Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10-17-2002 Secretary St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor Roger Poitras Annex October 17, 2002 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Pled A. ge of Allegiance B. Roll Call ~ C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES -September 19, 2002 ' ` Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of September 19, 2002, meeting ~ _ S. ' AGENDA ITEM 2: DAVID MILLER -FILE NO. RZ-02-019 This is the petition of DAVID MILLER for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-028 -ESTABLISH INTERIM ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report OTHER BUSINESS: A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion. B. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on November 21st, 2002, in Commission Chambers at the Roger Poitras Annex Building. ADJOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at (772) 462-1586. Page 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ~~,~E CQG DEVELOPMENT Planning Division v~ ~ .c MEMORANDUM 'c~ OR14P TO• Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency Members FROM Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary l~/ DATE: Thursday, October 17, 2002 SUBJECT: P&Z Attendance Mr. Trias and Mr. Merritt will not be attending tonight's Planning and Zoning Meeting. Their absences are with notice. ~ •f ~ ° St. Lucie County r ~ . _ z. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING ~ September 19, 2002 ~ ~ ~ ~ - - a Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Lounds (Both Absent -With Notice); Mr. Akins (Absent ~ Without Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 1 ry ~ ((1~~ p ~ ~ - - - e...~ n - 'iT'zp5$~ CALL TO ORDER ~ ~ ~ • G,'a-'y: ~ jr~~. Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL - ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hearn stated that he has had conversations with various members of the public with regards to several of the issues being heard this evening. Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's meeting. For those of you who have not been here before, The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.- The Staff will present a brief summary of the project and then make their recommendation. After which time, the Petitioner will be asked to come forward and state his/her case for the requested petition. At any time the Commission may stop and ask questions of the Petitioner or Staff. After that process is completed the Chairman will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak for or against the petition. The purpose of this hearing is to get input from the general public. If anyone has something to say, please feel free to come forward and state it. After everyone has gotten a chance to speak the Chairman will then close the public hearing. The Commission will deliberate and then make a decision regarding their recommendation, one way or the other. 'The decision that is made is typically read from a scripted set of statements that are given to the Commission. It may sound rehearsed but it really is not. There is one motion for and one motion against in the package, so that the Commission can make a motion either one way or the other so it is very clear in the records. I I Once again, I want to remind you that the Planning and Zoning Commission only acts in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Young asked that Mr. Hearn disclose exactly which petitions he had discussions about when. they are presented. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 2 is ~ ~ , AGENDA ITEM 1: AUGUST 15, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: ~ e~, ~ _ ~:r n Mr. Grande moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. ~ 'j~~ Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 3 ~ c' j i ~ ~~~:3~ ~ ~~~~~A~ e ,-.say ~.aF , . , z:::eA AGENDA ITEM 2: AUGUST 29, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES: qq~~ ~ ?1 s~;+'~,;_~ ~ e ` L~°~' x~~~ ta`.1iu.tssi:,.,Wd':a4t1 i-1] ~'3E'ia Mr. Grande stated that there were a couple of minor corrections he would like to address. He advised that the last line, in the second paragraph, on page 9 should read "shouldn't" instead of "should". He also stated in the third paragraph, fourth line from the bottom, on page 11, it should read, "It's" instead of "it". Mr. Hearn stated that Mr. McCurdy was listed as both present and absent for the meeting and it should be corrected to read that he was present, not absent. Mr. Grande stated that in the third paragraph, second line, on page 11, the word "not" should be deleted because it is a double negative. He also stated that the last paragraph, first line, on page 13, also should have the word "not" removed. Mr. Grande moved for approval, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). i P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 4 R'a r ~3rimq,~.y`~y r t~ 1 t.. k '~1'~ ap AGENDA ITEM 3: FILE NO. CU-02-007 -FLORIDA CENTER FOR RECOVERY INC.: Chairman Matthes stated that he has had members of the public discuss this issue with him. Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services (specifically an inpatient drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation center) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 12.17 acres of property located at 3451 West Midway Road. He also stated that at the August 15, 2002 hearing of this petition, the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussion about the treatment facility and directed staff to outline conditions that would be appropriate for the facility based on their discussions. The following are the conditions being recommended by staff for the proposed conditional use: 1. The proposed facility shall be limited to Drug and Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation only. 2. The number of patients shall be limited to a maximum of 72. 3. Agate shall be constructed at the entrance of the existing wall in order to provide security for the project. 4. There shall be no acceptance of Medicaid patients by the proposed facility. 5. The conditional use granted through this petition is non- transferable. 6. The conditional use permit shall be limited to the area north of the canal, which runs diagonally through the property. Mr. Flores continued that subsequent to the distribution of the staff report, it was determined that Condition #4 should be removed from the listed conditions. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the 5 limiting conditions. Chairman Matthes stated that this item was continued from the August 15~' meeting and had a lot of discussion. He also stated that they had asked the petitioner to give some more detailed information with regards to the proposal. He continued that once the petitioner makes his more detailed presentation they would reopen the public hearing for comments. Mr. Ed Porch stated that he was the representative for the applicant Florida Center for Recovery and lives in Jensen Beach. He advised that this property was being acquired as a subsidiary of another facility, which is located in Long Island. He also stated that letters of recommendation have been provided from the New York City Police Department, Hampton Bay's Civic Association as well as other associations and institutions that have had experience with the facility. He continued that during the events of 9-11, their facility's counselors were active, on a volunteer basis, with the survivors and those on the scene at the time. He also stated that this P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 5 ~ E' ~~~'"r'_ t'>, s~ N r ~ s f'~p rsaa.rfl ~ ~ ~t , n ii;.._; . facility will be similar to the Betty Ford Clinic and would be high-end and would probably have some high profile clientele from out of state. He advised that there were previously some concerns about security and wanted to reiterate that these are voluntary patients who pay a lot of money to be there. He stated that several aerial photos showing different angles of the facility were provided to detail the size and location of the facility in relation to Midway Road. He continued that the administration building sits back about 400 feet from Midway Road and he also provided illustrations of the landscaping they were proposing to do. He also. stated that there would not be any signs on the property either. He advised that there is a large concrete wall that surrounds the dormitories and that area would have a security gate constructed as requested in condition number three of the staff report. He stated that the interior of the building has several security doors that restrict ingress and egress to the outside. He also stated that there are only forty-four in-residence beds available in St. Lucie County for recovery treatment. He continued that no one would really know the facility is there because of the landscaping, no signs, and no increased traffic. He advised that the property is currently owned by the U.S. Government and was previously owned by anon-profit, charitable organization and was not on the tax roll. He stated that the property is being sold for four million dollars. He also stated that the payroll for the facility would be two million dollars a year and the Alzheimer's facility only had a~payroll of six hundred thousand dollars a year. He continued that there would be no additional public facilities or utilities impacted. He advised that they met with the Director of Nursing at IRCC and is setting up a program for interns and scholarships. He also stated that this facility is being restricted, under Staff's conditions, so that only this applicant can use the conditional use and the number of patients is also limited. Mr. Merritt disclosed that he has had a short discussion with Mr. Porch with regards to this petition. He questioned how many beds were found in Martin and Indian River Counties. Mr. Porch stated that there were a total of 139 beds for the entire Treasure Coast, north of West Palm Beach, and only fo -f~jour of those were in St. Lucie County, which are understaffed. Chairman Spened the Public Hearing. Ms. Arlene Goodman stated that she supports this facility but suggested that they make sure that all staff has an NCIC background check as well as an FDC check. She advised that many members of her family were alcoholics and could have benefited from a facility like the one proposed. She also stated that, at the time, her nineteen-year-old son took his own life by using alcohol and drugs at the same time, there were no facilities in the area that could assist him with his problems. She continued that St. Lucie County needs this type of facility and she is all for it. She advised that for the welfare of the patients of the center, the rest of the property should als~v be fenced in and may help to deter someone from coming onto the property to tempt a patient with any substance. She continued that this is a disease and they need all the help they can get to overcome their addiction. She stated that she was concerned about what would happen if someone were caught trying to bring in or provide substances to the patients in the facility. Mr. Nollie Robinson stated that he was the Director of Criminal Justice and Out-patient Substance Abuse Programs for New Horizons of the Treasure Coast. He stated that he supported the center and at a recent conference it was brought up that the only facilities, comparable to this one, were in West Palm Beach and Daytona Beach. He also stated that he too was a recovering alcoholic and went through a program similar to the one proposed and believes these facilities work. He continued that these applicants have a great reputation in the Long Island area and he would look forward to working with them here on the Treasure Coast. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 6 ~'i~^~ r E-~~~~~~ ~ 5 c ~~~'i yygg L :'1 . :t .uS JJ~in Ms. Dottie Thompson stated that she was an employee of the State of Florida Children & Families division and was responsible for licensing all of the substance abuse programs in District 15. She continued that she strongly supports this facility as there are not enough beds for those seeking treatment and there are no other facilities like this in our district. She also stated that roughly 50% of those within the district have to go out of district to get residential treatment. She advised that the few small facilities that exist have extremely long waiting lists. She also stated that she does not support fencing in the entire facility because this is a voluntary facility and doesn't need to be that restrictive. - Mr. John Ferrick stated that he thinks this is a nice facility and is currently a waste of space that needs to be used. He continued that this proposal is much better than some of the other options that were proposed for the facility. He questioned if the Sheriff would be notified if there were any issues involving patients, staff, or visitors that attend their facility. Mr. Jack Fitzharris advised that if anyone were caught bringing in a substance to the treatment facility, they would be reported. He continued that unfortunately it could happen but if they are caught, the patient would be thrown out of the facility and the Sheriff would be notified: Seeing no one else, Chairman 11~sC-~raLy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn questioned if the gate that will be constructed would remain closed except during entry and exit of the area. Mr. Fitzharris confirmed it would generally remain closed. Mr. Grande stated 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 Florida Center for Recovery, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services in the I (Institutional) Zoning District, because it will be a benefit to the public and a very positive use of that particular parcel. