman Hearn I have a couple of items I would like to ask about. Pat Ferrick has sent
correspondence regarding her concern that once the public hearings are closed and the discussion
takes place among the commissioners that when some erroneous information is presented as part of
their decision is there any mechanism to allow the public to bring forth their concerns or their
position on it after the public hearing is closed. Miss Young, do you have a comment on that?
Attorney Heather Young I guess I sort of have a question and Mrs. Ferrick and I have discussed
some of her concerns regarding a particular petition. Is she talking about at that same meeting that
members of the public would get up after the public hearing or at a later date? When she spoke to
me it was at a later date because something had happened and the board had acted on it.
Chairman Hearn - I think she has an option at this level because certainly she can bring it to the
board of County Commission her concerns but, at the board of county commission level what can
the public do to make their position known after the public hearing is closed. If something comes
up and is absolutely incorrect like she has alleged that it has had happened.
Attorney Heather Young There is a provision at the next immediate meeting that a member who
voted in favor of whatever the motion was has the option of bringing it up for reconsideration and I
think that is probably the best way to do it either to contact one of those members or during the
public comment session get up and make those comments and see if there is any member of the
board that voted in favor of the motion that past that would like to have it brought up again for
reconsideration.
Chairman Hearn Okay.
Mr. Grande Mr. Chairman, on that other item she did speak to me and the specific question that
she had of the area she was not comfortable with was frequently many of the comments and the
truth is its more worrisome at the commission level because that is the last stop and our
commissioners of late have gotten into the habit of holding the bulk of their discussion after the
public hearing and, not frequently but often enough to be noticed, there is misinformation or errors
made at that point in time and it is difficult to point them out once the public hearing is closed. I do
not know that there is an easy answer but I think that was her problem.
17
Robert Nix, new Director of Growth Management - Mr. Chairman, could I enter into this
discussion? Accept for plan amendments and some re-zonings, these hearings are quasi-judicial
administrative proceedings. Is that right? There are rules of order that apply to those proceedings
and when the commission or if this board deliberates, they have to deliberate on the facts that are
brought before them on the record at that proceeding. If you reopen the hearing and re-hear the
subject, you are creating an unclear and difficult record to defend. Now the ordinance, I hope, I
have not read this part of it, but most ordinances, and I am certain yours in all likelihood, provides
for an administrative form of relief if there is a party who has aggrieved by decision by the board of
county commissioners in particular, if not, this board to appeal that decision for reconsideration by
the board. And if they are aggrieved and they feel there is an egregious error because of some factor
or misapprehension on the part of the board of county commissioners they should file an appeal.
That is the process that is due to them. And we are obligated to provide all of our applicants and
petitioners due process. So I think what we need to do is to follow the procedure established in the
code very carefully. The hearing is closed, its closed. You make your deliberation on the record
and you make a decision. If someone is agreed by that and in your case they have the opportunity
to present that information to the board of county commissioners and let the board of county
commissioners deliberate and discuss it after the hearing is closed as they should, if they feel the
board still did not understand what they had to say, then they can file an appeal. In addition, I
believe that a prevailing member on the board would have the opportunity should they choose to do
so to ask the board to bring the matter back. If the board of directors and staff bring it back, we
would do so. And in the case of plan amendments, the hearing process extends to the state level so
that the affective parties can continue to press their case with the Florida Dept of Community
Affairs. If the Dept of Community Affairs finds that there is a problem in the process that violates
the state law in their roles than they will find the amendment not in compliance and will notify us in
will find in not in compliance and will either negotiate a settlement with them or go to
administrative hearing on the issue. But these are rules of procedure and due process I think we
need to very carefully follow in order to have a legally sound, defensible proceeding. I do not know
if our attorney, our attorney can disagree with me if she wishes, I do not know if she would, but
reopening hearings once they are closed.
