HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10-16-2003St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
Regular Meeting
Commission Chambers, P Floor Roger Poitras Annex
October 16, 2003
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Announcements
D. Disclosures
AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — September 18, 2003
Action Recommended: Approval
Exhibit #1: Minutes of September 18, 2003, meeting
AGENDA ITEM 2: RAYMOND C. THOENNISSEN — FILE NO. CU-03-013:
This is the petition of RAYMOND C. THOENNISSEN, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a mini -storage
facility in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #2: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion.
B. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on November 20, 2003, in the
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 swom 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
4772) 462-1586. _
Secretary
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: David Kelly, Planning Manager
DATE: Thursday, October 16, 2003
SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes
The following section was left out of the Planning and Zoning meeting minutes of September 18,
2003. Staff recommends that it be added to the minutes, after the last paragraph of discussion
on Page 23, under Other Business/Discussion, prior to approval.
Mr. Hearn stated that they did not eliminate the open space requirement in their discussions last
month and that is what Mr. Murphy is stating. Mr. Murphy explained that the language that was
in Mr. James' ordinance did eliminate it. Mr. Hearn stated that they requested that portion of
Mr. James' ordinance to be deleted because they did not want to eliminate all of the open space
requirements, only the "common" element. Mr. Murphy stated that Mr. James submitted a
revised version of his ordinance at the Board of County Commissioners meeting eliminating the
requirement for common open space and the clustering component. Mr. Hearn stated that he
wonders why we sit on the board if we don't think they should have some degree of control on
how property is being utilized. He advised that in 1960 the people of the county voted that they
wanted planning and zoning regulations adopted in the community. He continued that they have
worked reasonably well and set a pattern of development that most folks can live with. He stated
that he fully supports the fact that the western property owners have a problem and need to sell
some of their land for residential development. He stated he is concerned that if people sub-
divide their agricultural land for residential development then people will put a few cattle on the
property and ask for an ag exemption.
/ "I
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING
September 18, 2003
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
7:00 p.m.
-
MEMBERS PRESENT:
k
Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Morgan, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Trias, and
Chairman Merritt.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Hilson (Absent with Notice)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant
Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay,
Development Review Planner III; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms.
Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 1
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Merritt called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission/Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS / DISCLOSURES:
Mr. Lounds, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Grande, Mr. Akins, and Mr. Hearn stated that they had
conversations with the representatives for Glassman Properties as they stated at last month's
meeting.
Ms. Hammer stated that she had discussions with residents of The Reserve and the Kolter
Developers regarding the PGA Hotel & Office petition.
Chairman Merritt gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's
meeting.
The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency is an agency that makes
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters.
These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information
gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight.
The meeting will progress in the following manner:
• The Chair will call each item.
• Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request.
• The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board.
• Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the
request.
• The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the
request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has
specific questions.
• The Board will vote on its recommendation after . its discussion. For legal
reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff.
Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members.
• The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 2
The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity
for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested
parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County
Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision.
Mr. Lounds stated that they had received an informational package from the Community
Development Department to the County Commission regarding the Future Land Use element's
goals, objectives, and policies. He stated that in reading through it there is verbiage in it on page
1-9 it discusses 8 lots, parcels, or tracts, but their discussions and recommendations were to
forward the Ad Hoc committee's recommendation of ten, not eight. He also stated that there was
other verbiage in it that just seems to appear from past verbiage.
Mr. Murphy stated that the information they received was a draft compliance agreement language
that they have been working with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on for the last
couple of months. He advised that the information was transmitted to DCA several weeks ago.
Since that time there have been some other comments that came in about some other issues,
specifically on the references to Policy 1.1.2.2. He stated that no final action has been taken on
that and it is not a final document yet. He continued that it would be presented to the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for final action. He advised
that the document was an attempt to address the compliance issues relative to urban sprawl and
urban development issues that were raised by DCA.
Mr. Lounds questioned if the recommendations from the Ad Hoc committee regarding open
space were even considered. Mr. Murphy stated that those recommendations were made to the
County Commission last week and would be processed through a separate amendment action that
addresses some more specific issues. He also stated that this was an attempt in the connplian-m-
agreement to address issues that came up over the previous period of time. Those that have
happened in the last few weeks were not reflected in the document because it was drafted prior to
the most recent recommendations being finalized. He continued that when they get to the
October 7, 2003 County Commission meeting, they will again discuss the open space issues after
an intervening workshop has been held to address some additional issues. He advised that they
plan to have specific policy language that will be part of the next set of plan amendments that
attempt to address all of the groups' issues. He stated that the amendment process is such that it
will come to this board for review around November or December, then to the Board of County
Commissioners in January for transmittal to DCA as part of the next large scale amendment
process.
Mr. Lounds confirmed that this has to be taken to DCA for review and then be resubmitted for
the amendments. He stated that in the original draft in 1990 there were no provisions for
buyouts, but there is a proposal for that in this submittal. Mr. Murphy stated that based on most
recent discussions that provision would be removed when it is amended. Mr. Lounds questioned
if it was written prior to the most recent discussions. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Lounds stated that the County Commission stated they did not like the buy out option and
questioned why it was included in the document that was transmitted to DCA. Mr. Murphy
explained that the document was written and transmitted prior to the County Commission making
the decision to have it removed, just two days ago.
Mr. McCurdy stated that he has similar concerns. He continued that one of his main concerns is
that the language in the document transmitted does not mirror or reflect what they and the Ad
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 3
0
Hoc committee had recommended. He stated that it seems to have gone straight to the heart of
what they did not recommend. He continued that he is concerned that this has been pursued in
spite of their recommendations. He questioned if the required common open space element was
still included in what was transmitted to DCA. Mr. Murphy stated that the language that was in
the document did speak to the ability to have it as common or as open space but at the discretion
of the Board could be determined to be common or individually held. He continued that the
Board has subsequently directed them to remove the buy-out clause and work towards some
relief mechanism to allow for some variation of open space. Mr. McCurdy stated that he
believes that requiring open space in an agricultural area would be considered to be a taking. He
also questioned if the clustering element was still in effect. Mr. Murphy stated that the
Comprehensive Plan references the word "clustering". The policies and implementation
language was found in Draft Ordinance 03-005 addresses more specifically how that is applied in
an agricultural environment. He continued that the Board of County Commissioners have not
given him the clear definitive direction yet on what they want to see in the final document. Mr.
McCurdy stated that it seems the recommendations of the Ad Hoc committee and this board were
ignored.
No other announcements or discussion.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 4
AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — AUGUST 21, 2003:
Ms. Hammer stated that she had a number of corrections to the minutes. She stated that on page
6, first paragraph, third line from the bottom should read "projected". The second paragraph
should read "requested". The fourth paragraph, fourth line down, should have "a" added before
"single air curtain burner". Page 7, second paragraph, third line from bottom should have the
word "that" added before "is not accurate". The next paragraph, fourth line down should be
corrected from "Clearning" to "Clearing". She stated that on Page 8, in the second paragraph,
line eight and also on Page 9, she didn't understand the references to Mr. Wynne's operation.
