HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-18-2010 (2)
St. Lucie County
1
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
2
rd
Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
3
February 18, 2010 Meeting
4
6:00 p.m.
5
6
7
In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc
8
shall control.
9
10
11
I. Call to Order
12
13
Chairman Mundt called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
14
15
A. Pledge of Allegiance
16
17
18
B. Roll Call
19
Craig Mundt ................................. Chairman
20
Britt Reynolds….............................Vice-Chairman
21
Barry Schrader …..........................Commission Member
22
Pamela Hammer…. ..................... Commission Member
23
Brad Culverhouse...Arrived 6:50...Commission Member
24
Edward Lounds ............................ Commission Member
25
Stephanie Morgan ....................... Commission Member
26
Tod Mowery ................................. Commission Member
27
Kathryn Hensley….Arrived 6:12 .. Ex-Officio Member
28
29
Members Absent
30
Susan Caron……Excused……… Commission Member
31
32
Staff Present
33
Mark Satterlee ............................. Director, Growth Management
34
Robin Meyer……………………….Assistant Director, Growth Management
35
Heather Young ............................. Assistant County Attorney
36
Kara Wood…………………………Manager, Growth Management
37
Dawn Milone ................................ Recording Secretary
38
39
C. Announcements
40
41
None
42
43
44
.
45
D. Disclosures
46
47
1
Ms. Morgan stated she had a brief conversation with the presenter of Sunset Lakes.
1
Mrs. Hammer stated she had communication with Commissioner Grande and
2
Commissioner Coward (separately) to refresh her memory regarding TVC.
3
4
II. Minutes
5
6
Review the minutes from the January 21, 2010 meeting, for approval.
7
8
Mrs. Hammer had quite a few corrections. These corrections have been made and sent
9
to Mrs. Hammer.
10
11
Mrs. Hammer motioned to approve the minutes with corrections.
12
13
Mr. Schrader seconded.
14
15
The motion carried unanimously.
16
17
Chairman Mundt stated item III B will be heard first. Item III A would follow.
18
19
III.Public Hearings
20
21
22
B. Village of Sunset Lakes: PTV 820094001
23
Petition of Ricardo Munoz-Tebar of Sunset Lakes of St. Lucie, LLC, through
24
Ramon Trias of Trias & Associates, agent, for a change in Zoning from the AG – 1
25
(Agricultural – 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PTV (Planned Town or Village)
26
Zoning District and Preliminary Planned Town or Village Site Plan approval for
27
the project to be known as Village of Sunset Lakes
28
29
Ms. Wood, Growth Management Planning Managerstated Item III-B, Village of Sunset
30
Lakes, is an application for preliminary site plan approval and change in zoning from the
31
Agricultural-1 zoning district to the Planned Town and Village zoning district. This
32
application was presented at the November 19, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission
33
and continued to tonight’s meeting.
34
35
The subject property is inside the Urban Service Area and is bordered by Angle Road
36
and Belcher Canal to the south, Interstate 95 to the west and Johnston Road to the
37
east.
38
39
The subject parcel (prior to the TVC amendments) had a Future Land Use of MXD,
40
allowing up to nine dwelling units per acre to be built on the property. The parcels to the
41
north and east had a Future Land Use of Residential Suburban with a maximum of two
42
dwelling units per acre; property to the west on the other side of I-95 had a land use
43
designation of MXD. Parcels to the south are outside the TVC area and have a Future
44
Land Use of Residential Suburban.
45
46
2
With the TVC in effect the subject property is zoned Agricultural-1 at 1 du/acre as are
1
the parcels to the north. The parcels to the east and south are zoned Agriculture-
2
Residential-1, also at a density of 1 du/acre. Parcels to the west across I-95 are
3
primarily zoned PUD but have no valid site plan.
4
5
The property is currently vacant grazing land. To the east and south are large-lot single-
6
family homes. To the immediate north are vacant platted parcels; north of that is the
7
development known as Panther Woods.
8
9
Ms. Wood continued since this was the first PTV rezoning and site plan to be presented
10
to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Ms. Wood reviewed at the last hearing some
11
of the major concepts of the Towns, Villages and Countryside plan.
12
13
Ms. Wood recapped some of these major concepts, since there have been some
14
questions from neighboring citizens about the Village of Sunset Lakes project as
15
proposed and what the County’s requirements are.