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. Merritt stated that he has mixed emotions about this petition because of the price of the services and the fact that most of the people in Fort Pierce could not afford to enter this facility. He continued that he could not go along with this because he feels it does not benefit the residents of Fort Pierce. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-1 (Mr. Merritt voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 7 - °.~am r :::1 i~,..o . _ - AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE NO. RZ-02-018 - RODNEY HOPKINS: - ~ >°+,a Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of Rodney Hopkins for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District ~o the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 2.54 acres of property located at 4891 North U.S. Highway No. 1. He advised that the applicant would like to establish a Congregate Care Facilit~~ on the subject property. He continued that the surrounding zoning was CG (Commercial, General) to the north, south, east, and west with I (Institutional) Zoning to the north. He also stated that the general existing use surrounding the property was commercial. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is~ recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Rodney Hopkins stated that he was the petitioner and that the average life expectancy of the elderly is seventy-six years old. He continued that he was very interested in providing the elderly as close to a home atmosphere as possible. He also stated that there is a large need for this typ€: of facility in the County and he was currently renovating the building to make it look better tha~~ it did previously. Mr. Hearn stated that he contacted Staff to ask some questions about the plans. He also state ~l that the applicant has done a fantastic job in starting to clean up one of the more serious eyesores on north U.S. 1 and is proud to have him in the neighborhood. He continued that he fully supports what the applicant wants to do but does have some concerns about his needing Lo l~awc> the property rezoned before getting his license to operate the facility. He advised that he is also concerned about some of the items that are allowed in the accessory and permitted uses under the I (Institutional) Zoning. He continued that he would feel much more comfortable with .the request if he knew that he was already approved to operate this assisted living facility there. He also stated that he was told that they planned to have an Institutional Residential Home, which would be in excess of fourteen people. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was correct and that. he was planning on having sixteen people in the home. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt a PNIZla tx~ould be the most appropriate request for this type of use, especially since he wants to have his office for his plastering company on the same site. Mr. Hopkins stated that he was currently in the process of submitting a new legal description, which would exclude his personal business office site. Mr. Hearn advised that a PNRD would give the neighborhood the assurance of what is going tc be done on the property because a change in zoning opens up several other possibilities. He also stated that he was concerned about the noise from the paint ballpark, which is located next door to this proposed home. Mr. Hopkins stated that the park is only open.during the day on Saturday and Sunday and isn't too concerned about the noise because the buildings are concrete block with an inch of stucco on the outside and are well insulated with Egyptian plastering, which should buffer a lot of the noise. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would have a problem with changing their request to a PNRD. Mr. Hopkins stated that he didn't really understand. Chairman Matthes stated that Staff should explain. what the procedural differences would be before the applicant could attempt to comment on that request. Mr. Hopkins stated that he has all the paperwork from Tallahassee for the application but cannot afford to pay for all of the large cost renovations required to meet all of their requirements before knowing if he will be granted approval from the County for the change in zoning. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 8 ~ r•kfa ~ ,1 ~ . ~ I 4' ! av y~~4i:~if Y:v~ Mr. Hearn stated that he fully supports what the applicant wants to do with the facility because it is an asset to the neighborhood but is concerned with changing the character of the zoning because of what could be done under the I (Institutional) Zoning if he sells the property at a later date. He also stated that he was concerned about the ability to have a drinking place as an accessory use under the Institutional Zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that there are two major differences between the I (Institutional) Zoning and a PNRD request. He continued that one of the issues is timing because there a number of other documents that must be prepared in addition to the application and more information is required. He also stated the second issue that there is an increased fee for a PNRD. He advised that the site plan probably wouldn't be necessary since the buildings are already in place and exist. Chairman Matthes questioned if he would be required to adhere to all of the other usual site plan requirement issues. Mr. Kelly stated that most of the parking, landscape, and other usual requirements would. need to be met and would be reviewed through the building department at the time the permits are required. He also stated that they do not have the ability to condition a straight rezoning but through the PNRD request, they gain the ability to place conditions. Mr. Hopkins stated there is already an existing site plan of the property but he has some small items that might need to be changed with regards to paving, parking and other small things. Mr. Merritt stated that he didn't understand the concern about the ability to have drinking places as an accessory use, since that is available under the current CG (Commercial, General) Zoning too. Mr. Hearn stated that he wasn't sure that a helipad or a drinking place was allowed under the current CG Zoning without a conditional use permit and those items were his main concerns. He also stated that he was going to support this petition and was happy to have Mr. Hopkins as a neighbor. He continued that he would just like to see some additional safeguards that cannot be instituted under a straight rezoning. Mr. Merritt and Chairman Matthes both pointed out that drinking places are listed as an accessory use under both zoning districts. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. Mr. Trias stated that he understood Mr. Hearn's concerns and goals but that he felt comfortable with the petitioner's request as it was currently presented. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Arlene Goodman stated that in her prior experiences with these types of facilities she found that you couldn't get all of your licenses and permits approved from the State without getting the approval from the County for the change in zoning. She also stated that she understands their concerns but was very much in favor of this proposed home for the elderly. Ms. Sharon Stonesiper stated that she resides in Port St. Lucie and would like to say that Mr. Hopkins has elderly parents who he cares very much for. She also stated that his plans were to provide ahome-like setting, with a common house where they could gather, for these people to live out the rest of their days comfortably and have a quality of life. She asked that the Commission to please support Mr. Hopkins and his project because he has the best intentions and has invested a tremendous amount of time and energy on this project. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 9 _ _ „ ~ Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. ~ ,~f ; ~';~d ~ Y~ ~ titi~~~ ~.W Mr. Hearn stated this project is in his neighborhood and he welcomes Mr. Hopkins to the area because he thinks he will do a great job and that his only concern was that there might be a safer way to do this, as far as the community was concerned. Mr. Merritt stated that he was concerned about delaying this project because of the cost to the owner and that he was prepared to vote on.this tonight. - Mr. Hearn disclosed that this topic was one of the two topics that he has had discussions about. Mr. Hearn stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearir~gy including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06003, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County CommissioneY°g grant approval to the application of Rodney Hopkins for a Change in Zoning from tPae CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District, because his plans clearly are an asset to the neighborhood and to St. Lucie County. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion. Mr. Grande stated that he would like to add that the petitioner has presented a very good case a~~d that Mr. Hearn's and Mr. Merritt's points were both absolutely right. He continued that he didn't feel they should be in the position of being asked to send petitioners back for a second shot, which increases their costs. He also stated that he would appreciate it if when petitioner's ~or~~e in with requests like this, that the Staff gives them all of the available zoning, which would S~n~eY: their requirements and the benefits of the PUD or PNRD. He continued that the basic rc:asox there is because if a petitioner, at some point in time, sells the property, after a zoning has [~e;c r changed and he would feel more comfortable if it was sold with a PNRD zoning and an approved site plan and not a generalized zoning district. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). and foL~~~4~~°c~"r:c~ the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 10 i ~ ~ fit' r 4 M ~ ~ 1 't3 s ' ~-d~ ~7cd YV iai; A ! A ~ Ud AGENDA ITEM 5: FILE NO. CU-02-001- TIMOTHY & DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH: Ms. Cyndi Snay stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the request of Timothy and Debra Rose Car Wash for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility to be known as Rose Car Wash within the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District. She continued that the subject property is located at 5321 Sunshine State Parkway and is surrounded to the north by the Lakewood Park Subdivision and Lakewood Park Methodist Church; to the south by The Bank of America Facility and vacant commercial land; to the west by Lake James and single family residential units of Lakewood Park; and to the east is Holiday Pines then vacant commercial land. She also stated that the proposed facility would front onto the Turnpike Feeder Road. She advised that the applicant indicated that a 15-foot wide landscape buffer and an 8-foot high opaque masonry wall will be constructed around the subject site. She stated that the proposed car wash facility was not expected to negatively impact any of the public facilities within the surrounding area. She also stated that as part of the site plan submittal packages, the applicant submitted a noise study for the proposed area. She continued that this noise study indicates that the proposed car wash facility will meet the requirements of Chapter 1-13.8, the Noise Ordinance, of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances. Ms. Snay stated that the St. Lucie County Land Development Code sets forth the overall purpose of a conditional use permit and the authority for granting of a conditional use permit. According to Section 11.07.01(A) and (B) the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is: Section 11.07.01(A~ "The purpose of this section is to provide for uses that are generally compatible with the use characteristics of a zoning district, but which require individual review of their location, design, intensity, configuration and public facility impact in order to determine the appropriateness of the use on any particular site in the district and their compatibility with adjacent uses. Conditional uses may require the imposition of additional conditions to make the uses compatible in their specific contexts." Section 11.07.01(B) "The Board of County Commissioners may, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Code, grant conditional uses permits for those uses enumerated in each of the zoning districts in Section 3.01.03 of this Code. Ms. Snay advised that the subject petition was found to be consistent with the standards of review of the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. She also stated that should the Commission choose to recommend approval of the petition, Staff recommends that any such approval include the following special conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Vegetation Removal Permit, the developer of this project shall clearly delineate and protect through appropriate identification P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 11 / and barricades any existing native vegetation located outside the limits of development for the proposed project that is to be preserved in place. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic nuisance vegetation found on the site shall be removed. 3. The proposed car wash facility's hours of operation will be limited to_7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4. The applicant shall be required to install an 8-foot high opaque wall constructed of concrete and masonry materials or another similar material. This barrier wall may not be constructed of wood or similar material. This wall must be continuous and unbroken. The applicant will be required to install a minimum of 60% of the required perimeter landscaping material on the outside of the wall consistent with the requirements of Section 7.09.04(E) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 5. The approvals granted are contingent upon Rose Car Wash, its successors and assigns, complying with the noise limitations set forth in Chapter 1-13.8 of the St. Lucie County Code and Complied Laws, as may be amended from time to time. In the even that rose Car Wash, its successors or assigns, shall be required to correct the cited violation in the manner required by code. Failure to provide corrective actions as directed by the County or their authorized agent shall result in an order to suspend the operation of the car wash facility until the noise violations are corrected to meet county codes. Mr. Hearn stated that he noticed that Staff had not presented a recommendation one way or the other on this petition. Mr. Kelly advised that they had done a technical review and their technical finding was that this car wash could meet the county codes. He stated there needs to be a consideration for compatibility and that if the Commission finds that it is compatible with the neighborhood it could be approved. He continued that the technical aspects have been met but there is a policy issue that they felt would be better left to the Commission to decide. Mr. Hearn stated that when this was previously presented Staff had recommended denial and questioned what has changed from the original request. Ms. Snay stated that there were some minor changes that needed to be made to the site plan, which have since been modified and now meets all of the technical requirements of the code. Mr. Grande questioned if their decision-making allowed them to deny the application if they feel it has a negative impact on the neighborhood or is inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Young confirmed that incompatibility of the underlying use would be sufficient grounds to recommend denial, if they chose to. Mr. Bruce Barkette stated that he was the attorney representing the applicant Mr. Timothy Rose, who was also present. He advised that Mr. Randy Mosby, the engineer for the project and Mr. Bernard Kinney, the noise consultant were also present to answer any questions. He continued that the project site is on Turnpike Feeder Road, just north of the Bank of America, Habits Bar and Grill, and the Mobile station and is zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood). He stated that this specific request was for aself-service car wash, which is permitted as a conditional use in P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 12 ~~~Y~ the CN Zoning District. He continued that when Mr. Grande confirmed that he couldauriials 's'~ r'~~~}"~Al. down because it was incompatible, there is law governing those issues. He stated that Florida Supreme Court case Irvine vs. Duvall County Planning Commission states that they must have an articulated reason that is supported by competent and substantial evidence. He also stated that the law states, "Once a petitioner meets the initial burden of showing that his application met the statutory criteria for granting such exceptions, the burden is upon the opposing party to demonstrate by competent, substantial evidence, presented at the hearing and made a part of the record, that the special exception, or conditional use requested by the petitioner, did not meet the standards. and was in fact adverse to the public interest". He continued that the court has emphasized that the mere objections of neighbors is not competent and substantial evidence. He advised that if there is an articulated noise ordinance in the code and this application satisfies that noise ordinance, you couldn't then say they are turning it down because of the noise, because the standard has been met. He stated that unless the opposing parties come forward with another noise .consultant that shows that they have not met that standard. He continued that if the concern was with traffic and they have a trafEc study that shows they have met that standard, it cannot be used as a reason to turn down the application and disregard. the expert testimony. He also stated that once they come forward with competent and substantial evidence, which demonstrates that they have met the standards; they are entitled to be approved, as per the laws of the State of Florida and St. Lucie County. He stated that the Staff report has done a .good job of presenting the standards that they were required to meet and they have been determined to be consistent in all applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. He continued to point out each of the items listed in the Staff report, which showed they met the four listed items from the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the Land Development Code. He also stated that they have also met the standards required for development/site plan review as well. He stated that they were not aware of the standards when they submitted their site plan previously, which is why they were not met at that point in time. He continued that they felt they were going to be a good neighbor and that the car wash meets all of the technical requirements. Mr. Randy Mosby, Mosby and Associates, showed an aerial photograph to outline the project and where it sits relative to the adjacent properties. He stated that the project site is bordered on the south and southeast by the Turnpike Feeder Road, the north by Eden Road, and to the northwest by Pandora Avenue. He continued that the Lakewood Park Methodist Church is located to the northeast and is 450 feet away from their site location. He also stated that the wall they will be constructing is located along the northeast, north, and a portion of the northwest perimeter, with the only opening being on Turnpike Feeder Road and to the commercial site to the southwest. He advised that they are 400 feet from the first home in Holiday Pines, which is to the south-southeast. He then stated that it is 400 feet to the first house in Lakewood Park, which is to the north-northwest of the project. He continued that the permits have been approved by DOT and that all of the engineering design is contained within the perimeters of the eight-foot wall and both sides of that wall will be landscaped. Mr. Trias questioned if the applicant could address specifically how this proposal is consistent with the code and that it should be approved as a conditional use. He advised that the description of what is being proposed he already understands but he would like to see how that information makes sense with regards to the conditional use process. Mr. Barkette stated that he didn't really understand what Mr. Trias was looking for because the Staff report goes into how the project specifically meets all of the requirements for the conditional use and site plan. He advised that the purpose statement for the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) Zoning District reads in part, P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 13 _ _ .F M3 <ie e2 avi.~:: e,)%.._(d!i i fiS _a.~~~lAL "The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for limited retail trade and service activities covering a relatively small area and that is intended to serve the population living in surrounding neighborhoods". He stated that a car wash does qualify as limited retail trade and service activities. He also stated that the parcel size is 0.74 acres, which would qualify as covering a relatively small area and that the car wash is intended to serve the population living in the surrounding neighborhoods. He continued that having the eight-foot articulated wall and landscaping on the outside of the wall, has mitigated the compatibility. Mr. Bernard Kinney, 9767 Erica Court, Boca Raton stated that he was the president of Bernard Kinney and Associates, which is an environmental noise consultant firm. He presented a copy of the noise study report and his resume for review by the Commission. He stated that he has over twelve years experience in environmental acoustics, is an appointed member of the Florida Department of Transportation Noise Task team, and has done many environmental noise studies. He continued that the St. Lucie County noise ordinance has two main elements that must be satisfied. He stated the first element is the maximum permissible noise levels and the second is that it is not permitted to go three decibels over the existing ambient noise. He advised that in both cases, the proposed Tim Rose Car Wash facility met that criterion and that the wall that will be constructed will be an even better buffer to any respective noise. He continued that his analysis did not include having mitigation from a wall, so that would help the results of the study even further. He advised that he went out to the proposed facility, over athree-day period, and conducted a series of noise measurements, utilizing noise descriptors provided by the noise ordinance, over a minimum fifteen-minute measurement period to find the current existing noise levels. He stated that the Turnpike Feeder Road dominated most of the noise that was within the area due to the heavy truck traffic. He continued that he then went to another car wash facility, Cartoons Car Wash in Fort Pierce, because he anticipated that site would have a greater volume of traffic since it is on U.S. 1, allowing for a worst case impact to present. He also stated that he took measurements in front of the self-service bays, the automated car wash, and then backed up ninety feet to account for the property line and took more measurements. He continued that with these results they met the code and in many cases fell far below the maximum levels permitted by the ordinance. Mr. Merritt questioned how many loud boom boxes came through the car wash during the fifteen-minute increments that were measured. Mr. Kinney stated there were not a whole lot, but there were a few noted and at the ninety feet, they were still within the levels required within the ordinance. Mr. Hearn stated that the vacuums would be located at the back of the property, closest to the area zoned for residential use. He advised that he lives on North U.S. 1 and there is a Shell station across the highway from him that has vacuum cleaners available and he can hear the annoying noises from them while they are running. He questioned if the study indicated if any vacuums were running while they were taking measurements. Mr. Kinney stated that the vacuums were running all day long while they were there at the Cartoons Car Wash. Mr. Hearn stated that his concern is with the noises that will come from the car wash that would be annoying to the residents surrounding the area. He advised that he does not agree with Staff that this project won't have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Kinney stated there are different items that should be considered because they all contribute to the overall ambient but things that may be annoying still may fall within the required levels of the noise ordinance. He continued that the Turnpike Feeder Road contributes highly to