She stated that she didn't understand the sentence on Page 10, first full paragraph, third line from
the bottom and that it should say "themselves" not "their selves". Page 11, third paragraph, "
second line should have the word "were" deleted. Page 12, second paragraph, last sentence,
should read "has a flow -well" not "was a flow -well". Same page, last paragraph, fourth line
down should have the words "for this" removed. Three lines later should read "were other air
curtains" not "was". She stated on around the fifth line from the bottom of the first paragraph on
page 16 she didn't understand what was being said. The next paragraph should add the word
"use" after "permitted". She stated on page 17, third paragraph, third line should be changed so
that the end of the sentence is after conditional use and then start the next sentence with "His
options" because the sentence doesn't make sense. She stated that on page 22, the last paragraph
is missing the first policy number "1.1.2.2". She continued that the third full paragraph on Page
23 didn't make sense to her. The next paragraph, fifth line down should read "an answer". On
page 24, fifth line down, should have the word "they" added before "can do". She continued that
the third paragraph, third line from the bottom, should have the word "about" deleted before
"that term". Page 25, first paragraph, 9th line down, should have the word "and" deleted and
then end the sentence after "substantially". The next line should have the word "are" moved
from before "in St. Lucie County" to after it. The next paragraph, fourth line from the bottom
should read, "adjustments are" instead of "adjustment is". She advised that the next paragraph
she did not understand and needed to be reworded. She stated on page twenty-six, second
paragraph, second line, should have the word "is" added after "developer". She also stated on
page twenty-seven, the first sentence she didn't understand what it meant. Same page, first full
paragraph, second line from the bottom should be "alternative" not "alterative". She continued
that the next paragraph, third line from the bottom should have the word "which" added before
"are exempt". The following paragraph should read "alright" not "all right". The next
paragraph, second line from bottom, should have the words "some on" reversed to "on some".
On pago 28, second line, the sentence should end after "transfer" and start a new sentence with
"It is". Same page, fifth paragraph down, should read "Budget" not "Budge". She stated that on
page 29, the vote was 7-1 (with Ms. Morgan voting against), not 7-0.
Ms. Hammer apologized for being so picky but said she has had to read some court transcripts
lately and wants to make sure that our minutes are accurate for the Board of County
Commissioners. - Mr. Kelly stated - that the typographical errors would definitely need to be
corrected but several of them were what was actually said. He stated that Dawn was asked not to
correct language of the speakers because it could potentially change their meaning. He continued
that we tend to speak in a more informal manner than is normally written. He advised that each
of the comments would be reviewed because clearly some of them needed to be changed but
some may not be changed. Ms. Hammer stated that it is a lot easier to edit and proof the minutes
than it is to write them.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 5
Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to make it clear that when he made his motion on page 24 to
recommend the insertion of the language that was in Mr. James' suggestion, he was not asking to
delete the requirement of open space. He continued that he knows that is what his motion was
and that is how the minutes read, but that was not his intent. He stated that if someone were to
read the minutes they could interpret that he was asking for the open space to be deleted and he
wanted it clear that he was only asking for the word "common" to be removed.
Mr. McCurdy made a motion to approve.
Motion seconded.
Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 9-0).
Note: Changes to the minutes were made consistent with the discussion between Ms. Hammer
and Mr. Kelly.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 6
W,
AGENDA ITEM 2: KENNETH F. LOWE, JR. (PGA HOTEL & OFFICE) — File No. RZ-
03-027 / PUD-03-018:
Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of
Kenneth F. Lowe, Jr. for a Change in Zoning, from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning
District to the PNRD (Planned Non -Residential Development) Zoning District, for Preliminary
PNRD approval for a 12,000 square foot office building, and Preliminary and Final PNRD
approval for a 170-unit hotel for property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of
Commerce Center Drive and Champions Way, directly across from the PGA Learning Center.
Ms. Snay explained that in 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 88-
357, which granted approval for a 2,100 acre Development of Regional Impact, known as the
Reserve, for a total of 4,100 dwelling units; four golf courses; 1,600,000 square feet of industrial
development; 290,000 square feet of commercial development; 100,000 square feet of office
space and 250 hotel/motel rooms. She stated that as of this date, approximately 1,124 dwelling
units have been permitted for construction, and another 609 units have received site plan
approval but have not yet been built. She also stated that approximately 95,000 square feet of
industrial development, one 80-unit hotel/motel, and less than 5,000 square feet of commercial
development has also been permitted.
Ms. Snay stated that the PGA Hotel and Office site is located in the area known as PUD III at the
Reserve DRI, immediately south of the Reserve entrance, within the PGA Commerce Center.
She also stated that PUD III received its original Preliminary PUD site plan approval in May
1989. She continued that in 1989, the revised overall Master Plan for the Reserve identified
Parcel 37 as a portion of the Commercial tract of the Reserve. She advised that the net project
area for Parcel 37C is 6.93 acres. She stated that Parcel 37C was being proposed for
development with the remaining 170 hotel/motel rooms and an additional-12,000 square feet of
commercial/office space which is consistent with the overall gross project density/intensity
within the Reserve DRI.
Ms. Snay advised that in 1984, as part of the Development of Regional Impact review process,
the community infrastructure needs for the Reserve were reviewed and the type of required
improvements identified. As a result of that review process, the County adopted a Development
Order, which identifies various improvements that are triggered at different levels of
development within this project. She stated that it has been the position of the County that the
overall project developer is the entity responsible for the major construction/environmental
protection obligations identified in this projects' Final Development Order. She also stated that
the individual parcel developers are not held responsible for off -site improvements or other
Development Order conditions that are not directly related to the permitting of the parcels
development activity.
Ms. Snay explained that condition # 76 of the Final development order for the Reserve requires
that the developers of this project maintain certain minimum operating conditions at the
Interchange of I-95 and Reserve Boulevard. She stated that at this time the intersection of
Reserve Boulevard and St. Lucie West Boulevard has reached a point where the transportation
levels requires signalization in order to improve the traffic flow at the I-95 Intersection and this
development. She also stated that the subject tract has both a commercial land use and zoning
designation and under these designations a hotel is permitted as a conditional use. She continued
that since the property is being developed as a Planned Nonresidential Development (PNRD), the
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 7
z'.
planned development hearing process serves the same procedural function as the conditional use
process, however the proposed use must also satisfy the standards for conditional use described
in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. She advised that the development of this site
for a hotel use, not to exceed 170 units, is consistent with the approved final development order
for the Reserve, which permits up to 250 hotel units in the DRI. She continued that when added
to the 80 units in the Mainstay Suites property, the 170 units would equal the maximum
permitted under the projects original development order.
Ms. Snay stated that the proposed use is consistent with the general character of the area and
with the existing and proposed land uses in the area. She explained that to the north is the
Mainstreet Village commercial tract with the PGA Villages; to the south is the PGA Learning
Center and Vistana Tract (Parcel 37A and 37B @ the Reserve); to the east is Interstate 95; and to
the west is the Mainstay Suites. She stated that as part of the site plan design; the developers
have provided a native vegetation transplant zone located along both Commerce Centre Drive
and Reserve Boulevard. She also stated that this area is intended to provide a buffer of native
vegetation along both of these roadway facilities.