16
17
Ms. Wood stated the area governed by the TVC regulations, bordered on the south by
18
Angle Road, on the north by the Indian River county line, on the east is the St. Lucie
19
County International Airport and Emerson Avenue and on the western boundary ends
20
where the Future Land Use becomes Special District and Agricultural-5.
21
22
The TVC requires organization of a neighborhood where more intensive uses and
23
buildings are concentrated in one area, with densities decreasing further away from the
24
neighborhood core. Open space and countryside borders the edge of each
25
neighborhood.
26
27
The range of intensities in each neighborhood is defined by the Transect, a sampling of
28
a slice through the neighborhood structure. This represents intensities from the Core to
29
the Countryside that is appropriate to their given location within the neighborhood.
30
31
The Retail Development Plan for the TVC from the Comprehensive Plan, which, when
32
implemented, ensures that services will be available in close proximity to future
33
residents of the TVC area. The plan calls for a 2000 Square Foot local store as
34
appropriate for the intersection of Johnston and Angle Roads, which is what the
35
applicant is proposing.
36
37
The Future Street Network in the TVC calls for an interchange near the subject property
38
extending from Immokolee Road and connecting to I-95 and the Turnpike. Staff has
39
worked with the applicant to ensure that sufficient right of way will be available.
40
41
Ms Wood’s Power Point showed a page from the section of the Land Development
42
Code containing the standards for a Town or Village in the TVC. Ms. Wood stated when
43
designing such a development, an applicant must choose from the lot types offered in
44
the code.
45
46
A variety of parks and other civic amenities are also illustrated in the code to provide for
47
different types of public recreation.
48
3
In place of a site plan that notates specific locations of buildings, parking and
1
landscaping, TVC projects must provide a Regulating Plan that shows which lot and
2
street types allowed by code are being proposed within the project.
3
4
The site plan provided all the major components required of a Village in the TVC. It is
5
consistent with the Transect requirements and includes appropriate types of lots, streets
6
and civic spaces. The total lots proposed are seven hundred.
7
8
Ms. Wood stated this is significantly less than what the Future Land Use designation
9
allows, which is up to a total of 1,211 units.
10
.
11
Proposed public amenities include neighborhood parks, countryside parks and civic
12
squares and lots that provide a variety of public spaces for different functions. Some of
13
these will be urban in nature and some more natural.
14
15
According to the applicant’s Traffic Impact Report, one hundred percent of automobile
16
trips from this project are projected to travel south on Johnston Road. Projected impacts
17
of traffic going east on Angle Road affect the intersection of Angle Road and Kings
18
Highway. The applicant’s Proportionate Fair Share cost for improvements to this
19
intersection is currently calculated to be $555,556.00. An updated analysis will be
20
required prior to final development plan approval.
21
22
Ms. Wood stated there have been a number of inquiries from the public regarding the
23
proposed development, many of them from residents of Panther Woods, others from
24
neighbors immediately adjacent to the subject property. Some residents are asking why
25
Johnston Road is not required to be constructed as part of this development.
26
27
Ms. Wood stated section 7.05.07 of the Land Development Code requires that the
28
development have paved access to the site. This project currently has paved access
29
from Johnston Road to Angle Road and the developer has agreed to donate right-of-
30
way along their frontage and construct the required turn lanes on Johnston Road.
31
32
There are portions of Johnston Road, which contain substandard right-of-way widths,
33
and there are currently no funds available for the design of Johnston Road. Therefore,
34
the County is unable to calculate an accurate cost for the construction of the road and
35
determine the developer’s proportionate fair share for constructing this roadway.
36
37
Ms. Wood stated the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 13, 2010 at the
38
agent’s office in downtown Ft. Pierce where the proposed site plan was displayed and
39
staff and the applicant’s representative were available to answer any questions.
40
41
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission forward a recommendation
42
of approval with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners for the application for
43
preliminary site plan approval and change in zoning from the Agricultural-1 zoning
44
district to the Planned Town or Village zoning district.
45
46
The Commission was concerned about road improvements, traffic and turn lanes at
47
Johnston and Angle Roads, traffic on Kings Highway and the lack of conditions
48
4
requiring a financial method, or other similar tool, for the northern road and bridge
1
improvement to the future interchange roadway.
2
3
Mr. Satterlee stated Johnston Road has room to the south that can be shifted on an
4
angle to provide more room.