the ambient noise out there and the data shows that in some cases it is far greater than the noise levels registered P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 14 l~ ;;J o r~ ~,arA ~rqa r ~p E s ~'c?e i~l o:9r„y..,t ~'Cs i+i i~J~ii dtt~~~"~ from the Cartoons Car Wash and U.S. 1 levels. He continued that he thinks that the Turnpike Feeder Road would dominate a large portion of the ambient background noise, even when the car wash facility is in place. Mr. Hearn stated that adding more noise to the noise that already exists there would not be a good thing. Mr. Kinney advised that it is a logarithmic function and is on a base ten scale, so adding the car wash would not really increase the decibels over what is already existing from the heavy trucks that currently travel that road. He continued that in some cases the levels at the Cartoons Car Wash were lower than the levels that currently exist along the Turnpike Feeder Road. Chairman Matthe§ opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bill Adams stated he resides in Holiday Pines and that the Board of County Commissioners denied this petition unanimously previously. He continued that one of the past issues they had was with noise and it is still an issue now. He also stated that there is a Church right next door and a residential district across from, beside, and in back of the proposed site. He advised that he believes this will affect their property values and will also affect those using the Church's meditation garden. He stated that he understands there is already noise from the highway, -but that adding this facility will only contribute to that noise. He questioned why the applicant is insistent on putting this facility in that location with a Church and residential areas so close by when there is property for sale south of this area that is more commercial. He also stated that there is already a car wash existing down the street and a truck wash facility a little further down the Feeder Road. He continued that he feels that the northern end of the county gets stuck with all of these controversial projects. He advised that he feels there are some things that are more important than the legality of the project. He also stated that they are concerned about the lights shining into the Holiday Pines area and how this project will affect the new development that is coming into the area. He continued that they are also concerned about the facility being unattended and could become a gathering place, which would incur more police issues. Mr. Grande questioned if this application is the same proposal that was previously denied by the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Snay confirmed that it was the same proposal that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of previously and the Board of County Commissioners had recommended denial of. She stated that the applicant chose to resubmit their request and there is no time restriction in the code with regards to conditional use requests. Mr. Kelly advised that there were some minor changes to the original site plan, but it essentially was the same. Mr. Adams stated that he collected one hundred and fifty signatures from Holiday Pines residents that were against this petition. He presented a copy of the signatures to the secretary for the record. Ms. Adelaide Brown stated that she resides in Spanish Lakes Country Club and is a member of the Lakewood Park Methodist Church. She continued that she has lived in Spanish Lakes for twenty years and that when they bought the property they were happy to find the Church. She also stated that they have the memorial gardens, which are in front of the church and is meant for prayer and meditation and needs to remain a quite atmosphere. She advised that she does not want to see a car wash next to the church. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 15 ~ `i f i .~,1~~~ 4..~.. e.lT eµ^J i~ Mr. Sam Brown stated he was the spouse of Ms. Adelaide Brown and wanted to go over the Staff report. He questioned if there would be public facilities at the car wash since the Staff report states it would not create any significant additional demands. Ms. Snay stated that all facilities would be found on the site until such time that water and sewer is brought forth and available. Mr. Brown asked what would happen if their on-site septic tank were to overflow. Chairman Matthes stated that he believed they would handle it the same way anyone with a standard septic system would by meeting the Health Department codes. Mr. Brown stated that in the third paragraph, under number 1, on page 5, it shows that incompatible visual effects may >Se expected on the residential properties located to the north-northeast of the facility. He questioned why this didn't include the Church's property. He also questioned what the economic impacts on the area would be if this business weren't successful and just ends up being abandoned. Chairman Matthes stated that he could not find a sign plan and wanted to know what the maximum height restriction would be for the sign. Mr. Kelly stated that the sign would be a maximum of ten feet to the top of the sign. Chairman Matthes confirmed that the sign would be allowed to be two feet higher than the top of the eight-foot wall as per code. Ms. Lil Collier advised that she lives at 7171 Brookline Avenue in Lakewood Park and is also an active member of the Church. She stated that she has had experiences with noise and how loud it can be when you are in proximity of it. She explained that when she was in a pizza parlor, in a strip mall, someone had continuous loud music playing in their car and she could hear the thumping and vibrations from the vehicle in the parlor. She advised that their Church is located along a road that is a feeder road, but the noise passes quickly as the cars and trucks go by. She questioned. the 3.5553 acres that is shown on the property owners listing for Lakewood Park Methodist Church. Chairman Matthes explained that is how much of the Church's property is located within 500 feet of.the subject parcel. Ms. Collier stated that the Church sits on five acres and wondered why the difference. Chairman Matthes pointed out that the second column does show that the property's total area is 5.63524 acres and that the other number is only the amount of acres that falls within the 500 feet. She stated that she just wanted to make the point that most of the Church's property is located within 500 feet, which most likely includes the sanctuary and the memorial gardens. She also stated that she uses the garden and memorializes her loved ones there and is concerned about the noise for extended periods of time affecting that area. She submitted a copy to the secretary for the record of 385 signatures that were also against the proposed car wash facility. Chairman Matthes stated that the reason that it shows the area within the five hundred feet on the property owner's listing was because that is required by the code and that it has nothing to do with the noise study and where they tested the levels. Ms. Collier stated that she understands that and simply wanted to point out the distance measurement. She also stated that she did not believe the Church ever received the notification letter and response form with regards to this petition. Ms. Snay advised that they were sent out the letter and maps originally back in August and that there would be additional letters, maps and conditional use response forms sent to everyone on that list prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting. She also stated that since the August meeting was continued to a date certain, no additional letters were sent. She continued that any correspondence that has been received, at any time, in the Planning Department, by anyone with regards to this petition it would be included in the packets to the Board of County Commissioners for their review. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 16 r P, _ . _ n `i~:~~ Mr. Hearn questioned if their packets included any correspondence that was received from the public. Mr. Kelly stated that the response forms that are sent out prior to the County Commission meeting, but after the Planning and Zoning meeting, so the copies of the response forms would not be included in their packets. He also stated that the code states that if written protest (on the Conditional Response Forms) by owners of fifty (50) percent or more of the area within five hundred (500) feet of the property affected if received the conditional use permit can not be approved except by the favorable vote of four-fifths (4/5) of all of the Board of County Commissioners. He advised that any written correspondence that is received prior to their packets being mailed is included. He also stated that usually if it is received after their packets are mailed, but in enough time prior to the actual meeting, copies are made and given to the Planning and Zoning Commission the night of the meeting. Mr. Hearn questioned if that is done on a per acre basis or just strictly on property owners. Mr. Kelly advised it is done on a per acre basis. Ms. Dorothy Davis stated that she was a resident of Spanish Lakes Country Club Village and has a petition signed by 107 of their residents against this petition. She submitted the petitions to the secretary for the record. She also questioned what dates the noise study was done. Chairman Matthes stated the dates of the study were 7/20/02 through 7/23/02. Ms. Davis stated that they feel that they reside in the country and would like to keep it that way and don't need another car wash when there is already one just down the road. Ms. Lori Lepere stated that she resides at 6500 Eden Road and that her property is within five hundred feet and directly behind the proposed facility. She advised that she has aten-year-old daughter who rides her bicycle on their street, which is behind this site and is also worried about the lights shining into their home in the evening. She also stated that she is worried about it being open until 10:00 at night and just wanted to make sure they were aware that she was not for this car wash. Ms. Judy Kloid stated that her husband is the pastor of Lakewood Park Methodist Church and they reside directly behind the Church. She continued that they are in the process of designing a small prayer chapel that will face the memorial gardens and is afraid that will no longer be a quiet, serene place, if the car wash is approved. She also stated that they have a country type neighborhood that they would like to-keep that way. Mr. Cliff Norris stated that he was the managing partner of athree-partner ownership of property t$at was within 500 feet of the proposed facility on the southwest side and his office was located at 4731 A-1-A in Vero Beach. He questioned if the wall is completely u-shaped and the only opening from Turnpike Feeder Road. Mr. Randy Mosby advised that the wall was open to the commercial side to the southwest and also on Feeder Road. He continued that the all areas that border residential areas and the church are entirely closed by the wall. Mr. Norris confirmed that the wall would not be on the side of the property that faces their property. Mr. Mosby stated that there would not be any wall between the two pieces of commercial land. Mr. Norris questioned if the wall would be exposed block or stucco. Mr. Mosby explained it would be an articulated stucco wall with landscaping on both sides. Mr. Norris asked if the landscaping would be irrigated. Mr. Mosby stated that it would be irrigated. Mr. Norris stated that they don't have any major objections except that they would ask that the wall be completely constructed with the only opening on the Turnpike Feeder Road. He also stated that they would like to see the irrigation mandated to be continually irrigated so that it is fresh and new and has an attractive appearance. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 17 ''i k+^°- _ _4.;.u ~ Mr. Bob Bangert stated that he has lived in Holiday Pines in St. Lucie County sin~"19'79 arid` there have been several eyesores over the years along the roads that lead to his home. He explained that he is concerned about what would happen to this property if they go out of business. He also stated that it would be another ugly eyesore if that happened and should be considered. Mr. Gordon Case stated he lives at 5411 Eagle Drive in Holiday Pines and that the wall they have all been discussing does not go between the proposed property and Holiday Pines. He-also stated that he does believe that the wall will help deflect some of the noise from the car wash but is really concerned with the hours of operation. He continued that having the car wash open until 10:30 p.m. would attract a lot of teenagers with loud music because they don't have anyplace else to go. He stated that he was also concerned because there will not be any staff on-site to police this type of activity and will be bad news for the neighborhood. He also stated that he feels having a car wash next to a church is not appropriate. Ms. Patricia Bodey stated she lives at 7101 Cabana Lane in Lakewood Park and is very against this car wash. She advised that there are much better locations along Kings Highway from Indrio Road to Orange Avenue and further south. Mr. John Ferrick advised that he is not a resident within the area but understands the neighbors concerns about the level of noise that may be generated from the car wash and its customers. He stated that he lives a '/4 mile from any paved road and on many nights he can hear the thumping and vibrating from car radios. He continued that if he were a member of this church and had to deal with hearing those noises from the car wash, he too would be upset. He stated that he feels that this is a poor location since it is next to a church. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Randy Mosby stated that when this site plan was presented previously it was incomplete because they did not have a noise study or all the details needed and after it was denied they reviewed all of the information with Staff. He continued that they redesigned and readdressed all of the concerns prior to resubmittal to fulfill all of the issues and ordinances of St. Lucie County. He explained that they were before them before and were denied by the County Commission but that was for a previous application that truly wasn't complete. He also stated that they have worked hard with Staff to address all of the concerns and feel that the new information they submitted with the site plan and noise study should have addressed all of those previous concerns. Mr. Trias questioned if the only physical change to the site plan from the previous request was making the wall 8-feet tall. Mr. Mosby stated that the major change was the landscaping and the wall for buffering around this facility. Ms. Snay explained that the primary changes from the original site plan were modifications to the landscaping, retaining walls around the preserve areas, sighting the light fixtures to ensure the on-site saturation, with no off-site saturation allowed, bringing the wall up to eight feet and landscaping going on both sides of the wall. She continued that the building layout and footprint did not change. Mr. Bruce Barkette stated that he wanted to point out that most of the opposing testimony is based on fears of the unknown and a fear of boom boxes. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 18 m ~ ~ °s"® &`r,r ~~6~3SY9i:a.,?~G~~d ~ ~~~~N~kSEA~iFL' Mr. Bernard Kinney stated that the questions regarding boom boxes were good but that reflection is different depending on the type, construction, and age of the buildings. He continued that if the Church is a concrete block constructed facility, he finds it hard to believe that with a distance of over 400 feet that they would be able to hear the boom boxes in an adverse manner. He stated that he did not find a lot of adverse noise impacts from boom boxes at the Cartoons Car Wash. He continued that he did not feel that the wall would cause a deflection of the sound back across the highway. Chairman Matthes questioned if the wall was considered when the noise study was conducted on the site. Mr. Kinney stated that he was not aware of the wall at the time the study was done and that a wall being there would only help the results by buffering and that will make the noise levels less. He also stated that it would be virtually impossible to cause any deflective problems with noise across the Turnpike Feeder Road. Mr. Grande questioned if the level of noise generated by this facility would be acceptable to the residences behind it, even before considering the wall that is proposed. Mr. Kinney confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that he felt Mr. Kinney was saying since there is already a lot of noise in the area because of the Turnpike Feeder Road, it was okay to add a whole bunch more noise. Mr. Kinney stated that is not what he was saying. He explained that the noise levels that would be generated by the car wash are lower than the noise levels already experienced along the Turnpike Feeder Road. He continued that the louder noise would almost drown out the noise from the lower levels. Mr. Grande stated that he felt by adding that noise to the already existing noise, it would be louder. Mr. Kinney stated that is not the case. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Case had questioned if the facility would me manned or unmanned and that the facility would not be attended. Mr. Jones questioned what time of day the noise study was conducted. Mr. Kinney stated that they conducted tests throughout the day, usually from midday to late afternoon. Mr. Jones questioned if there were any readings done at night. Mr. Kinney stated that some of their latest readings were at around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. He also stated that the noise ordinance considers 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. daytime and this study was done to meet the daytime ordinance requirements. Mr. Jones questioned if the applicant would have to be before them if they had chosen . to build a pizza parlor on the site. Ms. Snay stated they would not have seen this application if that were the case because that is a permitted use within the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. lYlr. Merritt stated that 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 deny the application of Timothy Rose, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District because it has a direct adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed with a vote of 5-1 (Mr. Jones voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 19 r q• M . - - via ~ fi 6 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION• t~cllQSi•s'~'+c ts'S'o"''a':+'~t.. Next scheduled meeting will be October 17, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 20 Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 10/17/02 JC~E CpG ~y y~? File Number RZ-02-019 ~ ~_'g, 1 FtoR~oP. MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ~L FROM: Planning Manager DATE: October 11, 2002 ~f SUBJECT: Application of David Miller for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning District. (Fiie No.: Rz-o2-o19) LOCATION: West side of South 25th Street, approximately 500 feet south of the F.E.C. Railroad right-of-way EXISTING ZONING: AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -1 du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING: RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) FUTURE LAND USE: RS (Residential Suburban) PARCEL SIZE: 2.65 acres PROPOSED USE: Single-Family Home PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A" -Section 3.01.03(G) - RE (Residential, Estate 2 du/acre) -contains the designated uses, which are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted through the conditional use process. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further review and approvals. Any use not found within the zoning district regulations are designated as prohibited uses for that district SURROUNDING ZONING: AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 dulacre) to the east, north, and south. RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) to the west. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property is residential. There is anon-conforming fence contractor located to the north along the FEC Railroad right-of-way. i October 11, 2002 Subject: David and Nicole Miller Page 2 RZ-02-019 The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area is RS (Residential Suburban). FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #1 (2400 Rhode Island Avenue), is located approximately 2 miles to the north. UTILITY SERVICE: Water and sewer facilities are provided by an on-site well and septic system. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for South 25th Street is 100 feet. SCHEDULED - IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 'I, In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and has met the standards of 11.06.03. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The request is compatible with the RS (Residential Suburban) Future Land Use classification, which allows the residential estate zoning district. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; RE-2 Zoning is consistent with the existing residential uses in the area. ~ October 11, 2002 Subject: David and Nicole Miller Page 3 RZ-02-019 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Any development will need to demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities in the area to` support any development. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed amendment is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is.currently being developed with asingle-family residence. Any further development will be required to comply with all state and local environmental regulations. 7. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such patterns; The proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern. 8. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code; The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. COMMENTS The petitioners, David and Nicole Miller, have requested this change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning District on property located at South 25th Street in order to establish setback standards, which are more compatible with his proposed use of the property with asingle-family home. October 11, 2002 Subject: David and Nicole Miller Page 4 RZ-02-019 Attached is a copy of Section 3.01.03(E) - AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) and Section 3.01.03 G - - - RE 2 Residential Estate 2 du/acr e of the St. Lucie Count ( ) ( Land Y Development Code, which delineate the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in these zoning districts. If the change in zoning is approved, the applicant, by right, would be allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses section. Any use under the Accesso Us ry es section would be allowed onl if one or more of the ermitted uses exi Y p st on the subject property. Any use under the Conditional Uses section could only be allowed if it first receives approval through the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive -Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of approval to Board of County Commissioners. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment hf ~ cc: David and Nicole Miller County Administrator County Attorney File Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning. 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 11.06.03, 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 DAVID MILLER, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AR-1 (AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTAIL - 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RE-2 (RESIDENTAIL, ESTATE - 2 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE ~ [CITE REASON[S] WHY -PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, 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 DENY THE APPLICATION OF DAVID MILLER, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AR-1 (AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTAIL -1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RE-2 (RESIDENTAIL, ESTATE - 2 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE.... [CITE REASON[S] WHY -PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. Section 3.01.03 - Zoning District Use Regulations F+ . i E. AR-1 AGRICULTURAL. RESIDENTIAL - 1 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-family dwellings at a maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre, together with such other uses as may be necessary for and compatible with very low density rural residential surroundings. The number in "O" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(8). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses it a. Family day care homes. tsss~ b. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by HRS. tss9i c. Single-family detached dwellings. ts~> 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be~in accordance-with Table 1 in Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking Requirements Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. 8. Conditional Uses a. Crop services to~z~ b. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another such family residential home. t~~ c. Industrial wastewater disposal tsse~ d. Kennels -completely enclosed. ro~szi e. Landscaping & horticultural services ro~e1 f. Retail: (1) Fruits and Vegetables. tsasi g. Riding stables. vii r, h. Veterinary services. to~a? . i Telecommunication towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 tai 7. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: t Adopted August 1, 1990 101 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations a. Agriculture {farms and ranches accessory to single-family detached dwelling). to,ro2~ b. Animals, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.03. tss9> c. Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. t~~ d. Mobile Home subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. ts~) e. Retail and wholesale trade -subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity. k Adopted August 1, 1990 102 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations G. RE-2 RESIDENTIAL. ESTATE - 2 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-family dwellings at a maximum gross density of two (2) dwelling units per acre, together with such other uses as may be necessary for and compatible with low density residential surroundings. The number in "Q" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(6). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Family day care homes. ts9si b. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by HRS. tssei a Single-family detached dwellings. t~> 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking Requirements Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. 6. Conditional Uses a. Bed & Breakfast Residences -Subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.20. t9ssi , b. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such • family residential home. t~si c. Telecommunication towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 tsssi 7. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and including the following: a. Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. tses> , b. Horses, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.03. tssei Adopted August 1, 1990 104 Revised Through 08/01/00 z o a° j L ~ w ~ r `O ~ ~ t n C G ~ ~ I ~ E z ` G ~ N o W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ £ ' t ~s is ~ t .off ~ .vr'' V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W P • tO..,W W p • r F"' • e g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a W W I .}..J ~ p A „ M C ~ P ~ ¦ U ~ o ~an~m U w ~ ~ z_ W ~ ~ a N301 W ee +M ~ ~ Q A ~ ~ QIIOY m34 MOY Igl11q z K-! 1~! Y / W W ~ F 73yi q M~ ~ S K 1 S Lf 1 S 9£ 1 AWfl00 3380H~33~0 _ _ - - - = Petition of Dave Miller fora Change in Zoning fromAR-1 (Agricultural, Residential- 1, `d~Yacre) to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate-2 duiacre) Zoning District. . co ~o~ .ya • 29 R~~ pt~y N.S.L,R.D.D. Canal No.10 GpCrp G°ps~ ~ Eos~ a~ a~ N L O Z Y S ~ O v N ~ _ ~ Dade .Road o ~ r,-_ o ~ i _ vi Z ` ; ~ ~ ~ _ ~ i R \ Y 1 m ~ RZ 02-019 s- . This pattern indicates subject parcel M~ prepared September 25, 2002 YiY.m.Mi.n rrwd.Y. !F rvr irsvivl M.w. « s MW 1M.i. - - - - Land Use - Dave ~I~~er ~o 'o~ do ~9 RU RU Raw o~y N.S.L.R.D.D. Canal No.10 Cp'Mp Ro~~,~ oy °os~ G ~°s F~°~~do a~ ~ J N N L -F-i Z Y U v cV Dade Road o ~ r O r RS z 1 \ ~ \ ~ \ \ ~ ~ ` ` ~ ~ s \ ; ~ ~ I s RZ 02-019 ~ m: This pattern indicates Map prepared September 25, 2002 subject parcel ~ ~ , - _ _ _ - zoning Dave Miller moo' ~ oy a ~ 29 RS-3 RS_4 R,w o~y N.S.L.R.D.D. Canol No.10 C~(t~p Ro~~v~ oy AR-1 RM-9 oos~. Ees~ c F~°`~a~ ~ i Q1 J N L Z ~ P ~ o A -1 RS-2 ~ N ~ Dade Road 0 O AR 1 ~ . z ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ,~,1`_ Y d U ~ ~ O ~I`^~`\~ ~ I ~ \ ~ t ~ RZ 02--019 This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared September 2s, 2002 Whig nYwy eApifaas Dean 111ada b p10Nda ala rtlaaTanBlaeb aoaram ~ \ ~ kM'metlw~ paedhia,tk natkWNad kr uaa d a kmM hi~Wn emareea. ~ Y I. it - AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION E C G~ 0 ~ !i ~ ~ THURSDAY October 17 2002 c~ ~ 1 7:00 P.M. 'cl OR14~' ' DAVID MILLER, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 3212 South 2S`h Street. West side of South 25"' Street, approximately S00 feet south of the FECRlght-of--Way.. ~ Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners October 2, 2002. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on October 2, 2002. File No. RZ-02-019 JG~E CpG 130ARD OF COUNTY ~ ~ COMMUNITY COMMISSIONERS DEVELOPMENT - DIRECTOR .October 2, 2002 ~OR~O~ In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that DAVID MILLER, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: ~2~outh 25"' Street. West side of South 25Th Street, approximately 500 feet south of the FECRfght-of--Way. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The first public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on Thursday, October 17, 2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, S>r Lucie County Administration Building Annex; 2300 ~i'ginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or i provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to .appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at :such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to adate-certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new .owner. Please call 772/462-1582 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number R~02-019. Sincerely, ST. L CIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION C~~~~ ~ ~~~ri%!r~i' Stefan atthesl ~h~r~o~ JOHN D, DRUHN, District No. 1 O A D, Disrficr No. 2 PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 CLIFF DARNES. Disrcicr No. 5 County Adminisrrotor - Douglos M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590 Planning: (772) 462-2822 GIS/Technicol Services: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fox: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 Fax: (772) 462-2132 - N ~ ONO N '~cr dam' N O O~ M~ O~ ~O V'1 M t~ l~ N M M N N C h O V M l~ N O O M h~~~ ~ to O\ V1 O O ~ t~ ~ O\ V7 'd' h ~O O O ~O O\ O\ OHO OHO ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i M ~ ~ M i ~ ~ ~ ~ M M ~ ~ N ~ N N vl V'1 N N N N t~ a\ O~ ~O ~O N O O M o0 00 00 00 00 ~O ~o 00 00 ~r ~ ~ o 0 00 ~ ~ N rn rnoornrna\o. rnrn MrnV vrn ~c~ ~ 'ct d' N N ~ N N d' V' N ~ M M ~ ~ ~ O~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M . I ~ a~aaa.aaaa'a~aaaaaaaaaaa~~ v~ w w w w w w w w~w w w w w w w w w w w w~~ ~ .c I - ~ i ~ ~ ~ a ~ v, ~ ~ ~ ~ Pq W •v an oo a~~i a~~i a~~i ~ ~ ~ a~i a`~i ~ a ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~t io ~ ~ a ~ U w°w°w°~iv~w°O»w°°a°_~w°Jw°m°Hw33w°a°a°aa I ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 + ' ~ ~ t ~ _ _ F ~ ~ a~UU-dv T ~ ~ ~~~~v v~~ Y~ ~~a ~ ~~UU:~bb ~ ~ ,bv.yoo.L ~~.y~v, a~~ ~N a a W Wxx H c~ c~ c~ a2 .C N N i~ O ~ O 33 a~ ~ ~ 3 v~ x x ~ AC7A O OANNAvav~A,_.,U oC7C7>v~v~zZ TJ ~ O Lq Ga ~ ~ V'1 ~ O Ln ~ O ~ M M O 00 O O O O O M O N O O O O 00 00 'ct M 'c}' O O ~ ~O ~O N 'cY ~D V' a\ O M M M N N O~ O\ N ~O N a LL N N ~t M M~ M CL M M N N N~ h v7 a I d ~ v et cv c~ U U y W `T3' ~ avi ~ ~ a~ ~i ~ U U 'p Y N N ~ U ~ C .D A ~ A ~ vy} ~ c~ c~ O aS CC RS ~ Z ~x w"wa U :~:~aC~ 0 'C -o e~ a ~ w ~ F"' - a. O R3 U O O ti N ~ i.. Fr 33 ~ o~ ~~o ~ ~ an Z A w x x x O F E-~ E-~ » o C7 ~ a~ A A ~ ~ N yvOi ~ cC «S 40., 'b ~ ~ N cad ~ .o N O O ° ~ Z 3AU ~-,xxaAatia~' w ~~zz ~ A ~ A w °1 0 o i i ~ N ~ ti~~~ a s ~ a O A „ A a~ ~ ~ . G ~ ~ m vOi vOi > ~ ' ~ ~ U ~ ~ O O p ~ ~ ~ o ~ W W ~ ~ ~ °o ~ ~ ~ N u., ~ G~. w ~ ~ U z ~Awwwxxxx~Owa~nv~~nv~v~HF» w O O O M 'c~' M M ~O W M M N~ V'1 l~ N 00 ~O O~ ~O O 01 O 4-+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t~A O_ O O O O_ O O O _O O O_ O O_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ ~ 'cr ~ N M N N M N N h N M N M ~1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ A O_ O_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ O_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 _O O_ O O ~ f„~ M O N M N N N M O ~Y d' N ~ O O N N M 00 M N M M M M M 00 cY 'c}' ~ V' M~ ~ 00 00 M M q.'~ ye oornooooo~ooooooooo,rnrnrnrnooo~rnrnrno.oooo y ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ST. LUCIE COUNTY ~ ~ PLANNING ANI3ti i;, _ - ---ZONING=COMMISSION • - _ - - - - - , PUBLIC HEARING?, " . AGENDA'. ; , e October 17, 2002.. ; . - TO WHOM 1T.:.MAY " ~ CONCERN: t . NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 11.00.03 of the St: Lucie . . " County Land Development Code and the provisions of • ~ the St. Lucie County Com- prehensive Plan, the follow- " ~ ing applicant has. requested that the St. Lucie County " . Planning. and Zoning Com- mission consider their fol- ' lowing request: I DAVID MILLER, -for a Change in Zoning from the ~ AR-1 (Agricultural, Residen- F tial - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to"the. RE-2 (Resi- dential, Estate - 2 du/titre) . • Zoning District, for the fol= . lowing described property: ' CHILDER'S SUBDIVISION, LOT 3~. . Location: 3212- South 25th " Street. West side of South i 25th Street, apprbXimately 500 feet. south of the .EEC ` Right-of-Way.. I ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS wil( be e held in Commission Chgm- C ' bers, Roger Poitrds. Annex; 4 2300 Virginia :Avenue, Fort. f Pierce, Florida on October- I 17, 2002,. beginning.. at ' 7:00 P.M.-or"as_soon there- . after as possible. • PURSUANT: T:O Section 286.0105; Florida:~Statutes; if. a .person :decides ;}o • ~ appeal 'any decisign.made . i by a board, agency, or ' . commission with .respect to ; • any matter` considered at a • meeting or hearing, he will need d ~eco~d :of ahe .'pro= ~ ti ~ ceedings, and that; for such , ~ r : r _ - purposes, he_ mqy nebd. fo - ~ ensure-. that.'.a ver atim . - ~ record of the proceedings'is . . made; 'whi'ch." record includes the; testimony and evidence 'upon which'' the appeal is to" be"based: PL-ANNING AND : ZONING COMMISSION ST_ LUCIE COUNTY, ~ FLORIDA /S/ Stefan Matches, CHAIRMAN ~ ~ - Publish: October 2, 2002 2532071 Planning & Zoning Commission/ local Planning Agency Review: October 17, 2002 ~~~t;,~E COG'1'~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ~ - ~ Administration Division jP~OR1~~' MEMORAN®l1M TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency FROM: Community Development Director DATE: October 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-028 Amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by Creating Section 7.10.24, Interim Communitywide Architectura! Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 02-028 which proposes to establisl•~ i€ltrs%l~ Communitywide Architectural Standards that would apply to all areas of the unincorporated County as minimum criteria for all new construction or substantial expansion to ezristing building or structures or building in areas zoned Commercial Neighborhood, Coi~r~ercial Orrice, Commercial General, Institutional, Religious Facilities, Planned Unit Development (Comme~°cial Components Only), Planned Non-residential Development and Planned Mixed lJse Development. These design standards are not intended to stifle imagination nor curtail variety but rather they are for the purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community appearance. At the June 16, 2002 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency, the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency voted to separate these Draft regulations from draft ordinance 02-015 in order to provide additional time for the Board to consider the proposed amendments. The Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local- Planning Agency. expressed some concern over the proposed regulations and how they would effe~4t or impact commercial development activities in the community. There were concerns expressed about the limitations on the use of metal. buildings and the proposed color tables that were included with these regulations. At the August 29, 2002, meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Ageetcy, the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency voted to refer this draft document back again for further review and revisions, with said revisions to be based upon the directions/recommendations/ comments given at the P&Z/LPA meeting of May 16, 2002, which generally were: _ . e Remove the restriction on the use of metal buildings. • Reduce the height of landscaping matter at time of plantings that are used to screen drive-through uses and activities. • Permit the use of reflective glass in new construction • Eliminate the restriction of the use of brightly colored glazed the as a roof material. As requested by the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency, the attached County of Draft Ordinance 02-028 has been modified to provide for the above referenced amendments. October 10, 2002 Subject: Draft Ordinance 02-028, Community Wide Architectural Page 2 Standards - Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 02-028 to the Board of County Commissioners, as originally submitted for review, with a recommendation of approval. . If you have any questions, please let me know. MITTE `i V , Dennis urphy, ICP Co nity Develo ment Director DJM/ OR_02-028_MEM02(h) cc: County Attorney Planning Manager vi vi ~ 'O 'C3 N ~ c~0 ~ ~ C C ..O LS. L1. ~ y _ h • ~ ~ vi bA ccs ccs ~ in ~ N ~ ~ ~ C •L3 ~ N ~ • n . a. N .C ~ • O • ~ b • X O v~ id «N+ y~' ~ U N ~ ~ Q ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ Q. U '3 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v w. _ N O ~ cC • ~ ?O. ~ t1. O ~ Q. ~ cU O O h M O ~d ~ ~ iC s"Cy~ .Is. O ~ O , QA > ,.p C ~ a _ ~ ~ cd ~ N ~ ~ y ~ ~ f~ ~ U ~ cd ~ cg l1. y U N ~ ~ O t]. O > ~ CT' cd ti 4" . 