Ms. Snay stated that the proposed site design includes a number of parking spaces that are
proposed as reserve parking and that these reserved spaces create increased landscape islands
within the development. She also stated that the parking areas would not be paved until such
time as the applicant can demonstrate that they are needed. She advised that the applicant
proposes to access the project from three points of ingress and egress: two points from
Commerce Center Drive and one from Champions Way. She stated that all deliveries would be
made at the western most access into the project off of Champions Way. She also stated that the
site design has incorporated an internal covered loading/delivery zone behind the hotel, this is
where all employees will enter into the hotel and all deliveries for the project will be made.
Staff has determined that the proposed use is consistent with the standards of review as set forth
in Section 11.02.10 and Section 11.07.00 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the
Comprehensive Plan and the Development Order for the Reserve. Staff is recommending that
this project be approved subject to the conditions found on page 6 and 7 of the staff report.
Ms. Pamela Hammer stated that she was notified on this application because she resides in The
Reserve. She explained that she spoke with Ms. Young from the County Attorney's office and
was tom able to vote oq, this application.
Mr. David Miller stated that he is the architect for the proposed hotel and has worked with PGA
and Mr. Lowe over the last several months to develop this plan. He continued that this piece has
had commercial zoning and land use on it for 80,000 square feet of commercial space. He stated
that a hotel would be a very viable use because of the golfing that is at The Reserve, along with
the activities at the Learning and Education Center. He also stated that going through the PNRD
process was more appropriate for this property because it allows both the hotel and office
component to share a common primary entry off of Commerce Centre Drive. He advised this
would minimize the impact on the roadway and allow the two uses to be symbiotic on the site.
He continued that their intention is to proceed with the first phase of the hotel, which would
include all of the first floor, public, lobby, restaurant, and meeting spaces, and up to ninety
rooms. He advised that the second phase would be the eighty rooms, which would total the 170
rooms. He stated that they do not yet have a user identified for the 12,000 square foot. office
component. He also stated that this site has quite a bit of trees and under storage plantings under
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 8
the pines that they are saving by relocating as well. He continued that the hotel is unique
because it will be a full service hotel with meeting spaces, full restaurant uses, and training
capabilities. This would provide both the resort user and other users to utilize the facilities of
The PGA to have a full hotel experience. He stated that they have incorporated all of the staff s
suggestions into their final site plan and are meeting or exceeding all of the County requirements.
He also stated that they concur with staffs recommendations with the exception of the comment
relative to the interchange work. He advised that the requirements under the DRI for all of The
Reserve are the responsibilities of the Master Developer, which is Kolter, not his client.
dt he does `el limiting their ability to obtain building permits based on something
t at Kolter is responsible for, is not appropriate because Koller is not part of this project. - He
stated that he believes it would be more appropriate to make the restriction the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy rather than any building permits.
Mr. Grande questioned if Staff would agree to amend the condition. Mr. Kelly explained that
staff was concerned that the improvements get put into place, which is why the restriction was
added to this approval. Mr. Grande questioned if staff s recommendation of approval includes
all of the conditions as written in the report. Mr. Kelly explained that the issue needs to be
addressed and that they have the right to address it however they choose. Chairman Merritt
questioned if they were legally able to require that condition since it is not a responsibility of this
applicant, but the responsibility of Kolter. Mr. Kelly stated that he believed it could be done.
Mr. Miller stated that he felt the condition as it is worded in the staff report was too vague and
would be better addressed by changing it from the permits to the certificate of occupancy.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bill Hammer, 7672 Charleston Way, stated that he was not for or against the application but
had several concerns regarding the project. He stated that they are concerned about concurrence
of the infrastructure to support any development because of the speed and magnitude of growth
in the area. He also stated that he is concerned about the adequacy of the proposed facility with
the multiple uses expected. He stated they are concerned about the adequacy of parking and
traffic flow. He advised that there is a traffic circle at the entrance, which are two lanes around
the circle, the radius of the circle is extremely small and doesn't allow time for lane changes. He
continued that if you are heading to the west into that circle, which all traffic coming from the
east into the hotel will have to do, there are three lanes that merge into the two-lane circle. He
stated tliat the right hand lane is a designated right turn only lane, but must enter the outer lane of
the circle in order to make the right turn. He also stated that they are also concerned about the
pedestrian crosswalk crossing that roadway from the east, heading west, because it is not safe.
He advised that the highest facility in the vicinity is two stories and this would be doubling that
height, which would really stick out. He also stated that the statement of finishing the project as
the market dictates could become an issue and should not be allowed to proceed without a certain
date of completion.
Mr. David Miller stated that the statement about finishing the project as the market dictates was
actually meant to be that both phases might be built at one time, if the market demand was there.
He also stated that the schedule of development is not anticipated to extend any further than
projected because they are considering building both phases at the same time. He advised that
the project also would have more than the number of required parking spots based on the total
space. Ms. Hammer questioned if the plan involved any shared parking. Mr. Miller explained
that the parking would exist separate from one another.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 9
Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
Ms. Hammer stated that the residents were concerned about traffic going into the circle. She
continued that the residents had suggested trying to divert Commerce Drive and bring it straight
between the hotels. She advised that she discussed this with Mr. Dennis Murphy and was told
that both State and Federal regulations would not allow any intersection any closer to the I-95
ramps than the present circle is currently. She stated that if you come west along Reserve
Boulevard people are crossing over the eastern lanes and pulling into Champions Way. She
suggested that something must be done to keep people from coming head on into traffic exiting
The Reserve. She stated that she understood that this wasn't really an issue for the applicant, per
se, but believes anyone trying to enter the hotel could come head on into traffic. She also stated
that she hopes that Kolter will get the roadway straightened out as quickly as possible. She
advised that she doesn't know how they are going to get the average traveler into their hotel
because they will get confused when they hit the circle. She also stated that they are concerned
about the line of site at the intersection of Commerce Boulevard and Champions way. She
suggested that the vegetation be pushed back further than depicted on the plan to allow for the
line of site to be clear at the corners. She confirmed that they would comply with construction
hours regulated by the County. She also stated that after hearing the applicant, it would be unfair
to condition the start of their project to when Kolter decides to deal with the roads. She stated
she would be willing to tie the condition into the Certificate of Occupancy rather than the
issuance of building permits as the applicant requested.
Mr. Lounds asked the applicant to clarify the parking issues and requirements. Mr. Miller
explained that it is a 5000 square foot restaurant with 1000 square feet of outdoor seating area,
for a total of 6000 square feet. He stated it would hold approximately 150 to 200 patrons. He
continued that there would be 170 hotel rooms. Mr. Lounds questioned what the expected
parking lot requirements were for the office space. Mr. Miller stated that the County parking
requirement for office space is 5 per 1000 square feet. Ms. Snay explained that the hotel itself is
required 247 spaces, which included the spaces for the restaurant and hotel rooms. She
continued that the office building required an additional 60 spaces, which totaled 307 required
parking spaces for the site. Mr. Lounds questioned what the expected occupancy of the hotel
would be. Mr. Miller stated that most hotels have an average occupancy of 65 — 70% for them to
be economically viable. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels this design saves a lot of the native trees
and shrubs that are on the site.