5
6
Ramon Trias of Trias & Associates agent for the applicant stated he has an exhibit in
7
his office and invited all who wanted to learn the details about The Villages of Sunset
8
Lakes to stop by and he would discuss the project with them. This exhibit will be on
9
display until the end of March 2010 (maybe longer). He also thanked staff and Ms.
10
Wood for a wonderful job.
11
12
Mr. Trias stated he finalized the preservation of the Historic Wetlands, provided a sketch
13
that is based on the dimensions of the interchange, and the north-south connection road
14
is shown on the site plan.
15
16
The reason the TVC was created was to develop better urban form and better quality
17
projects. His plan will have high quality architecture that is appropriate for the area,
18
which creates a sustainable place to be proud of for the long term.
19
20
The TVC has very specific set(s) of requirements all of which were followed one
21
hundred percent in the planning of this project and staff does recommend approval.
22
23
Mr. Trias stated the code is very clear regarding the requirements for the TVC area.
24
Over a year ago, he and staff met with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
25
(TCRPC) staff, which was the consultant for the County throughout the development of
26
the TVC Area. The TCRPC worked with the public very extensively in a charette that
27
resulted in the ideas that are spoken about today.
28
29
The TVC is based on the fundamental idea of Transect. Each PTV application must
30
include a regulating plan that clearly identifies the proposed allocation of transect zones
31
within the entire Town or Village and adjoining Countryside on the same parcel. The
32
allocation of transect zones is intended to ensure variety and mixture of use and lot
33
types in neighborhoods and to delineate the Countryside that will be permanently
34
protected after development of the Town or Village.
35
36
The site plan, known as a Regulating Plan in the TVC portion of the Land Development
37
Code, is organized into transect zones, providing for a variety of housing types and
38
public spaces. The applicant has selected seven different lot types and ten different
39
street types to provide physical diversity in the community. Workforce housing, as
40
required, is provided at eight percent of the total units. The retail space requirement is
41
two thousand square feet (this is the allowable square footage for retail).
42
43
This project is designed with four Estate Lots and substantial buffering on its eastern
44
boundary along Johnston Road for most of the property’s frontage to transition the more
45
dense housing proposed on this site to the large-lot single family residences on the east
46
side of Johnston Road. The proposed buffer area will contain landscaping to screen the
47
5
proposed development from the roadway and existing residents, the design of which will
1
be determined at Final PTV.
2
3
The applicant is donating right-of-way along Johnston Road as requested by the County
4
Engineer for future improvements, and will mitigate traffic impacts to the Kings Highway
5
and Angle Road intersection with a Proportionate Fair Share contribution.
6
The applicant proposes to donate 35 feet of right-of-way along Johnston Road for future
7
improvements, and will construct sidewalks and turn lanes along the project boundary.
8
The final design section for Johnston Road will determine the location of bike lanes and
9
street landscaping. All road or driveway connections to Johnston Road will require a
10
driveway permit issued through the Road and Bridge Division of Public Works. Public
11
Works staff reserves the right to make additional comments at the time of Final PTV
12
review. A condition of approval is that, prior to Final PTV approval a no vehicle access
13
easement will be placed on any lots that front Johnston Road.
14
15
There is a future (2050) Interstate 95 interchange at the northwest corner of the
16
property. The Engineering Division had concerns about the location and amount of
17
right-of-way provided. The applicant provided an analysis of the necessary right-of-way
18
by comparing the land area needed for the existing interchange at Indrio Road and I-95.
19
20
Mr. Trias stated a flow way is a transformation of a man-made canal to a more
21
naturalistic water retention and conveyance system that provides environmental
22
benefits, cleans the water and provides a large-scale public space because of its
23
accessibility. The flow way that was shown was a theoretical image, meant to illustrate
24
a concept.
25
26
The Commission had concerns with the small amount of commercial space that is
27
proposed, creating traffic problems by making residents travel to other areas outside of
28
the development for necessities.
29
30
Mrs. Hammer asked if the retail area could be expanded.
31
32
Ms. Wood stated a Retail Market Analyst studied the viability of retail in detail. The
33
policy language does allow for some flexibility.
34
35
Ms. Wood would be hesitant to support a recommendation of additional retail stating the
36
traffic and retail analysis does not show that the intersection can support it and litigation
37
and mediation had to do with the concern over how much commercial square footage
38
was being allowed in the entire area.