Attorney Heather Young Mr. Chairman, I think that is why you do have that procedure in the code
at the immediate next meeting for it to be reopened if one of the members on the prevailing side so
chooses to make that motion to the rest of the board. I think the difficulty that Mrs. Ferrick was
discussing was after the next meeting when they looked into it they felt some errors have been made
and she and I discussed that but under our current rules it does have to be at the next meeting.
Chairman Hearn Thank you. The only other thing I had that I wanted to visit was the fact that I
think we are revising some of our land development regulations at this time and before they are
formally presented to this board I would us all to have an opportunity to look at them and some time
to make some comments on them before they are brought before us at a public meeting. In other
words, we would like to have some input before they get too far down the
Mr. Nix You mean a week or two days is not enough? We will do everything we can to
accommodate you on that consistent with whatever direction we receive from the board.
18
Mr. Grande On that subject, I did not realize that are we currently revising our LDRs out for
anything other than the TVC stuff?
Chairman Hearn My understanding is you are looking at it?
Mr. Grande If we are, I would suggest to staff, we have over the last 3-4 years we have several
memos of changes/corrections that should be made. Corrections to the LDRs have been presented to
staff, receipt has been acknowledged but what they call housekeeping changes, have never been
made. It would be helpful if they were made. And I think, David Kelly, who is not here tonight, has
the memos and they have been acknowledged and none of them are controversial that I know of.
Mr. Nix We will look at that. One of the housekeeping changes I would like to make, if it is not
on that list, is to eliminate the requirement of the code to place a legal description of the property in
newspaper ads. It is not a requirement, it is a law and it seems to be a constant thorn in our side
here. The only thing that is necessary is to give constructive notice to the public so they know where
the property is and if we have, especially meets and bounds legal description. If the description is a
multiple parcel, it is very difficult to track those in the minute detail that is necessary to insure they
are absolutely correct and avoid a potential adverse decision and a hearing, if the item is appealed.
As long as people know how to get there and they know where the property is, that is constructive
add that to the list of items that need to be changed after
consultation with the administration and the members of the board.
Mr. Trias I appreciate that comment and I think that is a very important thing. I would also like to
see if staff could make a report in the next meeting and explain what kind of changes they are
looking into because I believe to make some substantive changes. I think the experience with the
TVC has been so outstanding and I think that the LDRs that have been prepared are so much better
than anything we have in this county or in any other county that I have worked with. I believe we
should really look at things with a very clear ambition to really enhance it to make it as comparable
and good as the work that has been done with TVC.
Chairman Hearn One of the things that I think we have tended to do in the past was leave a lot of
wiggle room for interpretation and I would like to tighten that up where we are not having 6
different opinions from 6 different people on what the regulation is saying.
Ms. Hammer Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nix one of the things staff has been trying to improve for us is
getting our packets to us earlier. It is certainly better than when I first started on the board but for
staff information even though y
be over-night it does not come until sometime Monday. So if there could be someway of getting the
packets in the over night mail on Thursday so we get it for Friday it gives us the weekend to read
through. Especially, when we have really big packets. If something can be done to try to move that
up so that they go out on Thursday that would be great.
Mr. Nix If we can get out of the hurry-up and figure it out mode that might help. Some of these
applications have been here for awhile. I have not figured out why but I do know that you have a
good staff that is making every effort to get the information to you correctly and timely. I know
that in the past they have been over burdened and I think the process needs to be looked at and
needs to be fixed. I am used to getting items out to the board a minimum of a week in advance of
the meeting. When you have large agendas or difficult items or as a case you had tonight any
19
governmental coordination that has to be undertaken there is time involved in getting those items
out and they cannot be rushed to the point where they are incomplete - incompleteness in the report
and errors. I agree with you that you do not get your items in time to go over them.
Chairman Hearn Mr. Nix, Mr. Backenstoss and I had a discussion before the meeting tonight
regarding possibility of having the minutes abbreviated and make the DVDs a part of the minutes so
that we have an absolute accurate record of what took place at the meeting but not going into a lot
of detail in the minutes like we are doing at the present time which makes it much more time
consuming for you to prepare them and for us to read them and make comments.