Mr. Akins stated that he is concerned about shifting responsibility that is currently under a DRI
to this project and would set a dangerous precedent. Mr. Lounds questioned if this would be
shifting the requirement away from Kolter and placing it on this developer. Mr. Kelly explained
that the condition as it is written in the staff report is placing the requirement on the developers
of this project. Mr. Miller explained that the responsibilities for any improvements are that of
the Master Developer as written in the DRI for The Reserve as a whole. Mr. Murphy stated that
this project is only a preliminary plan review and the rest of the Kolter projects already have
their preliminary approvals. He also stated that Kolter is going to have 4 additional parcels going
before the Board of County Commissioners on October 7 for final PUD approval. He advised
that the original development order stated that no more building permits could be issued once a
certain level of service standards has been met. He stated that they have met that standard now
and they are concerned about the timing of the Master Developer providing the signalization.
Mr. Grande stated he felt this should be voted on exactly as Staff recommended and let the Board
of County Commissioners review the discussions in the minutes to make their decision. Mr.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 10
Lounds stated that he felt the recommendation to change it from building permits to a certificate
of occupancy should be included in the motion to send the message to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Mr. McCurdy 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 grant approval to the application of Kenneth F. Lowe, Jr., for a
Preliminary Planned Non -Residential Development (PNRD) approval for a 12,000 square
foot office building and Preliminary and Final PNRD approval for a 170-unit hotel and a
Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the PNRD
(Planned Non -Residential Development) Zoning District for the project known as PGA
Village Hotel and Office with the conditions cited by staff with the exception that in
Condition # 5, the actual issuance of the building permit is allowed and the certificate of
occupancy would only be granted if the specified work is performed to the specifications of
the County because it is a good use of the parcel.
Motion seconded by Mr. Akins.
Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 9-0) and
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 11
AGENDA ITEM 3: GLASSMAN PROPERTIES LLC. — File No. RZ-03-017:
Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager stated that the applicant had stated that they would like to
have Agenda Items # 3 & # 4 continued to allow time for a charette to be done. He also stated
that these two applications would be re -noticed and re -advertised.
Mr. Kerran Kilday stated that they feel it would be more appropriate to address their applications
after a charette has been done. He asked that both items be continued until February 19, 2004,
which is a six-month delay, to allow time for the charettes to be completed.
Mr. Grande & Mr. Hearn both thanked the applicant for their request.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
Ms. Hammer made a motion to continue until February 19, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as possible.
Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn.
Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 9-0) to be continued until the
February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as possible.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 12
AGENDA ITEM 4: GLASSMAN PROPERTIES. LLC. — File No. RZ-03-035:
Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager stated that the applicant had stated that they would like to
have Agenda Items # 3 & # 4 continued to allow time for a charette to be done.
Mr. Kerran Kilday stated that they feel it would be more appropriate to address their applications
after a charette has been done. He asked that both items be continued until 2-19-04, which is a
six-month delay, to allow time for the charettes to be completed.
Mr. Grande & Mr. Hearn both thanked the applicant for their request.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
Ms. Hammer made a motion to continue until February 19, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as possible.
Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy.
Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 9-0) to be continued until the
February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as possible.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 13
AGENDA ITEM 5: T&T LAND LTD. — File No. RZ-03-032:
Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of
T & T Land, Ltd., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) Zoning
District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District for 19.11 acres of property located on the
East side of North Kings Highway, approximately 2,500 feet south of Angle Road. He advised
that the petitioner had requested this change in zoning in order to allow the property to be
developed for light industrial uses. He also stated that the Kings Crossings Park of Commerce,
an 8 lot industrial subdivision, is located to the southwest of the subject property.
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. Al Brodeaur, Thomas Lucido and Associates, stated that he represented the petitioner T&T
Land, Ltd. He stated they concurred with the staff report and recommendation. He advised that
in the past the County had intended, at one time, for this area to be a light industrial area. He
continued that with the access to the highway, scheduled road improvements, lack of residential
uses, and the market climate has become more favorable for light industrial development. He
stated that caddy corner across the street was approved and being developed as a small light
industrial park and believe this rezoning would be consistent with the surrounding area.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Kenny Hogan, a representative of Hogan Brothers Welding, stated that they are the neighbor
to the north, which is zoned IL (Industrial, Light) and he recommended approval of this request.
Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
Mr. McCurdy stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public
hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section
11.06.03, 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 T&T Land, Ltd., for a Change in
Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial,
Light) Zoning District because that has been the trend in this area. I believe it is going to
continue to be the trend and that has been expressed in the several other rezonings in the
area.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande.
Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 9-0) and
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 14
AGENDA ITEM 6: GERHARD KAMPICHLER — File No. RZ-03-034:
Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application of
Gerhard Kampichler, for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood)
Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 0.91 acre of property
located at 1123 South 33rd Street. He continued that the surrounding zoning is CN (Commercial,
Neighborhood) to the south and west with CG (Commercial, General) to the north and further
south and R4 (Residential — 4) is located to the east in the City Limits of Ft. Pierce. He also
stated that the petitioner -had requested the change in zoning in order to allow the property to be
developed for general commercial purposes. He advised that Mr. Kampichler operates a sealing
and coating business and thus a rezoning to CG would be required. He continued that the
property is currently being operated with a refrigeration business, a non -conforming use, and a
photography business, a conforming business.
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 to Board of County Commissioners.
Ms. Lana Brown, 701 Texas Court, stated that she was the representative and partner of the
petitioner Gerhard Kamphichler in the seal coating business.
Mr. Lounds questioned if this changed the use of the land or would just bring the non-
conforming use into compliance. Mr. Flores stated that it would change the use of the land
because the previous owner did those other two uses and this owner wants to change it to a
sealing and coating business.
Mr. Grande stated this is a significant change of the land. He stated that it currently is a more
gentle usage than any of the permitted uses, like a gas station, under the proposed zoning. Mr.
McCurdy questioned if Mr. Grande was familiar with the 33rd Street corridor. Mr. Grande
confirmed that he was. Mr. McCurdy stated that there are other CG (Commercial, General)
zonings in that area that don't have a gas station and doesn't believe that would happen in that
area. Ms. Brown confirmed that they don't want a gas station on the property. Mr. Grande
stated that they need to understand that this request is a change in zoning, so if approved, the
permitted uses, any of them, would be allowed under this proposed zoning.
Mr. Hearn questioned how long they had owned the property. Ms. Brown stated they had just
purchased it about two months prior. Mr. Hearn questioned if they knew at the time of purchase
that they could not have that type of business under the current zoning and would need to be
rezoned. Ms. Brown stated they were not aware of that because it was only advertised as being
commercial property. She continued that after investigating further they found out it was-CN -
(Commercial, Neighborhood) as opposed to CG (Commercial, General).