39
40
Mr. Trias stated one of the weakest aspects of the TVC is the analysis that was done on
41
commercial space.
42
43
6
The Commission questioned whether there could be more of a buffered area between
1
the northern residential area that jets into this project and have more single family
2
dwellings in that area.
3
4
Mr. Trias felt it would be consistent with the transect (he is going to look at the details
5
before final approval).
6
7
Chairman Mundt asked how the neighborhood meeting was proliferated.
8
9
Mr. Trias stated he sent an email to County staff with the information asking them to
10
contact any interested person(s). He stated this was a courtesy on behalf of the
11
applicant.
12
13
The parks in the area can accommodate a pickup game of baseball or other activities.
14
15
Mr. Mowery believes the preliminary plan had numerous errors, conflicts and
16
inconsistencies and was concerned with the limited amount of live work units.
17
18
Mr. Trias stated he had to label the Transect Zones, which are not the same as the
19
building types, this is a slight overlap in TVC that is creating confusion (he was limited to
20
the technique he was using by the requirements of the TVC). He fully agreed that the
21
MXD use and commercial use in the TVC area is limited.
22
23
Mr. Mowery stated he loves the concept of the new urbanistic idea that is being
24
proposed, he could not be happier with the TVC and the County for having this as an
25
option. However, he stated that this area is not ready for development unless other
26
improvements were made to the existing infrastructure.
27
28
His reasons were the intersection of Angle and Johnston Roads. Stating that no funds
29
have been provided for the improvement of these roads (this could become a major
30
problem).The connection to the interstate roadway will probably never take place. The
31
Home Owners’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners’ Association (POA) will not want
32
to pay the necessary funds to extend their internal roadway in order to make the vital
33
connectivity.
34
35
He stated that he understood everyone’s desire to see the first TVC project, however
36
without certain infrastructure improvements, that a project of this density should really
37
be closer to Ft. Pierce where the urban area is.
38
39
Mr. Trias stated we are dealing with a process that went through many years of
40
discussion. These are the rules that the County has approved. This project follows all
41
the rules.
42
43
Mr. Mowery stated he realized that everyone has a right to utilize his or her land as the
44
land use and zoning may provide. However, tonight the request is for a rezoning and a
45
preliminary site plan approval with no regard to the 407 peak hour trips at an
46
intersection and, that is already problematic. To say that your project is committing
47
monies toward another intersection and, that you have now done your fair share
48
7
contributions and that the negative traffic impact on Angle and Johnston should not be
1
addressed for the future and existing residents he finds that concerning.
2
3
Mr. Trias again stated that he was doing what staff said was appropriate and he is
4
following every rule.
5
6
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
7
8
Frank Uzzolino Robert Tedder, Kathryn MaCraken, Darrell Crum, Robert Frackes,
9
Justin Tedder, Victor Wyatt, Paula Halupa, Roberta Scotto, Neil Plant and Peter
10
Buchwald spoke in opposition of the project.
11
12
The concerns cited were the economic situation, another failed development including
13
all the failed developments in the area that exist today, devalued property values,
14
development will drastically alter the quality of their lives. Multi story units, buffer to
15
Angel Road insufficient, a natural habitat being destroyed, small amount of retail space
16
allowed drainage (assurance that their property will not be flooded) and water quality,
17
no contact with the developer. The two-lane bridge at Angle Road and Johnston Road
18
that cannot have turning lanes, traffic was a big concern at Kings Highway and Angle
19
Road and Johnston Road and Indrio Road and deficiencies in the traffic study.
20
21
Mrs. Hammer stated the data in the traffic report she received was dated March 18,
22
2004.
23
24
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
25
26
The Commission discussed the traffic and intersection issues, traffic report, the lack of
27
commercial space, and the northern buffer issues (putting larger homes there).
28
29
Most of the Commission agreed if the project is forwarded to the Board of County
30
Commissioners the conditions they would like added are an updated traffic report( to
31
include an a.m.- p.m. study), addressing the issues at Johnston and Angle Roads and
32
Kings Highway all the way up to Indrio Road (contributions being made by the
33
applicant).
34
35
Ms. Morgan stated the Board of County Commissioners and The Department of
36
Community Affairs have approved the TVC. Mr. Trias is adhering to those rules and you
37
cannot deny him. Ms. Morgan would rather see seven hundred homes in the area as
38
opposed to one thousand two hundred and eleven.