Mr. Nix Would the board be favorable to that idea? We are devoting maybe 2 ½ full time
equivalents to producing minutes and it really triples the operation administratively. Furthermore
you are subjecting yourself to potential liability by having almost verbatim but maybe inaccurate in
some respects minutes that can be subpoened and used against you.
Chairman Hearn The minutes in the past that we have received have been less than what we
would desire to have and I believe that using a DVD as part of the minutes and as part of the official
record could eliminate any question that could arise.
Mr. Nix We will do that immediately.
Ms. Caron I was going to suggest that if there was one specific item that is not completed, if you
could maybe forward the rest of the completed items and when you finished completing the package
you could forward that on.
Mr. Nix We will do whatever we can to make it better for you.
Mr. Mundt Mr. Nix, I would like to go back on your comment on simplifying the newspaper
announcement of public hearing and also the placement of signs. I would be a bit carefully on that
from the standpoint of ensuring accuracy and I only bring that up because I watched a description in
the newspaper and than also the signs being placed on Avalon State Park as a public hearing
occurring. And I am surprised we did not get a call from park management. I realize that those
things happen. In fact, those signs are still there. They have been there for two months. I wish
someone would take them down. It is up between Avalon north parking lot and south parking lot
and it was ¾ of a mile south of where they should have been. If there is some way to verify that is
has been properly done.
Mr. Nix - Normally that would be the responsibility in most other jurisdictions of the applicant to
do. I do not know if we are doing it for them or not.
Mr. Mundt - Ok.
Mr. Nix If they improperly post it than it is their problem and if affects the outcome of the hearing
because you cannot really hold it. But if we improperly post it than it is our problem and I do not
think we should be in the business of doing that. Signs are very expensive too.
20
Chairman Hearn - I think all of us have experienced signs being left in place in fact years after the
application has been passed or denied and they are still sitting there. I know they cost quite a bit of
money. Who is responsible for erecting the sign?
Mr. Nix
hem.
Chairman Hearn I think the county does it. They really need a reminder to take them down.
Attorney Heather Young- I think what currently happens is that growth management provides the
information to the sign shop in road and bridge. They manufacture the signs along with all the other
signs work they are doing and then send their crew out to put them in place and that may be where
some of the problem is. They are not familiar with the petition and they do not know exactly where
it is. They are just given a work assignment to go post it somewhere.
Ms Hammer I sure hope we are billing the applicant for that cost.
Mr. Nix If we are going to continue doing it, we should. And we should have the applicant put
some engineering tape on a tree or something so that the road and bridge guys no what to look for
when they go out there.
Mr. Grande - Mr. Chairman, if I can go back. If I remember correctly, we tabled a couple of items
for technical reasons. If it is not a long explanation, what were the reasons for tabling.
Chairman Hearn The explanation I was given there was a technicality in the legal description. If
Mr. Backenstoss would like to comment on that.
Mr. Backenstoss We had an inquiry from the homeowner associations on the beach and they felt
that the legal descriptions were wrong. We checked them in our office and we found them to be
what we felt to be accurate. When we turned it over to our surveyor, he found one word wrong in
the description otherwise it was correct. Because that one word was wrong we decided it needed to
be pulled. So it was a very, very minor and technical error in the ad. So we did pull it and it will be
re advertised. That is the kind of thing we would like to avoid by showing graphically where the
property is. I believe everyone understood where that property was. They knew where the lots
were, they knew where the alleys were, they knew where the abandonment was, etc but because of
that one word, we had to pull it.
Chairman Hearn Thank you.
Mr. Grande One last thing, Mr. Nix, I am sure I speak for all of the others up here, welcome
aboard and we look forward to working with you.
Mr. Nix - Thank you, I look forward to working with you too.
Ms. Hammer Motion to adjourn.
Mr. Mundt - Second
21
Chairman Hearn Meeting is adjourned.
22