Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA OctOber 20, 1999 - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: -Stefan Matthes, Carson McCurdy, Noreen Dreyer, Charles Albert Moore, Ed Merritt, Ed Lounds, Diana Wesloski ' T' (excused)- ABSEN ; Ramon Trias P~SENT: Jim ..Lancaster, ~ssistant County Attorney; Julia Shewchuk~ Community Director; David :Kelly, Planning Manager; Cyndi Shay, Planner II; and JoAnn Riley, TeChnician ~EDGE OF ALLEGI~CE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led-by Chairman Weslosh None. ... CLOSU~ -. Matthes disclosed, that ~he had received co~espondence from Shirley BUrymgham. The other of the Board .stated that they had .also received the same' letter. · .from Ms. Lancast r, Assistant County Attorney, stated that he had reviewed the letter it relates to :the Comprehensive P!an, which is a legislative matter. item does .not have to be disclosed because there is not. an ex-parte problem with legislative as to quasi-judicial matters. OF PLANING ~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MEETING OF.JULY 29, 1999 Weslosh asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. missioner Grande requested the following corrections: st (3 · Page 1 I, 6th para~aph, 1 senten e add the word ago between years and SFWMD. Page 11, 7th paragraph, 1st sentence adc[ the word plan after East Coast Water Supply. Page 11, 3~a bullet .from ~bottom, change the .word broke to broken___. _ no further corrections or additions to the minutes of the July 29, 1999 meeting, Chairman asked for a motion. Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Ms. yer. - & Zoning Commission/ 'Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page I Upon roll call, the motion was approved 5-0, with Mr. Matthes, Mr. McCurdy and Ms. Wesloski abstaining. APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1999 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Grande requested-that the 3''d paragraph on Page 13, be corrected'to reflect Mr. Blazak not Mr. Blaze. Seeing no fiather corrections or additions m the minutes of the August 12, 1999 meeting, Chairman Wesloski ,~ked for a motion, Mr. Merritt made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Mr. Matthes. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 6-0, with Mr. MoOre and Mr. McCurdy abstaining. APPROV~ OF PLANNING AND zONING COMMISSION MEETING MI~TES - REGULAR .MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 Chai~an Weslos~ asked-if there were any additiOns or corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Grande ~requested the cost of the roadway improvement be checked for correction. StaffwilI review the official record and record the correct cost. Seeing no further corrections or additions to the minutes of the .September 16, 1999 meeting, Chairman. Weslos~ asked for a motion. Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Mr. Moore. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 8;0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING JERRY HILL ~D ~GO STEVENS FiLE NO. CU-99-023 Chairman Wesloski explained the Planning and Zoning Commission heating procedures. Ms. Snay presented-staff :comments. Ms. Snay stateda~enda.Item ~ is the petition of Jerry Hill and Margo Stevens, for a change in zoning from the AR-1 (A~cul~al, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zomg District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate -2 du/acre) Zoning District .f0r property located on the east side of Christensen Road, approximately .80 miles north of West MidWay'Road. The subject property abuts AR-1 zoning to the north, south and west amd PUD (Palin Gardens SUbdivision 1.9 du/acre) to .the east. The petitkmers are requesting this change in zoning in order to develop the subject property as a .single-farrdly residential unit.~ The rezoning is necessary in order for the existing lot m become bUildable. The p~oposed RE'2 (Residential, Estate- 2 alU/acre) zoning' district is compatible with the exiSting RS (Residential Suburban) land use classification. A number of years ago, the .adjacent property was developed with a single-family residential unit. Upon completion of the residential unit and development of an "as-bu~t' Survey, an encroachment of the residemial unit on the adjacent property was identified. During negotiations between the property ownerS, a lot line adjustment was'filed with the Clerk of the Courts (without going were info~med th~tt the .lot'did not meet the minimum code requirements for the AR-1 (Agricultural Residential - 1 dU/acre) zoning District, sPecificallY the ~nimum 150-foot lot width. Because the-problem was created by the previous lot owner, it doeS not meet the standards for granting a variance. The applicant has stated that adjacent Property. owners have been Unwilling to sell additional width to this parcel. Staff has reviewed ~is petitiOn and determined that it conforms with the.standards of review as set forth inthe St..Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with.the goals, objectives', and p~)licies 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. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Ms. Snay. Mr. Grande aske staff if they had contacted the adjacentproperty owners.. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 3 Ms. Snay stated that staff had not contacted the adjacent property owners, as that was up to the- applicant to contact the adjacent property owners to purchase a portion of their ~property. Chairman Wesloski asked i:f the' applicant was present and would like to .address the Board. Mr. Hoyt C. 'Murphy Jr., 411 NOrth U,S. 1, Fort Pierce addressed the Board. He stated that he is the agent for the applicant. He stated that the property is 2 acres in size and has 149.37 feet of road frontage on Christensen'ROad. Mr. ~Murphy stated that previously a letter had been sent to the County to determine if a modular home could be builton the property. The County had confirmed that a modular home could be constructed on the property. ~M1,. Mmphy statedthat neither the county or the real estate agency had loc}'ked at the frontage; Since that'time, it was determined that the :frontage was less than one-foot short of the miffimUm code requirement. Mr.. Murphy stated that ~ey had sent certified mail and made numerous calls m the adjacent.property owners reqUesting :the opP° ~m~ty to purchase a one-foot square, parcel Of land. For whatever reason, the adjacent property, owners were not in a position to sell the property. The company offered to Pay for the'sm;veX.~d legal-costs as the agency feels obligated to correct the situation. Chairmma Weslos~. ~ked the Boar' if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr..Grande askedthe applic~t if they made clear to the adjacent owners that due to lacking one-foot of Property a change in the land plan would occur. .... Mr. Murphy stated that they had' spoke with the proper~y~..owners regarding..,t.h,e county's recommendation.. Again it Was certainly, the property owners choice to cooperate w~m me property owner or not. At this time, Chairman WeSloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Cha'mnm.a Wesloski .asked ifthere was anyone that would like to speak[ in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Ms. Casen, adjacent propet owner, 'asked the Board if the rezoning would affect her property. Ms. Wesloski stated that the ch~ age would only effect the subject property. Ms. Casen stated that she is not opposed to the rezonJ Hearing no further argu-re closed the public portion · Chairman Wesl°~ki asked ag of the subject property. ents in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski the hearing. ihat would be the pleasure of the Board. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Merrit~ stated he wOuld like m see a.change in the Land Development Code, which allows, for common .sense to be used when something this minor allowing staff to process an adjustment without having to bring it before the Planning and Zoning Board and requiring applicants to pay a coStly fee. 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, Mr. Merritt moved that the Plug and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Jerry Hill and Margo Stevens, for a Change in Zoning from'AR-1 (AgricUltural, Residemial - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to RE-2 (Residential, Estate. 2 .du/acre) Zoning'District .in order to allow the applicant's to apply and build ~a residential home on the property. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the Petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 5 PUBLIC HE~NG BNG PARTNERS, INC. FILE NO. R7~99-024 Ms. Cyndi Snay presented staff comments. Ms. Snay stated Agenda Item 5 'is the application of BNG Partners, Inc. to change the Zoning of property located on the West side of Lennard Road, approximately ¥2 mile south of Tiffany Road from the RS-3 (Residential, Single~family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Medium- 9 du/acre) Zoning District. The subject property abuts RM-9 (Residential, Multiple- Fmily - 9 dU/acre)zoning m the north and RM-5 (Residential, Multiple'Family - 5 du/acre) to the south, 'Port St. Lucie RM-11 (Multiple Family Residential 11 du/acre), CP (PrOfessional Commercial) and I (Institutional) to the east and OSR (Open Space - Recreational) and RS-2 (Single-Family 2 du/acre) to the west. The petitioners, 'BNG Parmers, Inc., are requesting this zoning change in order to develop the subject property