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Ms. Estelle Dunn, 3204 Kentucky Avenue, stated that she was representing the other owners in
the neighborhood and that they were against this change because it would change the area from a
neighborhood to more of a business. She advised that the area that the business is planning to go
to is really not suitable for a business. She continued that it is a small tract of land that would be
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 15
more suitable for just a home, not a business. Mr. Akins questioned if Ms. Dunn was aware of
the other commercial businesses operating in the area. Ms. Dunn stated that she was aware that
there is a little neighborhood store and previously there was also a thrift shop.
Mr. Hearn questioned how intense the storage of commercial vehicles and the equipment and
supplies be under the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning and if they would be allowed to be
stored surrounding the building. Mr. Kelly explained that outside storage is not a permitted use
under CG (Commercial, General) Zoning. Mr. Hearn questioned if this business could be
compared to a contractors office under the permitted uses in the CG (Commercial, General)
Zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that is generally what he understood. Ms. Brown stated that they have
a four -stall pole barn in the back that the equipment would be stored in and cannot be seen from
the road. She also stated that there is a 3/2, 2/2, and a 1/1 on the property too that have tenants
who don't have a problem with this request. She continued that they planned in the future to put
up a fence so that it would not be an eye sore for anyone.
Ms. Hammer questioned what they would be storing in the pole barn. Ms. Brown stated they
would store their trucks and tanks. She advised that their business uses a coal tar emulsion seal
coating to cover cracked driveways, parking lots, and doing the striping. Ms. Hammer
questioned if there was any odor from the materials. Ms. Brown explained that it is a cold
application and there would be no odors because it is not used until on a job site.
Mr. Hearn stated that under the permitted uses it shows construction services with offices and
interior storage only, but he doesn't see how that language applies to this business. Ms. Brown
stated that the office is located at her home not on this site. Mr. Kelly stated that he wasn't
aware of the pole barn and would need to do know more about the pole barn to see if that
qualifies as an interior use. Mr. Flores stated that the applicant advised him of the pole barn and
he directed her to the building department to find out their requirements for enclosing the
structure itself. Ms. Brown stated that if there were any requirements to enclose the pole barn
they would be willing to do that. Chairman Merritt questioned how big the site is. Mr. Flores
stated that it is just under an acre.
Mr. Lounds stated that there is another property shown on the Arial photograph that has a
building with many items being stored behind it. He stated that he didn't see why there was all
of this concern about storing items within a pole barn that is on an acre. He advised that this area
needs to have a little revision and doesn't believe this pole barn and equipment would be a
problem.
Chairman Merritt questioned if there are three houses currently on the property. Ms. Brown
explained that there is one house with a 3/2 and a 2/2. She advised that there is a separate
cottage, which is a 1/1. She stated that the four -stall pole barn was built when they were building
I-95 through and the county used it to store all of their vehicles: -
Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant wanted to do business out of the pole barn but continue to
maintain the three apartments that are currently on the site. Ms. Brown confirmed that was
correct. Mr. Grande stated that he didn't believe three residential units would be allowed under
the CG (Commercial, General) zoning. Ms. Brown stated that they are pre-existing. Mr. Kelly
explained that three buildings would not be permitted within CG zoning. He advised that they
are non -conforming uses. Mr. Grande stated that they are not within CG zoning presently, they
are in CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that they are also non-
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 16
conforming uses under the current CN zoning so it would not be making a change to the status of
the residences. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows all of this area as commercial. He
continued that all of the zoning in this area is also commercial with a number of existing CG
(Commercial, General) zoned parcels there.
Mr. Grande questioned why no one was notified on Louisiana Avenue. He also questioned if the
residents within city limits would be notified as well. Mr. Kelly stated that all of the property
owners within 500 feet of the subject property, including city residents, were notified. He went
through the list and advised that the residences on Louisiana are apartments that are owned by
people who reside in Del Ray Beach and they were notified. He advised that we did not notify
the renters themselves because they do not own the property but there was a sign placed on the
subject property.
Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public
hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section
11.06.03, 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 Gerhard Kamphichler for a Change in
Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial,
General) Zoning District because I think it is consistent with which the neighborhood is
beginning to move, noting that there is a residential area across the street, but also the fact
that there is commercial, commercial neighborhood, commercial general all through the
western side of this particular area.
Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy.
Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 5-4 (with Mr. Grande, Ms.
Hammer, Mr. Hearn, and Mr. Trias voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 17
AGENDA ITEM 7: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF FT. PIERCE — FILE NO. CU-03-014:
Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of
First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational Services
and Facilities in the I (Institutional) and RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning Districts for 19.46 acres
of property located at 4500 South 250' Street. He continued that the surrounding zoning is RS-2
(Residential, Single -Family - 2 du/acre) zoning to the north with AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential
— 1 du/acre) to the south and across South 25"' Street to the west. He also stated that R/C
(Residential Conservation) is located to the east with I (Institutional) and RF (Religious Facilities
located to the west.
Mr. Flores stated that the applicant has applied for the requested conditional use in order to
establish an educational facility for a maximum of 40 students for a pre-school. He advised that
a church is currently located on the subject property and the addition of two new 672 square foot
classroom buildings is being proposed. He also stated that educational services and facilities are
allowed as conditional uses in both zoning districts subject to the approval of the Board of
County Commissioners.
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, subject to three limiting conditions:
The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 40.
2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 A.M to 6
P.M., Monday through Friday.
3. First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce shall finalize negotiations with St. Lucie
County for the additional right-of-way for South 251' Street prior to permits
being issued for the school addition.
Mr. Charlie Canginelli, 1004 S llth Street, stated that he was there representing the applicant
and Pastor Andy Boyd was also present. He continued that this request was to accommodate an
education facility. He advised that the proposed preschool facility would accommodate 40
children, Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. He stated that at this time the 23 acre
site was under design for a new church, preschool, and supporting facility. He advised that he
did not know if it was possible for the applicant to meet condition # 3.
Pastor Andy Boyd, 1715 SW Mockingbird Drive, stated that he has spoken with David Brian
McCarsky who is representing the County in land acquisition along 25th street for the widening
project and will be signing a counter offer in the morning. He continued that he didn't believe
there would be any problem with the negotiations and meeting condition # 3 that was set forth.
Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant would be willing to leave condition # 3 as it was written
in the staff report. Pastor Boyd stated that would be fine. Mr. Grande questioned if they could
justify adding condition # 2 because it would never allow a night class or any kind of evening
activities. Mr. Flores stated that it was consistent with what was done with previous preschool
requests. He continued that they recognize there might be occasional nighttime activities, which
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 18
would be allowed. Mr. Kelly stated that the intent was not to prevent parents meeting at night to
discuss educational issues but was to limit the actual operation of the educational facility and
children.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Ferrick, 4802 S 25th Street, stated that his wife Patricia Ferrick has concerns regarding
the ingress and egress on 25th Street. He advised that if constructed there would only be a left
turn heading south and only a right turn heading north causing u-turns in this area. He stated that
there would not be the ability for a bus to make turns into the property safely. He questioned
what portion of this property the conditional use would apply to. He stated that the size of the
property could lead to expansions. He also stated that this property burned exotics when clearing
the property, which caused serious health threats and hazards in the area. He stated that this
parcel is 19 1/2 acres for a 40-child, two -classroom preschool and that seems a little much.