00 a~ a~ ~ ~ a~ dA c~ p ~ ~ aRi ti o > `d v ~ ay v 3 ~ `v ,s- N ~ to N ~ ~ N N ~ O N .O ~ U ~ . . ® ~ o `n ~ aoi ~ ~ cC ~ 'v chi F"' N ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ as :3 .v c~ A. Y ~ x., ~ ~ tip ~ ~ a~0i rte,,,{ ~ C!~ = a~ ~ ~ v' ~ ° ~ ~ N ~ Z ' ~ ~ ~ °n. gam., ~ ~ ~ .N v ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ N 3 ~ ~ n. ~ o cd n, ~ 'in c .ty ccf c, ~ E-- 3 -D N O N cd C k-~ C!] V] Q _ . ca v ~ 'v v~ . ~ i . ° ..o •o o w c~ 3 a. m E :1 • ' ~n .a pp o co ~ o ~ ~ ~ nOi .n o v n. ~ ~ o cC ap ~ ~ ~ aUi O ~ ~ ~ ~ 'b Un.. ~ ( .-C. O ~ hA ~L.' mil„ , ,.w~ O • •-a N ~-f it ~ 'C7 r.+ •ww bA O N c~ O O 4. 4> U ~ ~ U CCS O v~ ~ a Q~~~,°' -moo .r > ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ O U ~ •N V N ct! U c~ O 4~ cC 'b ~ b N ~ 3". ~ at c~ cV N Ems, o L O b O ~ ~ ~ ~ c~.~ 'ZS L3. ..fl to v~ ~ r cd N C.7~ W~, 0.1 ..n ~ •~33 ,e,.r c•; ~ ~ W v V U A cc o > W a, c~ o ~ • ~ Q a. n. ~1 rT„~ ~1 y~y.~~ VJJ . r..r . v ---------------~Jy • b - ~ _ ^^Vd i ' V, ~ V Cy ~ ; y V1 ~ z ~ W ~ ~ a ~ s ~ _ ~ o ~ a pq .N i a ~ - a~i W ~ > y n~i GG i W ~ ~ i ~ w N ~ RL. ~ ~ i. 1 N rr~ f .7J 114U JJ~7~J? ? l~~ T l1J ~ i ti w~ v I 1 1 h{ ~ 'O ~ ~ i 'L7 ~ ftt ~ ~ 4-. N o = i ~ '3 ~ ~ _ ~ U ~ UL1. N ~ cd ~ ~ ~ cG O N ~ vUi N cdd ~ N ~ 'L7 ..C U ~ cd _ °Cy ~ • ~ w ~ Opp,~ v) ~ ~ ~ tom, U N ~ O ~ ~ > 4--. U O ` ~ C ~ U O ~ ~ ~ ~ R. ~ ° cC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O . ~ . J N CA C> 3 O ~ 3 N •O~ O O cU O ~ .q v~ ..D N •L7 .c-~ CJ c,_, ~ N R1 •D G n ~~a c Coq a 0 3~ a.'~ ~ ~ n..__. ~ OD .~C y cNU ~ ~ ict N ~ o ~ ~ U p ~ ~ ~ ~ a. o ~ ro C ° s~~ id c y v ~ ~ ~ ~ 4° ~n y~j O ~ . a.. ~ a. as -o , 3 v~ ° ~ -n ~ ° c m ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ° N . > 3 N Ry a~ c '0 ~ ~ ~ ccf v O c Q~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ E v v A U¢ ~ na3 'r ~ bA 'b ~ ~ ~ o ~ > Q a~ ~ s. ~ .a a o o o cc M O~ V O ® 0 N+MM~ ~ ~ it U ~ O O b ~ ~ ~ CA N ~ y~ ~ y O y ~ c~ ~ N ni ~ O ~ ~ ti ~ ° ® ~ ~ p O o^o'nb ~ U U ~ G~ H N ~ U v p "b -b ~~-..D ~ • ~ O sue. ~ N «3 a' cr ~ ~ 3 $ ~ c0 , ~ h iti ~ ~ N Q O V ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~ 3 a... O cn 'O ~ C3 ' ~C! ~ ~ ~O . ~ ~ ~ OA O y .O O ~ cad N cV ~ - ~ ~ VO cn ~ ° ~ of .C ° U ~ .D v [ ~ sue'. ® °X' chi ~ ~ " 3 ~ ~ v ~ v o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o c a~ A ~ H U ca cd ~ O ~ y w Ci. cV ~ ~ Q O ta4 ~ cU ~ -'p ~ ~ N ~ C 'O aG ~ = ~ ~ i"' 4-r 1 c3o c'_' ¢ N N U I TJ O . ~ ~ U O i. in CS. ~ O a~ ~ a~ v _ a~ cc o c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o o' cv C `v n. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roc a c,~ ~ ° ~ CZ. ° v> c.-. ~ a„ [ ~ cV ca ccs cv -r7 c~ O ~ cv -a n. a~ O T ~ ~ ~ b E 3r n ~ ~ v c ~ c n u L V ` DO U ~ C l~1 N ~ •y ~ ~ UIW rZ~ N O Q ® _ ~ ~ ~7 r-. n ? it _ ~ O A W ~ n V ~ ~ ewe C V d O ~ 'n _ N - v c- i ' z7 c ~d~ N E r. ~ c a 3 c t ~ .n ~ ~ . a.... u~w 8 - v c b o ~ Q ~ ~ .7 o°e o°c y ~ ~ . ~ o ~ :n ~ ~ • Q ~ Z 2 ~ L=i ~1 c°e o V ' o ~ E 1t 'c ~ ~ ,.bZ F]Op ~ O O O ~ CV ~ y~j ~ O ~ ~ O O ~ p ~ O cV c o O ~ ~ y ~ .N ~ ~ O ° O ~ 3 v1 > w: cd ~ N M O O O N L1. y W~~~ .D N +N-. to ~ s-' 3 -o ~ tw a ~ ~ dp ~ ~ c,. ~ cd • O N O N O, N N ..O O ,4; N •3 A.-O N ~ s.. h E O N O O N _ .N n U N ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ U 00 b~A N O p ~ y ~ 4>. ~ N ~ O ~ O U ~ ~ 'U O U ~ ~ ~ U O U at O ~ N • O ~ ~ ~ N N ~ i.. N c~ .O U•~ ~ O N O aj ~ w O N O O a0 3 > rn ~ p, U ~ ~ -ti ~ a> a> U ~ ~ ai c~v I vOi ~ O O O ~ N 4- ~ O ~ -p ~ C1. ° O sU.. ~ _C O N O h N ~ C O -b F" ~ fl. ~ O oA O O a' ~ ~ O ..C a.. v~ ~ f3. O ~ Q'. ~ w N ~ ~ N ~ fn O ~cV O O -p M ~ ~ N O c~ U N O O 't7 w U ~ U ~ 4.. 4. p' O ~ 'r U .D - ~ C> .-C N ~ w W Q 4-. Q ~n Q id p Cl. .G ~ N W Q N O Uj .-C d4 U co Y 1 - ' ~ ~ n ~ cis ~ b ~ Q o ~ ~ ~ A rr U b O i-. ~ _ n. ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o x a~ ~ i ~ U ~ h ~ ~ b r~ ~ .,o U ~ ~ ~ y~ 4--~ • V p L ~ ~ Q n~i ~ ri V C 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ . o ~ ° ~ a43.N ~ c°~ ~v _ Q a~ sa. , ~ ~ ~ o ; ~ a~ ~ are ~ t-. h O ~ ~ v) G of ~ U O ~ O M sO. > ~ t-. N 4) 4-. U 'Z, C U oA ~ ~ ~ - O ~ o p ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ cd N O~ U U N~ N 'b ~ N .N+ O O oD ~ i `n.. ai a~i ~ ~ O. v~ U ~ ~i d vi c~ O ~ N ~ L O ~ ' N ~ O _ b O CD E-' ~ -n Q1 ~ L3. ~ ~ O > U O _ cn N cd c~d ~ c0 ~ OU CA ~ ~ ~ -'O O vOi _ ~ - « z.. c~ "U c~ C WO ..b GA . o b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o. ~ ~ U ~ ~ p ~ U -b • tt3 O ~ ~ LL+ O ~ ® 3 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. ~ N O U ~c~ ~0.. ~ N 't=. 4.C~~QQ~L=. r~~Or-+NM'd° N N ~N N N ~5 c~ y ~ aN. ?s v ~ ~ p N w. sp U ~ ~ N ..a f]o N U fl) . ~ ~ O O Os. ~ ~w n.a ~ o~•o ~ O U~~ U 'b.v~i N od N «Y ~ O E O O O N O y ti~ H M O 4-. U ~ `~tin3 aUio 3 on o o _ ~ CC~ Q. N .7l °C3 c~ cO N O ~ tq to ~ G OA ~ 'O ~C ~ ~ N ~ > T7 ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ .X C ~ ~ O U =A ~ ~ c x ~ aci gib' ~ w~ ° ~ a. ° ~ ~ ° ~ 3 ~ -o a~°'. U I _ 7 1 _ - _ - _ - ~ - - _ _ _ • ~ X ~ E ~ 'R ~•y = N V ~ ~D ~ ~n _ C O -C ~ r~ d ~ _ C_ v~t _ .t E DO ~ o w •v O r .n = ~ ~ v ~ ~ ^I~~-..t+t J rte. C t r~ ~ ~ Da t ~ J N F- _ ^A ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 'd o Q Z~ ~ ~ d A `0 U 'fl ,n ~ ~ v ~ c+ .n m ~ v c!1 C ~ Z m ~ ~ ~ ~ y GA ro v Qp ~ ~ ao ' c w a~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~ m G. y C i O ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ p c c n. o ~ 3 0 E ro Z Nr ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ V O ~ O ~ ti O ~ ~ ~ .4: 'U N .~C O ..Q ~ ~ O O ~ ~ N ~ 'b U Gj N ~ tom.. ~ ~ ~ N t.' ~ C1. ~ w, c~ in ~ N ..G ~ • v~ O .aG 'p ' ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~b v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~V cd O O 4. N O .D N ~ U ~ i1. U 0 .3 N ~ O Y ~ y~~ O N ~ _ N i-r C]p Ll. N a.. aj O 'y 'L3 s.. > p t1. O ^Cj O O N di ~ c,... ' O N vi ~ ~ b~.p U • ~ ~ N tti - N OA 'C7 ~ ~ ~ _O N O ro ~ . ~ . ~ 3 c~..-. ° o s v ~ ~ O.. N UO N ~ D~0 t0 ~ ~ •N O O ~ 0. ca E ~ r O ~ in 1~ _ ~ cc1 O ~ 'C7 O • j ~ d0 ~ OA p O O d4 N ~ O O O a. F` - c~i ~ o > c ~ on ~ ~ _ ~ ~1 x .d4 w~ ° ~ ° ~ E ~ _ ~ O ~r ~ ~ N OU O O N fs. C C C y p ~n ~ .S y 'L3 ~ • y ~ O ~ U N a~o ~ a~i ~ cad ~ Q 'j~• aroi .a ~ o a~ 1 p O a~ i., 0 ~ ~ ~ ,.1 O f3..., O~ p U w 'C7 cd ~ c : Up c«~-• ~ U 4... U ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 00 O O O ~ ~ U pp N w~ b Cl. f1.w Gl. U ..fl w r U ~ cC U N tU-. ~ sU. ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ T ~ O ~ ~ ~ O cd c~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ y,, vNi O . N ~ N C y " ~ " ~ ~ cC ~ in 0 3 U ao co n> ~ o ~ .~o O N~~ ~w~3 ~n c~ ~ cam., .C ~ bA C ~ N o ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ >U ~ ~ N :O ~ ~O M ~ SU.. v ~ «S ~ ~ ~ N Cd U ~ ~ j N cXd ~ O O ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •V 7, cad v., cn ~ C O ~ 'O ~ of ~ OQ O J-) ~ ..0 ~ -n [ ~ o ct c cn c a o ~ ~ ~ X o ~ ~ ~ b ,r O . ~ "C7 N Cr1 ~ O oD cv W cv O O C~ O ~ N ~ m ~ C O ~ ~ _ aA ~ ~ _ /N v ~ ~ , qpp h O p ~ \ .-C N O ~ T O to ..D t.. +v ~ ~ .C ~ ~ CO ~ N ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ C C ~ i..T• ~ cJ ~ . v-. ~ 'iJ ~ q t„ d ~ . C O Cyi N N N ~ ~ Q c~0 ~ 'J ~ ~ N N U ~ U ~ N O h ~ N c~V dU h N ~ U ~ N .h cd ~ w CL t:~ ~ r-: N ri ~r vi ~O C~ N ri ~7 . v~ ^t~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CC ~ a Ci. 'v ~ o cn Ccd w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y0 ~ a~ ni U .S"'-r b .-D ~ p' ~ CAD ~ •rJ ~ •d0 ~[n b ~.•H O ~ U c[C ~ ~ •O ~ O N ~ ~ ~ Qp :r bA ..o ..C ~ b.0 ~ ~ ~ N .,L' N U~ U w o ~ 3 ~ ~ an v~ ..a a~ - c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N a~ a. ~ ~ ago ~ .n ~ ~ ~ y N ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ cUa ~ ~ ~ as c... U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ate.. 'fin ~ ~ ti i ~ ~ ~ ~ ..O ~ 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ g o ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ iU . ~ ~ ~ y N O 'C3 ct1 _ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 'fin c~ b~D N N _ C N ~ y ~ G ~ ~ N sN-. • N U ~ ~ cd N N ~ ~ U C.0 N cQ ~ .C ~ ~ Y ~ _ ttl dD 4.. N y N U N va U UO U N ~ O 'O ~ Q• ~ C N '"U ~ ~ ~ ~ h N ~ ~ Q4 V U0 c"V Q• p h O ~ UA ~ b ~ O U _ G ~ "p ~ • ~ ~ N ,.C fir-.-+ ~ N ~ _U ..N ~a. ~ G b ~ U O N ..C C ~ to oA . .o ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ 0 _ yC. ~ 4. U N ~ C A ~ V ' ~ a0 «f aD N ~ ~ ~ d0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y dD ~ Y N K cy dD ~ C.9) t,`~ C. ~ CCl ~in ~ N ~ W Cl. CL CA C,~ C/~ f--' VJ W ~ Cs. C13 „ (mil ~ ~ W • • • • • • • • • • • • N ~A` eD c~ O~ p cV' `N :mil N QV M r N M N N fV N ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ t e . ~ ~ ~ O r r c1~ ~q~ 4~ ~ ~ { ti _ ' - ~ ~1 - E.. . - ?,-d ~ ~ ,.r • e~t- A~ CD ti t ~j ~ .cam%~'= 1~~ ~ 11 - ~ ~ ,~~1 ~ ~ 1~~ ~ 1 ~ t,~ A Cr' f0 N ~ ' - p~ C1. (6 1 ~ ~ f ~ ~ g c } ~1 s ~ ~ e ! , , • ~I i • -r- ~ / , 1 • 1, - - - - - - . cr • . . ..r---'. - ~ o • w '•a ~c _ ~ ~ ~ `o e C1 c~ a~ ~ 0 F . -b ~ t ,~r `~l ' _ - ~ . ' i• I D ' _ U ~ ~ ~ , Kn = rt. , ~ . ~ ® R: ~ A~ ~ _t ~ _ , ~ ~ ~ a l - n 0 A • ~ 7 ~y lD O~ G C. N j 1 e l ~ • ~ -t - ~ - ` ` - p., O E. J 8 ~ v ~ - _ - ~ a Zj a-~ .p s ~ m m m ®m j. , z' 1-- ~r ` ~ . • i a o _ V _ ~ ° ~ ~ ' N (+L( I J? U ~C - - lj _ - _ _ _ - ~ - - _ - - - . _ - _ _ ~ . . - , ~ f ~ ~ - - ~I, . _ D ~ = _ ~ ~ _ . . ; . _ . . g N _ ~ ~1 t • I . ~ PPP n 1C Q .-l (/1 n o r" ~ 1 1 - J ~ N O - • v, ~ _ ~ - 1` „ - _ J _ .d - o ~ o ' y~ .t ~'1 ~ . s f S -b o ~ ~ti ~ ~ k _ ; d ~ , c..., -D O y O ~ s ~ U N O ~ U GO ~y.. Y n• 'n p d O f1 ~ u ~ c0 ~ X ~ -D cUy ~ y ~ OU L yy ~ _ L O s ~ O pp ~ G m ca 'D C a h y ~ Q) -O O- O a ~ O U C cu vi ~ a C Up ~ UQ U .D U O ~ C cO iV OL cd 4» y C dp O by O a~ ~ LO •y U ~ ~ ~ oc ~ a Y w ~ vi ~ E ~ v ~`o o c w c E w., ~ ~s = ~ o v L ~ c.- - > ~ cd O 3 ~ N U cV U C y U t, L L y L. .C ~ 4y.. ~ y y ~n C1. ~ y C O 4:. a v a Y O~ co ~ c v a ~ rn a0 ' w ~ U C U c... a ~n iV oA C ~ N ~ O cC t/) L to p h ~i ri Q O C ~ LV U Q. ~ O c,..• c.-; a cC O C cd ~ a 3 OQ p C y y E <a o0 3 `o n-°i `a R ~ - L ~ ~ ~ U y ' a cC cci o ° ° c -v o w •c ~ ~ •o o in c3 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ C U U ~ ~ .D -p ~ O C pp ~ d0 r.: O O -o 3• w ~y~ a .Y w C~ ~ o .Y •C a ~ C ~ co 'b N ~ •C •C C ~ ~ ~ cC O O cV .U~.. ~ ~ Ll. ~ •3. ~ O 7 •a i.. a C~ rrL~~ of rM~~ N ~~yy ~1.. U .D U 3 V A ~ ~1 ~ O .D ~ ~r ~ ~ V ."C-+ W W ~ i to ~n ~ L C V-+ .D td t'..• •'p i (d N cd L U r,.p O ~ ° ~ O O ~ °O ~ O O~ ~ O i N N C y ~ 'O O •C ty.. C O d f- N X O hD G - G ~ LO. O v, -O N a~ ~ ~ ~ v ,o O O - j ~ a~i c _ o c..., c0 N ~ U ~ ~ 3 ~ C 4-,. C s... C ~ cV N a G d p cL0 - ~ OC ~ ~ > U •N ~ v .mac N -o r.... y y ~a aL~" ~ -r: ~ x ° 3 a L _ y y o ~ 3 1^O. y _ y v1 Vl . ~ Q> O "J ~ {n O y RS O G~ ~a >s Np y ~ ~ o~ 3_ _ U y . - • ~ O O -U N p• a S bD y 'l7 L ~ O ~ N ~ • s ~ N C • C c,.., vi C y _ y ~ ~ U ~ cV ? ~ OU N ~ d ~ . ~ U ~ ~ ~ to OD y QO rd N F ~ Q~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -b ~ ~ ` o .may. v Q • ~ ~ n. ~ ? ~ o ~ "l , ` V Q cu _ a~ In u U O cn v, ~ p O N i y ~ cu O ~ ~ U ~ Q. [V ~ ,C cCC OG O .