into a multiple.family residential development. The proposed RM-9' (Residential, Multiple-Famil' y - 9 du/acre) zoning district is compatible with the existing ~RM (Residential Medium) land use clasSificatiOn. The proposed ~,9 (Residential, MuRipte-F~y' 9 du/acre).Zoning District, is compatible with the 'existing zoning designatiOns and deVelopment patterns within the surrounding area. Staff has discussed ~is petmo~ '" n with the Planning Staff at the City of Port St, Lucie, The City Staff stated that the only issue, was the .available trips .on Lennard Road. This will be dealt with at the time of site plan approval, Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth'/m the St. Lucie county Land DeveloPment Code and is not in conflict with the goals, ob'ectiVes, and~ olicies of the St LUCie c°unty ComprehenSive Plan And recommends that you · ~ ' ~ .... ' ' '~ 6ard of Court' Commissioners with a recommendation of approval forward tlh~s petition to the B ~ ~... ty .~.. . · . Chairman WesloSki asked if there were any questions for Ms. Snay. Ms. Dreyer asked staff about the location of the existing single'family residential unit to the south. Ms. Snay .stated she did not measure the distance. Mr. Matthes asked staff if the improvement of Lennard Road is on the CIP at this point. Mr. Kelly st~ited he will have to check on-the item. Chairman Wesloski ~asked if ~e applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Harold Melville, representative for applicant, ad~essed the Board. Mr. Melville stated he has an aerial which depicts the house. Mr. Melville pointed out that the location of the house is to the south of the subject property. Mr. Melville fi~her stated that on the west side there is a lot of natural buffeting. The property to the north is; ~RM-9 at the current time. Mr. Melville tin, her stated that the zoning designation would be consistent with an orderly and logical pattern of growth within the area. Mr. Melville stated, that they are requesting that the application be furthered to the County commissioners with.a ~recommendation of approval. Mr. Moore requested the oppo~ity to review the aerial. Chairman VCesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Melville. Chairman Weslosh asked ~, Melville if the project was going to be Iow-income housing, Mr. Melville stated that the project will be a senior comm .uni~ deed restricted for senior's only. It will be ~ded through a pmgrm where there are tax cr6dits for the developer. The tax credits will allow the developerto ch~ge a lower price on the units. Chairman Wesloski requested that Mr. Melville clarify that the units are for those individuals 55 years or older. Mr. Melville confirmed this and stated that' it will be deed. restricted as an adult community. Mr. McCu:rdy asked if the applicant was planning on site built homes or modular units. , Mr, Melville stated that the project will be apartment units. Ms. DreYer requested that Mr. Melville identify the yellow lines on the aerial. Mr. Melville stated that the parcel in question is a portion of a. lar~er parcel of land, that is approximately 100 acres, in size. Mr. MeMlle pointed out that the yellow lines represent the 30-acre subject pm:eel. Mr, MenStt asked Mr. Melville 'to clarify if the parcel was an old citrus grove. Mr:. Melville confirmeil-'that the subject parcel is an old citrus grove. At this time, Chai~an Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 7 Chairman Weslosh asked ifthere was anyone that would like to speak in favor o.f or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in .opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public pOrtion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what ~would be the pleasure of the Board After considering .the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as: forth ~ Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr, Moore moved that the Board of County a Change in Zoning RM-9 (Residential Multiple. :and Zoning Commission recommend.that the St, Lucie County to the application of BNG PARTNERS, INC. for (Residemial, single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning DiStrict to the - 9 du/acre) Zoning District. Mr. Matthes seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Chairmmx WeslOSki stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August-19, 1999 Page 8 PUBLIC .HEARING DFR, LLC FILE NO..CU-99-008 Mr. David Kelly presented staff comments. Mr. Kelly stated that this is the application ofDFR, LLC for a conditional use to allow farm products warehousing and storage in the AG-1 zoning district. At the time, the packets were distributed last week' staff had recommended a denial of the petition. Subsequent to that distribution, Staff met with Mr. Tierney, DFR, LLC representative, and worked to clarify the particular uses being proposed. Subsequently, staff h~ changed their position and is now recommending approval. Mr. Kelly' fi~rther .stated that each Board Member would find an amended staff report on the dias. The location of the subject property is at 8455 Orange Avenue. Staff has reviewed the application and ~determined that the proposed use of staging refrigerated containers with citrus fi~it in them, complies with "farm products storage'''. Staff is now recommending approval. Chairman. WeSloski .asked if there Were any questions for'Mr. Kelly. Mr. Moore.