39
40
Mr. Mowery had concerns about the rezoning since it is also tied to the preliminary PTV
41
site plan. He stated he would like to postpone any action the Commission is considering
42
until the Commission can review the impacts of the revised traffic study and to allow for
43
the preliminary site plan to be cleaned up and corrected.
44
45
Mr. Trias stated the site plan would be addressed at final approval.
46
47
8
Chairman Mundt stated getting the TVC defined and adopted was a long and laborious
1
process. This being the first project in the TVC area there are going to be issues that
2
come up. He does not feel this is cause for this project to be held up.
3
4
5
Ms. Morgan motioned after considering the testimony presented during the public
6
hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the St. Lucie County Local
7
Planning Agency recommend to the St. Lucie County Board of County
8
Commissioners to approve the application for Preliminary PTV Site Plan approval
9
for the development known as Village of Sunset Lakes along with the conditions
10
as presented by staff in their report with an updated Traffic Report to include
11
a.m. and p.m. traffic counts, recommended to do not only Johnston and Angle
12
Roads , Kings and Angle but also Johnston and Indrio.
13
14
Mr. Culverhouse seconded, and then withdrew his motion because the buffering
15
issue was not included in the motion.
16
17
Ms. Morgan stated Mr. Trias said he would address the buffering issue and she was not
18
making that a condition of approval.
19
20
Mr. Lounds seconded adding, he wants the Board of County Commissioners to
21
be aware of the Local Planning Agency’s concern that the development have
22
more single-family estates along the border of the residence already there.
23
24
Roll Call:
25
Mr. Schrader- yes
26
Mr. Culverhouse- yes
27
Mr. Mowery- no
28
Mr. Reynolds- yes
29
Mrs. Hammer- yes
30
Mr. Lounds- yes
31
Ms. Morgan- yes
32
Chairman Mundt- yes
33
34
Motion passed 7-1 with Mr. Mowery dissenting.
35
36
Ms. Hensley left at 9:00 p.m.
37
38
III A. Ordinance No. 10-010
39
40
Petition of the County Attorney of draft Ordinance No. 10-010 which, if adopted,
41
would require that advance notice of expert documents and expert testimony that
42
is proposed to be introduced at a public hearing be filed with the County’s
43
Growth Management Director at least ten days before the public hearing.
44
45
9
Ms. Young, Assistant County Attorney stated draft Ordinance No. 10-010 is intended to
1
amend the procedures for the conduct of hearings before this Commission, the Board of
2
Adjustment and the Board of County Commissioners with regard to various
3
development permits, rezoning etcetera. It adds the provisions under 11.00.04 (C)(3)
4
with regard to Expert Documents and Testimony that would be presented at a public
5
hearing requiring that copies of documents or a summary of the experts intended or
6
purposed oral testimony be provided to the Growth Management Director or designee a
7
minimum of ten days prior to the public hearing. The intent is to allow both staff and the
8
Board of County Commissioner to have ample time to review the materials, which they
9
are being asked to consider and make better informed decisions.
10
11
The Commission discussed the wording and definitions of the draft ordinance.
12
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
13
14
Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Currie spoke in opposition of the ordinance. They cited the
15
wording and disadvantage this ordinance would have on an applicant.
16
17
They offered to work with staff in the drafting of the ordinance.
18
19
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
20
21
Mr. Lounds motioned then withdrew his motion.
22
23
Mr. Culverhouse motioned to continue this hearing to the May 20, 2010 Planning
24
and Zoning Commission meeting starting at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter.
25
26
Mr. Lounds seconded
27
28
Chairman Mundt stated all those in favor say aye. No one was opposed.
29
30
Motion passed unanimously.
31
32
33
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
34
35
Mr. Satterlee, Growth Management Director stated on Monday, March 8, 2010 there is a
36
workshop on the EAR based amendments which, will be publicly heard before the
37
Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday, April 15, 2010. The Western Land
38
Education Forum on Saturday, March 6, 2010 and the Western Land Assembly will
39
most likely occur on Saturday, April 24, 2010.
40
41
42
V. Adjourned
43
44
10
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m
.
1
2
Due to the lateness of the evening the Planning and Zoning workshop was continued to
3
Monday, March 1, 2010.
4
5
11