Mr. Mitchell Wilson, 1005 W 1st Street, stated that there would not be any busing for this
facility, only parent drop-off and pick-up. He also stated that the modular unit for the school
would be placed on their existing property, not where the property is currently being cleared. He
advised that the burning on the site was complete and there would not be any additional burning
done. He stated that they were clearing the property for the past two or three months, had the
proper permits, and met all of the requirements necessary for the burning. He stated that they
tried diligently to address any concerns from the neighborhood that they were told about. He
also stated that they were inspected almost daily during the clearing process by regulatory
agencies from the County and the City. He continued that they worked with the Division of
Forestry, Fire District, and all necessary agencies for their clearing and burning. He advised that
they are working with RK Davis on the first phase of their project and their master site plan.
Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would have any problem adding a condition that there
would not be any school bus transportation. Mr. Canginelli stated there was no problem with
adding that condition. Chairman Merritt stated that he felt it would be more sensible to have one
single bus entering and exiting the school rather than forty cars. Mr. Hearn stated that if the
traffic structure could support a bus he didn't have a problem with that. He continued that he
was under the impression there were problems getting a bus in and out of the property. Mr.
Ferrick stated that under the new proposed 4-lane construction of 25th street it has an island in
the median area, which would make it difficult for a bus to enter or exit the property.
Pastor Boyd stated that their church currently owns and utilizes a 27-passenger mini bus, which
has no trouble turning around or maneuvering in and out of the property. He agreed that it
wasn't as long as a school bus, but that shouldn't be a problem. He advised that their site is large
enough to accommodate larger vehicles turning around.
Mr. Trias questioned if this is a DOT road or a County road. Mr. Kelly explained it is a DOT
road. Mr. Trias questioned if the County has any influence regarding the design of the median.
Mr. Kelly stated that they have very little to do with DOT roadway projects. Ms. Hammer stated
that if this is just a design and isn't built yet, Senator Pruitt and Representative Harrell should be
able to do something to correct this issue.
Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 19
Mr. Hearn 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 grant
approval to the application of First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) and RF (Religious
Facilities) Zoning Districts subject to the three conditions listed in the Staff report because
it appears to be a natural progression of their plans for this area and with some adjustment
on DOT'S part school buses could use this property.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande.
Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 9-0) and
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 20
Seeing no one else Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lounds made a finding of consistency that the presented Interlocal Agreement
between the St. Lucie County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners is
consistent with Objective 1.1.17 and its intended Policies; and further recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve this agreement as drafted.
Motion seconded by McCurdy.
Upon a vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 9-0) and forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners. -
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 22
OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION:
Mr. Lounds stated that nobody takes their advice as a board. He continued that they are here
because they like the county but he thinks that there are commissioners driving the open space
issues the way they want it. He stated the commissioners should realize that it is a three out of
five vote that makes things happen in the county, not one. He also stated that this board and the
public have spent a lot of time working on the open space and clustering issues and is being
ignored. He continued that he feels the verbiage is being driven by members of the County
Commission to get it passed regardless so that the urban service issues remain where they are
today. He advised that they do not want the county to progress commercially or residentially.
He stated th t hey don't want to make it feasible for the agricultural area to survive under a
better land than what they are trying to do. He continued that somewhere all of this would
come out and ten years from now we will hopefully look back and say it worked out. He stated
that right now he is upset with the system and the grinding wheel of bureaucracy is working well
right now.
Chairman Merritt questioned when the open space issues were started. Mr. Murphy stated that it
was first presented to them around January 2003, with lead in discussion and work around
October of 2002. He also stated that they have discussed it on three or four different occasions.
He advised that on September 30, 2003 there would be a workshop to go over some things that
Commissioner Barnes wanted to discuss. He continued that the final reading of the ordinance
would be on October 7, 2003. He stated that the Board wanted it rewritten without the buy out
clause and there were also some additional issues relative to if this would apply to specific areas
or the entire western portion of the county.
Next scheduled meeting will be October 16, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Dawn Gilmore, Secretary
P & Z / LPA Meeting
September 18, 2003
Page 23
Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 10/16/03
File Number CU-03-008
I►,1:1►Ti[911 ki111Illll
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
r!
FROM: Planning Manager
DATE: October 10, 2003
SUBJECT: Application of R.C. Thoennissen, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the operation of a household goods warehousing and storage mini -
warehouse facility in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District.
(File No.: CU-03-008)
LOCATION: 3250 North Kings Highway
EXISTING ZONING: CG (Commercial, General)
FUTURE LAND USE: COM (Commercial)
PARCEL SIZE: 4 acres
PROPOSED USE: Household goods warehousing and storage mini -
warehouse facility
SURROUNDING ZONING: CG (Commercial, General) and IL (Industrial, Light) to the
south. AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) is
located to the east and north. AGA (Agricultural — 1
du/acre) is located to the west across North Kings
Highway.
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
UTILITY SERVICE:
0
The general existing use surrounding the property is citrus
groves and some commercial and light industrial uses.
The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding
area is MXD - Airport (Mixed Use Development) to the
east, north, east, and south.
Station #4 (4000 St. Lucie Boulevard), is located
approximately 2 miles to the east.
Water and sewer facilities are provided by an on -site well
and septic system.
October 10, 2003 Subject: R.C. Thoennissen
Page 2 File No.: CU-03-008
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for North Kings Highway is 60
feet. An additional 160.5 feet is required for the planned
widening of North Kings Highway.
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS: None.
TYPE OF CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Certificate of Capacity
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
In reviewing this application for the proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider and make the following determinations:
1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable
portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code;
The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the
St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(S)(7), CG
(Commercial, General) Zoning District, allows household goods warehousing and
storage mini -warehouse facilities as conditional uses subject to Board of County
Commission approval. The subject property is currently utilized for the outdoor
storage of vehicles and boats.
2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have
an adverse impact on nearby properties;
The proposed. - -conditional__ use-- -is--not. expected to adversely impact the
surrounding properties. The subject property has been the location of an
automobile/boat/recreational vehicle storage facility since 1996. The proposed
mini -storage facility would be a complement to this operation.
3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be
served by adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police
protection, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks,
and mass transit;
October 10, 2003
Page 3
Subject: R.C. Thoennissen
File No.: CU-03-008
This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on
any public facilities in this area. The existing development has water and sewer
service provided by an on -site well and septic system. The existing
transportation network is able to handle the existing and proposed traffic from the
facility.
4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result
in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the
natural environment. The existing portion of the project has areas of native
vegetation that will be preserved in place. The proposed mini -storage portion of
the project also has a native vegetative area that will be preserved.
COMMENTS
The applicant, R.C. Thoennissen, has applied for the requested conditional use in order
to operate a household goods warehousing and storage mini -warehouse facility in the CG
(Commercial, General) Zoning District. Household goods warehousing and storage mini -
warehouse facilities are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval
of the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed project consists of 18,759 square feet of
space. An existing office contains 2,029 square feet and the proposed mini -storage facility will
contain 16,730 square feet in 5 buildings.
Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section
11.07.03 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 recommends that
you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing area of outdoor storage shall be paved to St. Lucie County
specifications. Said paving shall be completed in phases in coordination
with St. Lucie County.
2. The developer, his successors or assigns, shall coordinate with the St.
Lucie County Environmental Resources Division for the micro -siting of the
tree preservation areas.
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.
Attachment
hf
cc: County Administrator
County Attorney
R.C. Thoennissen
File
Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use.
MOTION TO APPROVE:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,
INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE
THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE
APPLICATION OF R.C. THOENNISSEN, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE OPERATION OF A HOUSEHOLD GOODS WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE MINI -
WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN THE CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT,
BECAUSE...
[LIST CONDITION(S)]
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 11.07.03, 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-R:C.--
THOENNISSEN, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A
HOUSEHOLD GOODS WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE MINI -WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN
THE CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE...,
[CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]
0
Section 3.01.03
Zoning District Use Regulations
S. CG COMMERCIAL, GENERAL
Purpose
The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for a wide variety :;
commercial uses intended to serve a population over a large market area, which do not impose
undesirable noise, vibration, odor, dust, or offensive effects on the surrounding area, together with
such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with general commercial surroundings. The
number in "()"-following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in
Section 3.01.02(B). 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. Adjustment/collection & credit reporting services (732)
b. Advertising (731)
C. Amphitheaters (999)
d. Amusements & recreation services -except stadiums, arenas, race tracks, amusernont parks
and bingo parlors (79)
e. Apparel & accessory stores (se)
f. Automobile dealers (ss)
g. Automotive rental, repairs & serv. (except body repairs) (7s1.753.754)
h. Beauty and barber services (72w24)
i. Building materials, hardware and garden supply (52)
j. Cleaning services 7349)
k. Commercial printing (999)
I. Communications - except towers (ae) -
m. Computer programming, data processing & other computer sere. (737)
n. Contract construction serv. (office & interior storage only) tlsnstin
o. Cultural activities and nature exhibitions (999)
p. Duplicating, mailing, commercial art/photo. & stenog. serv. (733)
q. Eating places (sar)
r. Educational services - except public schools (ee)
S. Engineering, accounting, research, management & related services (ar)
t. Equipment rental and leasing services (735)
u: Executive, legislative, and judicial functions (91/92/93MOSSM/97)
V. Farm labor and management services (oga)
W. Financial, insurance, and real estate (6=v6,m3m1s5/a7)
X. Food stores (sa)
Y. Funeral and crematory services (728) _
z.- Gasoline service stations (ssal)
aa. General -merchandise stores tsar
bb. Health services (eo)
cc. Home furniture and furnishings (s7)
dd. Landscape & horticultural services (ole)
ee. Laundry, cleaning and garment services (n1)
ff. Membership organizations - except for religious organizations as provided in Section
8.02.01(H) of this code tea)
gg. Miscellaneous retail (see SIC Code Major Group 59):
(1) Drug stores (s91)
Adopted August 1. 1990 4�
118
Revised Through 08/01/00
3.
Section 3.01.03
Zoning District Use Regulations
(2) Used merchandise stores (593)
(3) Sporting goods (5941)
(4) Book & stationary (5942/5943)
(5) Jewelry (5944)
(6) Hobby, toy and games (s945)
(7) Camera & photographic supplies (5946)
(8) Gifts, novelty and souvenir (5947)
(9) Luggage & leather goods (594e)
(10) Fabric and mill products (5949)
(11) Catalog, mail order and direct selling (s9e115953)
(12) Liquified petroleum gas (propane) (s9e4)
(13) Florists (5992)
(14) Tobacco (5993)
(15) News dealers/newsstands (5994)
(16) Optical goods (5995)
(17) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (s999)
hh.
Miscellaneous personal services (see SIC Code Major Group 72):
(1) Tax return services (n91)
(2) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (7--99)
ii.
Miscellaneous business services (see SIC Code Major Group 73):
(1) Detective, guard and armored car services (73s1)
(2) Security system services (73u)
(3) News syndicate (7393)
(4) Photofinishing laboratories Vw)
(5) Business services - misc. (73as)
jj.
Mobile home dealers (527)
kk.
Mobile food vendors (eating places, fruits & vegetables -retail) m9
II.
Motion pictures (7e)
mm.
Motor vehicle parking - commercial parking & vehicle storage. (7sz)
nn.
Museums, galleries and gardens (so
oo.
Personnel supply services (736)
pp.
Photo finishing services (73aa)
qq.
Photographic services (722)
rr.
Postal services (43)
ss.
Recreation facilities (9ss)
tt.
Repair services (7a)
uu.
Retail trade -indoor display and sales only, except as provided in Section 7.00.00. (999)
vv.
Social services:
0) Individual & family social services (93M39)
(2) Child care services (e35)
(3) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services (833)
ww.
Travel agencies (4724) - - -
xx.
Veterinary services (074)
Lot Size Requirements
Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00.
Adopted August 1, 1990 ,, 119 Revised Through O8/01/00
Snction 3.01.03
Zoning Disbict Use Regulations
4. Dimensional Regulations
Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00.
5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements
Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00.
6. Landscaping Requirements
Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00.
7. Conditional Uses
a. Adult establishments subject to requirements of Sec. 7.10.10. (99)
b. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) - free-standing. (5813)
C. Disinfecting & pest control services. o342
d. Amusement parks. (7m)
e. Go-cart tracks. (7s99)
f. Hotels & motels. (7o,)
g. Household goods warehousing and storage -mini -warehouses (m)
h. Marina - recreational boats only. (4493)
i. Motor vehicle repair services - body repair. (753)
j. Sporting and recreational camps. (7ose)
k. Retail trade:
(1) Liquor stores. (592)
k. Stadiums, arenas, and race tracks. (794)
I. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 tmm
8. Accessory Uses
Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and inclu& i, a _
a. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages as an accessory use to a restaurant and/or civic, social,
and fraternal organizations).
b. One single-family dwelling unit contained within the commercial bltilding, or a detached
single-family dwelling or mobile home, (for on -site security purposes).
C. Retail trade:
(1) Undistilled alcoholic beverages (accessory to retail sale of food).
Adopted August 1, 1990 120 Revised Through 08/01/00
4�
N
-+4..— Z
N
CYO0
•
T—
.�
O
Qw
U
7 _
W
•
1�0
Ey
i s 1£
e
l tl7ww
yrLit
t
Sl9is
BUSE
u i
tutor
"
~
♦
ow
P
AT 591r
—
,�
01
a
W
In
r!!
onON
Yr741
z
D
/
as Miw513MI
OU
Z
.�� O
am Me
O
:+-j
am 3DOWIlloncl:
' O U
,
OWN T1Mr7
cv-ym--
-.
a
L- O
��
j�Jj
z
W
1
i
OWN ""Im T130
W
�'--
as 033K
HOLVM
K
L
'
Q
0
K-�
\rxr�
z
♦
j
♦
♦
W
W
n
A
�
6
5 K 1
S St 1
S 9£ 1
+
1UNf100
3380H033>10
2
A Petition of Raymond C. Thoennissen for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
C U 03-013 -.