~ked if the use is' a substitution for staging of tractor trailers for storage and now they are saying theY-are refiSgerated units. Mr. Kelly stated it was staff's understanding early on from the descriptions, that it was a more general wuc~ng operation which would be.better located .in the IL Zoning District. · The applicant has clarified that it will be citrus fruit and refiSgerated conta'mers and that use clearly falls under the definition of storage of agricultural products. Mr. Moore asked if staff was concerned that a lot of tractor trailers would be coming in'and out of the property instead of the property being utilized just as stOrage. Mr. Kelly stated that in either case you will have a lot of.tractor trailers. That is the nature of the business to move the milers. The concern was to verify that it was an agricultural operation and not a more general trucking operation. Mr. Matthes asked if the utility next to the subject property was the .gas company located on Orange Avenue. Mr, Kelly verified that Mr. Matthes was correct. Chairman Weslos~ asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Steve'Tiemey, fi'om the finn Neill, Griffin, jeffries, Fowler, Tierney, 311 South Second Street, Fort .Pierce, representing, DFR' LLC, the owner'of the .property on Orange Avenue west of King's Highway. Mr. Tierney stated that the applicant was requesting the conditional use to allow a commercial/agricultural entelprise. It is an enterprise that is compatible and in fact advantageous to productive agricult~al surroundings. The idea behind the enterprise, is a very efficient way to market citrus fruit overseas. The subject property is located 0.7 miles and one intersection away from 1-95. A grove owner would be .able to call and say I want acontainer of fruit to go to Korea, and would have the ability to obtain a reffigerated container and have it sealed after being filled. Then the container would either'be brought back to the site or taken directly to 1-95 for a specific destination. There are a.couple of the. same type of operations in Indian River.County. We are proposing 'one that will be ?~ter, because it is clo'ser to I195 and to the groVes. Exporte;s and Foreign importers are very excit~d ab°m the operatibn, and more importantly, local growers ~are excited.about the operation. It appears that the ~gs High.. way/Orange Avenue area has become a transportation hub. The track stoP akeady.ge-nerates a si~flcant mount of traffic. Based upon what'is existing and the zoning desi~ations, we feel that this area should probably an agricultural/transportation hub. .. Mr. Tierney ~her stated that it makes sense from both a land use and zoning perspective for. the area be an 'agricul~al enterpflSe and specifically this piece of property. It has frontage on Orange Avenue ~and a gaS mility c~mPany neXt door which would role o~t.any real-residential use fOr the property. There is arced stor~ next door and across the street a correctional facility. "' '. Locally, even though the truck stop generates a fmfly large amount of traffic, there ~sn t a majo ~sportation problem, due t0 the location ofi-95. ~s project will generate some tmck traffic, but · · · .' ., ,~ iI :' o . ' · ~ ~ ~t will be a minute portion me0mpanson to the track stop. But xt doesnt cause a problem because the tracks, go nowhere but 1-95 and dom I(~g's Highway re.the Turnpike. · . Mr. Tierney stated that the loq~ation is an'ideal place for a grove service that is needed in the area and will benefit the'~ediate area and the entire county. Therefore, we request that you follow the staff recOmmendation and forw~d this item to the Board of County Commissioners wlth a recommendatiOn of approvall · Mr. Tierney introduced Mr. Fred Watson and Mr. Bud Welch, representatives of DFR, LLC. He stated that they will be available to anSwer any questions that the Board may have. Chai~an Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. T~emey. ._ - Ms. Dreyer ~ked Mr. Tierney to clarify if the use will be primarily a location where the refrigerated containers wOuld be or is it ~lso a tracking business itself. - · Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Tierney stated it is a trucking business only for agricultural products. The idea is that it is a place where a grove owner says "I'm packing, I want this truck to go to Japan, they call up the business and get a container fight then :to piCkup the fruit and get sealed at the grove or packing house, anti then either bring it back to th© subject~property to wait for another driver to take it away or they can take it direct!y to the port. By having the containers readily available, they can immediately meet the: needs of the grove owners." Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Tierney how long he had lived in St. Lucie County. Mr. Tierney stated-he has resided in the County since 1957. Mr. Lounds then.requested that Mr. Tierney share with the Board the name of the companies that the' containers belong to. M~. Watson, Priority Transportation responded by stating that.Priority Transportation is a trucking company. The conta'mers, that.will'be loaded with the citrus, belong to several different steamship lines, Hodges, OOCL and ~ for'example. There' are different ones, that go out of different'ports. Jacksonville, Florida, Charleston, South Carolina, and also Savanna, Georgia. We have terminals fight now in sav~a and JacksonVille. In the very near future, an additional terminal will be opened in Charleston.. Mr. Lounds stated that.he ~de-rstands what the company is proposing to do. Mr. Lounds further stated that: the containers do notgo to the groves, they go to the packing houses, not to the growers. They leave that pachng .houSe loaded. Mr. Watson stated that most of the packing houses are in the groves. Mr. Lounds stated that most of the packing houses in St. Lucie County and Indian River County are located up and dom US Highway One. Mr. Lotmds asked ~. Watson if they are currently doing business in the proposed locaion .... Mr. Watson responded that they are currently, not operating out of this location. Mr. Watson further explained that they had just recently purchased the property. Mr. Lounds ~ked ifMaersk was the companies biggest competitor. Mr. Watson stated that Maemk is a steamship line that handles their shipping out of Miami. Mr. Lounds stated that MaerSk had just opened a terminal out of Fort Pierce. Mr. Watson stated ~that he was not aware of that. He ft~her Stated that Maersk trucking company is contracted by the steamship line, which is Maersk, to haul their containers. He 'further stated that he noticed a lot of Maersk containers along Orange Avenue adjacent to the roadway. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Lounds asked if that the proposed business would be utilizing the same type of containers. Mr. Watson said the containers and vehicles would be the same. Mr. Lounds asked whether ornot Gibney previously used the property for the storage .of trailers. Mr. Watson stated that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated he had several problems with what the applicant is asking to do, not with how they are going to do it but, with it being there. The agricultural industry needs a quality service. He stated he hopes :it tums out to be better than what Maersk has done on Orange Avenue. Mr. Watson stated that they have bought their property. The business is go]ng to be part of the. community. The companY fin-ther wants their operation to reflect positively on them. He ~er stated that they do not want their operation to be: known .as a- mud-hole .operation. M~. Lounds stated that thek competition has that.reputation. Mr..Lounds asked what the company does in the. off season with the facility. Mr:. Watson 'stated;the drivers will be ~ng out of the Savanna Office on a year-round basis. ' Mr. Lounds-asked ~.~ Watson if the.company did .anything-in the vegetable market. Mr. Watson stated they' only work in.the citrus market, · Mr. LoUnds asked if when a container is hauled back to the subject.property, will it be full of citrus, or' is it your intention not to haul it ~the containers straight to 1-95. Mr. Watson said some containers will .be ~11 some. -won' t' When a driver takes a load to Savanna, thek te'rminal up there will ~pull out an empty. If they come in late, the driver MI1 drop off the full container and pick up :an empty container and bring it back here. If the company gets an order before he arrives, the..ddver will go straight to ~e packing~house and have the-container loaded. If they. don't.get .an' order, he.will bring the empty container m the subject property and pick up a full container. : Mr. Lounds asked how many reefer u~ts ~are going to be running on the property, at one time. ~.. Watson staed that what they call us and tell the number of reefer units necessary, if they call during the day, a driver-will automatically be dispatched to the packinghouse. Mr. Lounds asked if there were going to be reefer units running on the property, getting Chilled, 24 hours a day. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Watson stated the reefers can be-chilled in. less than an hour. Mr. LoundS stated that he is concerned with the noise of the reefers running all night long, disturbing the. existing neighbors in the area. Mr. Lounds stated he is also concerned about the ingress and egress on Orange Avenue. It is constructed like King's HighWay there are no proper turning lanes, It is a narrow road. Mr. Lounds asked Staff if they :had any concerns with the traffic at this time. Mr. KellY stated that it clearly, is a concern, but a minor concern when looking at the developm, tent of Orange Avenue. There are a lot of different type of uses in-the area at this time. We didn t make an issue of it at this time. Mr. Lounds stated that he is upset with not . , what they are trying to do. The business is one that is further statect he would like to see it here in St. Lucie County rather needed in. this county. He In? River County. of his ~problem is that it has been presented as than the company go to ~ Part growers, ,and growers dOn t p~tck, the packinghouse packs the fruit, when those units leave there, they are'hooked m the ~ames and on their way to a specific port. Mr. LOunds further stated he had concerns over the noise. -Mr. Kelly stated that as this .is a conditiOnal use, conditions may be placed on the petition. Mr. Lounds stated that he wouldn't.want to resffict the operation as to the company not being able to chill a c°mainer at 3:90 a.m. when it is needed at the packinghouse at 6:00 a.m. It is. needed there for a reason. 'Tl~e cOntainer is going to leave out °fthere with produce that keeps people in business, in St. Ludie County. ' ' I think you should provide some consideration in landscaping the site in order to dampen the noise. I thi~ the ingress e~ess should be conducive to the narrow roads. Lighting in the area shoUld be looked at in not b.e detrimental to the eXisting residential neighborhood. Mr. Lounds further asked th~ the company not go. to somePlace else, St. Lucie County needs the business. The container busiiaess is very viable and is needed in the two County area (St. Lucie and Indian River counties). Mr. Lounds fin'ther stated that the company needs to share openly with staff what they are going to do. It is not going to a gr6~e, to be packed, it. is going to packinghouse. Ms. Dreyer asked staff if it was .the Eckerd site previously had been noted to have the potential for having a trucking company on it. Mr. Kelly confirmed that Ms. Dreyer was correct. Planning & Zoning~COmmission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 13 Ms. Dreyer stated one of the masons for approving the Eckerd School site was that the Board told the ~neighbOrs that it could be much worse, by putting a trucking company there. Ms. Dreyer stated that she was still not clear whether this was a warehousing operation or a trucking operation. Mr. Kelly stated although the storage would be for a short time, the primary use is to store citrus in a refrigerated container until it can moved. Mr. Watson stated that the tractors will not be parked there, they will be on the road. Ms. Dreyer asked if it would only be the containers that-are stored there.. Mr. Watson confirmed that she was correct. Ms. Dreyer stated she als° felt the business was very.much needed in ~s county. She.stated she would like.m see some significant setbacks so that the noise woUld not be a problem to the neighbors across ~Orange Avenue, and some additional controls to keep those adverse effects from impacting the'residences. . Mr. Watson stated that' currently thek fence is setback approximately 35 - 40 feet fi'om the road. . .. Ms. Dreyer asked.what w~ planned for the back portion of the property. Mr. Watson stated that at ~s time, they. have only planned m utilize the front 10 acres.of the - property. Mr. Grande asked whether'or not ~this was a storage and staging area for containers. It sounds like they will very rarely actually have citrus stored on the property. Mr. Watson stated 'that the containers would have citrus in them a lot o~ times, a lot.of times they would not. Mr. Grande ~ked if theyhad any feel ~ to the number of containers that would be stored on the site. Mr. Watson. stated that did not ~ow at this time. Mr. Merritt .asked if the company would consider putting a landscaping screen across the from, with trees that Could absorb sound. Mr. Watson stated they would certainly be willing to do this. Mr. Merritt also asked if the company would be shipping concentrate or fresh juice. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 14 Mr. WatSon stated that they are not shipping it from St. Lucie County. They do ship it direCtly out of their Savanna Office, Mr. Lounds asked if you.pick up a container of grapefruit of 4/5 cartons and it is chilled and ready to go to Savanna, Is ii :going to sit on the lot very long? Mr. Watson stated it would not sit on the lot very long. Mr. ~Lound-s further :asked for clarification on whether or not storage would be on the lot for very long. Mr. Watson stated that there'may be a container there anywhere from 12 to 48 hours. Mr. Lounds asked staffif storage of agricultural and farm products is defined as 24 to 4-8 hours. Mr. Kelly stated you and.the hit on staff's confusion very early on. Staff came to .the conclusion that we with something that is pretty much a hybfid. Something that is new and was 'not anticipated hen we prepared the Land Development C°de2 Bm'it is something that is a bonafide service that probably .ought.to be allowed in. the agricultural area as a conditional use. Mr. Lounds asked i~'there is another classification with which this item would fit. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff did not find one. Unless we 'simply say it is ~a tracking operation, and it belongs in IL. Which is really not where we want it to go. Mr. LoUn[ds asked staff if Orange Avenue between 1-95 and Jenkins Road was a County or City roadway. Mr. Kelly stated it was a county roadway.. Ms. Dreyer stated she did not enough about the operation to set out conditions. She further that she felt there are SOme limitatiOns that might be'needed on t~e project. She stated that stated she did feel that it was clearlY an operation of storage and warehousin~ of agricultural products only. Mr. Kelly stated that the .Board could direct staff to work with the appl~cant to bring a reasonable solution to the County Commission on the issues raised during the public hearing-: noise, . surface, landsca e m ess and e ess onto Oran e Avenue, h htin , narrowness of Orange Avenue , ~-p~,' ~,,.~ ..gr~ - ~ ~ g "g ' g : i , · . Mr. Lounds' stated that the sgrface on the property will need to be a very stabilized surface or the movement of tracks within the property would deteriorate. Mr. Watson stated that they have Plans to stabilize the property. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 15 Ms. Dreyer stated that she would like .cOndition to the be storage of agricUltural products only. At this tithe, Chairman W.esloski opened the public portion of'the heating. Chairmm~ Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor' of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Weslosk~t closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairmm~ Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure ~ of the Board After considering .the testimony presented during the public, heating, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set fo~ in Section 11.06.03, St. LUcie County Land Development Code, Mr. Lounds moved'that the Pl~ng and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie Co'unty Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of DFR, LLC fora comtitional-use permit to allow'farm products warehousing and storage in the AG-I ' (AgricultUral - 1. du/acre) Zo~g District with considerations fi'om Staff'S' Conditioning. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion,'and upon roll call .the mOtion was approved 8-0.. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 16 OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Wesloski asked i'f there was any other business. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly if there is something that could be done to allow minor lot line adjustments.to be done at the Staff level When no there are .no objections made by the neighbors. Mr. Kelly stated he wished there was some way. Mr. Merritt asked if there was anyone who could change the code. Mr. Kelly stated'that there may be someway to give discretion to someone in the county to have the privilege if it is on a percentage level. Mr. Grande stated that he would like to see staffs discretion expanded in terms of direct communication with the neighbors. What was done this evening, appears to solve the immediate problem, butt fees that a staff member,, not a realtor, Should contact the neighbors and explain to · ~ ~V them clearly, not from the buyers perspective, but from the county s perspectl e, 'what is involved..The: neighbors still, may decided not to give it. He stated he is not sure that the neighbors Understood that the neighborhood had a plan, and because of their'reluctance to give up title to one-square.foot of.property, what they now have is a separate zoning on this piece of property. ~ch brews the overall plan of the neighborhood. He fiu'ther stated'that if.someOne from staff, who understood that concept spoke with the neighbOrs',, mom than likely one of the two would have given up-the property. Mr. Kelly' stated that Mr. L~caster recommended that staff not contact the neighbors.' He fin'ther stated.that he did have occasion to talk to one of the neighbors on an issue. That neighbor gave a reason, W.