^.0 ~ cp ~ ~ L J-, 3 bq ~ ~ cU y 4_ ~ L L ~ a~ E C C L u G C C l ~ CV O C .C U. U O y U ~ i CC y 'O -D ty-. N G O~ :D ~ N •D L ro C L 7 ~ L O L > iV (C u O ~ 7 ~ O a ~ cC cC O C Q n, o Q .N a Q v Q O M q iu q .D q~ L'a ~n U U 3 .:o U E~ . - _ , ' t z - - ~~,~~~~a~ ~ ~b~~~~ St. Lucie County ~~~a'~~~c~~~~~i~ A~~~~~~~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING October 17, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Grande, Mr. Akins, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. Trias (Both Absent -With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 1 . ~ i ~ ~ ~ _ - - - _ _ 4 4 ~ ~'l: - .l N F-. ~ ; ta~'° CALL TO ORDER , Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's meeting. For those of you who have not been here before, The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff will present a brief summary of the project and then make their recommendation. After which time, the Petitioner will be asked to come forward and state his/her case for the requested petition. At any time the Commission may stop and ask questions of the Petitioner or Staff. After that process is completed the Chairman will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak for or against the petition. The purpose of this hearing is to get input from the general public. If anyone has something to say, please feel free to come forward and state it. After everyone has gotten a chance to speak the Chairman will then close the public hearing. The Commission will deliberate and then make a decision regarding their recommendation, one way or the other. The decision that is made is typically read from a scripted set of statements that are given to the Commission. It may sound rehearsed but it really is not. There is one motion for and one motion against in the package, so that the Commission can make a motion either one way or the other so it is very clear in the records. Once again, I want to remind you that the Planning and Zoning Commission only acts in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 2 ~ ~ ~ r Stan - - ~ b~ ~ Gu•~~ n AGENDA ITEM 1: SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: rsf~`~d~~~~~~'~ ~~~~9lA~. - Mr. McCurdy stated that he was not present at the previous meeting, so the references to his opening and closing the public hearing on pages six and seven should be changed to Chairman Matthes. Mr. Grande moved for approval, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). P & Z Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 3 r ~~~r~~~~`~m~ L AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NO. RZ-02-019 -DAVID MILLER: ~ 9~'v~~y~~a'~`~~~ 3~ ~~~~1'~ Mr. David Kelly, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of David Miller for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning District. He continued that the petitioners have requested this change in zoning for 2.65 acres of property located on the West side of South 25th Street, approximately 500 feet south of the F.E.C. Railroad right-of--way in order to establish setback standards, which are more compatible with his proposed use of the property with asingle-family home. He also stated that if the change in zoning were approved, the applicant, by right, would be allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses section. He continued that any use under the Accessory Uses section would be allowed only if one or more of the permitted uses exist on the subject property and any use under the Conditional Uses section could only be allowed if it first receives approval through the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of approval to Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Matthes questioned what the frontage was on the property. Mr. Kelly stated it was one hundred ninety-nine feet. Chairman Matthes questioned if the applicant would be unable to meet the minimum lot width for two lots. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct and stated that the petitioner was already well under construction with his house and a large circular driveway. He continued that moving back fifty feet would cause the gate to be well beyond the circle and the placement of the home precluded the further splitting of the property. Mr. Grande questioned if the home would be fifty feet back from the street. Mr. Kelly stated that the home was more than fifty feet back and that the front of the home appears to be 182 feet back from the roadway. Mr. Hearn questioned if a scale could be added to the maps that are provided with their packets in the future. Mr. Kelly confirmed that could be done. Mr. David Miller, petitioner, stated that he was a business owner in the area and that they relocated to this property from Port St. Lucie. He continued that the property has a lot of live oak trees but they were concerned about the property being right on 25th Street. He also stated that the driveway is already laid out and when they went to apply for the permit, they were advised of the fifty-foot setback issue. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones stated that he didn't have a problem with the applicant's concept but questioned how this would not be considered spot zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that the request is still a type of residential zoning and is consistent with the density of the Comprehensive Plan. He continued that spot zoning would usually be some type of zoning that was completely different than the P & Z Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 4 ~~~A~~~~ surrounding areas. ~RR~~~~'~~~~~~ ~s ~~~~G G~~~~~~~~~~ ~~r~~~p~. Mr. Grande stated that the other owners along this area could probably have the same type of need and he was concerned with making sure that any further requests would have the fifty-foot setback to the house. Mr. Kelly stated that they would not be able to add conditions to rezoning applications. Mr. Lounds stated "After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, 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 David Miller for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning District because it will help complete his development for his home and I don't see any problems with having a gate along that area." Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Lounds questioned if anyone who wants to put a gate up along that area would need to come before them to be rezoned to do it. Mr. Kelly explained that if they want the gate placed closer than fifty feet to the right-of--way and higher than four feet tall, they would need to do something. He continued that they would either have to submit an application for a variance or a change in zoning. He also stated that if they found that several of the residents in the area had the same types of requests, they would need to look at the area as a whole. P & Z Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 5 'J~l~~ ~ - ~~~<a -pp-g~ee- - ~~~~S~~E~a~d ~ ~3 ~~~iUiA C~~~`~~~°~~~ A~ ~~Al. AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-028 -INTERIM ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was Draft Ordinance 02-028, which proposes to establish Interim Community wide Architectural Standards that would apply to all areas of the unincorporated County as minimum criteria for all new construction or substantial expansion to existing building or structures or building in areas zoned Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Office, Commercial General, Institutional, Religious Facilities, Planned Unit Development (Commercial Components Only), Planned Non-Residential Development and Planned Mixed Use Development. He also stated that these design standards are not intended to stifle imagination nor curtail variety but rather they are for the purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community appearance. Mr. Murphy continued that at the June 16, 2002 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency, they voted to separate these draft regulations from Draft Ordinance 02- 015 in order to provide additional time for the Board to consider the proposed amendments. He advised that they also expressed some concern over the proposed regulations and how they would effect or impact commercial development activities in the community. Mr. Murphy stated that at the August 29, 2002 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency, they voted to refer this draft document back again for further review and revisions, with said revisions to be based upon the directions/recommendations/comments given at the Planning & Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency meeting of May 16, 2002, which generally were: • Remove the restriction on the use of metal buildings. • Reduce the height of landscaping matter at time of plantings that are used to screen drive-through uses and activities. • Permit the use of reflective glass in new construction. • Eliminate the restriction of the use of brightly colored glazed the as a roof material. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 02-028 to the Board of County Commissioners, as originally submitted for review, with a recommendation of approval. Mr. McCurdy questioned how stores like Home Depot and Wal-Mart would be able to build their facilities when on page 5 a prohibited facade feature is square, box-like, buildings without articulation of windows or facade. Mr. Murphy explained that they would have to meet the new interim criteria, as they have in the City of Port St. Lucie. Mr. McCurdy stated that his concern would be that the big corporations would be allowed to stray from these and smaller companies would be made to abide by the regulations. Mr. Murphy explained that the larger corporations would not be allowed to get around these and that Home Depot's and Wal-Mart's throughout the region and country have conformed to the local architectural standards. Mr. Lounds questioned if the illustrations were the approved looks for the standards. Mr. Murphy explained that they were the interim standards they would like to have approved. Mr. Lounds stated that he understood the concept behind having a color chart, but that there were some darker colors that would look nice but aren't on the list. P & Z Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Hearn questioned if the colors listed on the color chart were to be applied to both trim and building color. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to have some colors added to the color list. He continued that some darker colors would work well with the existing colors on the color list and should be considered. He also stated that he likes the concept but has a problem with limiting everyone to just those colors listed in the chart because they are so similar. He advised that he would like to see Staff look into some other colors that may be complimentary to the colors already listed in the color chart. Chairman Matthes stated that they might want to consider adding a recommendation that darker shades of the colors listed on the chart be allowed for the trim. Mr. Lounds stated that the concept is a very good manageable step in the right direction to help develop a better looking commercial area but there are some aspects of it that don't sit well with him. He continued that he has issues with the colors being too limited and those darker hues and darker trims need to be added for contrast. He stated that this is a concept that needs to be implemented in the areas, but could use a little more work. Mr. Murphy stated that they could add some language to paragraph three of page five that allows for darker shades of the color guide for trim or something like that. Mr. Lounds stated that there are some darker hue blues and browns that should be considered for adding to the color chart that would look nice as a compliment. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande made a motion to forward Draft Ordinance 02-028 along to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval along with a recommendation that Staff include an expanded range (including darker hues) of coordinated colors only for trim through a paragraph of text on page five, section three. Mr. Akins questioned if the word "preferred" on the color section chart leaves some discretion to Staff. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Jones stated that he felt it would be appropriate if the motion included their desire to consider expanded colors and review all of the minutes in detail to see their reasons for suggesting that. Chairman Matthes stated that he felt the County Commissioners did read all of the minutes very carefully. Mr. Lounds stated he had a concern on page four, letter h, under landscape plan; number 1 is a great idea, but this needs to be enforced. Mr. Murphy stated there are already provisions existing in the landscape code where code enforcement checks periodically on these issues. Mr. Lounds stated that it is going to be difficult for commercial owners to maintain seasonal plants and is concerned that these issues do get enforced to achieve what they are trying to accomplish. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 7 ~i u ,1~~ RJf ~ saE~'L ~~~~a~~~ ~f g qt OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Mr. Hearn stated that he had previously discussed with Staff the possibility of a workshop to address his concerns regarding PNRD's. He continued that he feels this would give the community a stronger ability to control what happens in their neighborhood but yet gives the property owners the flexibility to do a lot of the things that can't normally be done with a standard change in zoning. Mr. Murphy stated that the best time to do this would be after all of the yearly reorganization is done. Mr. Kelly stated that the first quarter of 2003 would be best for the workshop, after all of the holidays and any reorganization changes. Mr. Hearn stated he did not have a problem with that. Mr. Lounds stated that he thinks the Chamber of Commerce is a good organization for the community but thinks that any issues regarding the development of the commercial and some of the residential areas would be beneficial to have their input. Chairman Matthes stated that he would try to notify them in the future of any issues that maybe of interest to them. Next scheduled meeting will be November 21, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: . Da i cretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 8