This pattern indicates Map prepared September30.20M
subject parcel DW�h.b—WW"�� N
WOM My %a t- Ears —ft b D�'� h m =rtl W.
HunWlon po.abW lb ge MiWO Wu n • Wg*-i I — O=V"
f��
C U 03-013
d C. Thoennissen
7 —�o 0/ This pattern indicates
subject parcel
ok -
Map prepared September 30, 2003
n" mw t- fwn —M W fa a.. P 1 .4 �alemw pupo�r oiYy.
WNW carry ~h. ben f k n WWft ti "a.,...� .m.r.
NanerYon VouEU 4M W"..Cl d for— M . MWY bbX*V E-."
N
n - - -1 /% TI- ------0— — ---
C 03-013,
rV
This pattern indicates Map prepared September30,2003
subject parcel *.�Y~h.b-°W°0P.. ~~-�.°�°�.". N
,a.0 ,.» n.( ku'.w Im w tl . w9w b"Q Atglwl
Raymond C. Thoennissen
C U 03-013------- 500' boundary
This pattern indicates
subjegt parcel
Al
Map prepared September 30, 2003
�1.��-0.
NTY ft" ~h. bo n." b Pam h n10MElln\I� W m.Y
Fia,nutivl paWY, kY rglhWMed buM Y n IpM/ bM'p d-L
N
AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
October 16, 2003
7.00 P.M.
RAYMOND C. THOENNISSEN, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a mini -storage facility in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the
following described property:
Location: 3250 North Kings Highway.
Please note that all proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local
Planning Agency 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 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 parry to the
proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any parry 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 6, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general
circulation in St. Lucie County, on October 6, 2003.
File No. CU-03-013
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
October 6, 2003
JL�E BOG
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
��OR10P DIRECTOR
In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that RAYMOND
C, THOENNISSEN has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a mini -storage
facility in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the following described property:
Location: 3250 North Kings Highway.
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
October 16, 2003, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex,
2300 Virginia 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
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 a date -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 CU-03-013.
Sincerely,
ST. L E COUNTY PLANNING ND ZONING COMMISSION
Ed Merritt, Chairman
JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 • DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 • PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 • CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5
County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administration: (772) 462-1590 • Planning: (772) 462-2822 GIS/iechnical Services: (772) 462-1553
Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fax: (772) 462-1581
Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 • Fax: (772) 462-2132
www.co.st-lucie.fl.us
111 00
I I M
0i0; M O N
i w�10 O v) ! tn 00 00 • I to k t-
N N !
NI olt—1 M.M M M'; ;MIM!M.
tn
�'
t~
.. N N N N 1 N N N
R � x s
a4 a. a. a U a; a: P.
U:.A:A, w w w w 3 w w w
z
W:Wi
A
tn
r. ,.
U U X ►°-; ti i b x x X
0 .z'z o, o, Go) -ram. :�.z: o o-
rr �
z ;U;
�n
x •
wow` IA 0,
i I
V• i ° �1
i
H El;
� O„1
❑ , cOV V +
0,
i
t i cOCi i VI j� mil
CO)
y : fn n
�- of N t rn titcqj >MI i Nei
"" 1 j 1 'A ' I V Iw cl i o f
G -'��N Nj �(N N.' �;O
i1 Q�I��NjOOi'
'.li t 1 - }!f� �I j tn 1�Ic\
!IFId'�irotnof—1 (�iN.c�i
0109 soncE
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA
October 16, 2003
TO WHOM IT MAY
CERN:
NOTICE is hereby given
in accordance with Sec-
tion 11.00.03 of the St.
Lucie County Land De-
velopment Code and in
accordance with the pro-
visions of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive
Plan, that the following
applicant has requested
that the St. Lucie County
Board of Commissioners
consider their following
request:
RAYMOND C. THOEN-
NISSEN, for a Condition-
al Use Permit to allow a
mini -storage facility in
the CG (Commercial,
General) Zoning District
for the following de-
scribed property:
THE SOUTH HALF OF
THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF. SECTION 25, TOWN-
SHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE
39 EAST, LYING AND
BEING IN ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LESS DRAINAGE CA-
NALS AND ROAD
RIGHTS OF WAY AND
LESS PARCEL CON-
VEYED TO FLORIDA
TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
RECORDED IN DEED
BOOK 215, PAGE 103,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
ALSO, LESS THEREF-
ROM THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED PARCEL OF
LAND:
ALL THAT CERTAIN
TRACT OR PARCEL OF
LAND LYING, BEING
AND SITUATE IN SEC-
TION 25, TOWNSHIP 34
SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, ST. LUCIE COUN-
TY, FLORIDA AND
MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOL-
LOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE
SOUTHWEST, CORNEA
OF SECTION 25, TOWN-
SHIP 34 SOUTH; RANGE
39 EAST; THENCE
NORTH Or 06'48" EAST,
ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 25, A
DISTANCE OF 2655.28
FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE NORTH 89°
43'39" EAST, A DIS-
TANCE OF 70.98 FEET
TO A POINT IN THE
EAST RIGHT OF WAY '
LINE OF KINGS HIGH-
WAY SAID POINT BE- h
ING THE POINT OF BE-
GINNING OF THE HERE-
IN DESCRIBED TRACT;
THENCE NORTH 00°
01'15" EAST, ALONG
THE EAST RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF SAID
KINGS HIGHWAY A DIS-
TANCE OF 242.14 FEET
TO A POINT; THENCE
NORTH 89° 46'12" EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 406.15
FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE NORTH 00°
01'15" EAST, A DIS-
TANCE OF 429.00 FEET
TO A POINT, THENCE
NORTH 89° 46'12" EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 850.55
FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE SOUTH 00°
01'16" WEST, A DIS-
TANCE OF 670.20 FEET
TO A POINT; THENCE
SOUTH 89° 43'39" V
WEST, A DISTANCE OF
1256.70 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
(O.R.B. 1175, PAGE 14-
18)
;Location:3250 North
Kings Highway
PUBLIC HEARINGS will
be held in the Commis-
sion Chambers, Roger
Poitras Annex, 3rd Floor,
St. Lucie County Admin-
i istration Building, 2300
Virginia Avenue, Fort
j Pierce, Florida on Octo-
ber 16, 2003, beginning
at 7:00 P.M. or as soon
thereafter as possible.
PURSUANT TO Section
286.0105, Florida Stat-
utes, if a person decides
to appeal any decision
made by a board, agen-
cy, or commission with
respect to any matter
considered at a meeting
or hearing, he will need
a record of the proceed-
ings, and that, for such
purposes, he may need
to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the pro-
ceedings is made, which
record includes the testi-
mony and evidence
upon which the appeal
is to be based.
LOCAL PLANNIN(
AGENCY/ PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMIS
SION
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
FLORIDA
/S/ Ed Merritt, Chairman
t
f
c
0
3
41
tE
4
E
f
f
Pi
i
3,
G
In
S.
P