~ch w~ a valid re,on for not doing so, and asked that the reason not be disclosed. Mr. Lancaster stated that it isn't the role of the Planning Department to take sides on an issue. Once we start speaking with neighbors on behalf of an adjacent 'neighbor, the County's neutral perspective in forcing the 'law has been diminished. Mr. Kelly' asked that the Board join him in thanking JoAnn for her effOrts on this Board. Tonight was going to be her last night as secretary for-the Board as she has accepted a new position in the County. Mr. McCurdy asked if staff could incorporate aerials into the packets from this time forward.~ Mr. Kelly stated he will look into this. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Kelly stated there ,was one more item and that is starting next month t~ng.s are going to be handled in a slightly different order. Staffwill make a very brief presentation. The applicant will then be required to come forward and defend their project. Then .staff will come back before the commission and give their recommendations. There being no further business,..the meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Planning & Zoning commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 18 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Men'itt, Stefan Matthes, Ed L0unds, Ramon Trias, Carson McCurdy (arrived at 7:02 - excused), Albert MOore, Noreen Dreyer, Charles Grande, Diana Wesloski OTHERS PRESENT' James Lancaster, Assistant County Attorney; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Hank Flores, Planner III; Cyndi Snay, Planner II; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE' The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski APPROVAL OF LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1999 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. There being no additions or corrections to the minutes of the June 3, 1999 meeting, Chairman Wesloski asked for a motion. Mr. Matthes made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Ms. Dreyer. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 6-0, with Mr. Moore, Mr. Trias and Mr. McCurdy abstaining. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 1 APPROVAL OF LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 8, 1999 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Mr. Lo'unds stated that on page 9, the 4th line, the words "four sided" should be "farsighted". Mr. Grande stated that on page 7, the 3rd paragraph, 2nd line, the words "which are relatively wrong and nobody is" should be "which are relatively low and nobody is". Mr. Grande stated that on page 23, the 3rd paragraph, 2nd line, change to read "County, and based on i " his knowledge of the Advisory Board's ability to prov de . Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other corrections or changes. Chairman Wesloski asked for a motion. seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval, and it was Upon roll call, the motion was approved 8-0, with Mr. Merritt abstaining. APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1999 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Mr. Grande stated that on page 8, 3rd paragraph, the word "mute" should be "moot". Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other corrections or changes. Chairman Wesloski asked for a motion. Mr. McCurdy made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Mr. M~ttthes. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 8-0, with Mr. Trias abstaining. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING PIPPIN TRACTOR FILE NO. RZ-99-016 Chairman Wesloski explained the Planning and Zoning Commission heating procedures. Ms. Snay presented staff comments. Ms. Snay stated that the application of Pippin Tractor was previously heard by this Board. Upon submittal of the site plan, it was determined that the subject property could not accommodate the right-of-way for Kings Highway road widening. Ms. Snay stated that Pippin Tractor has requested a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 3.22 acres of land located east of Kings Highway, approximately ½ mile north of St. Lucie Boulevard. Ms. Snay stated that this petition is not in conflict with any portion of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code or the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. She stated that this request will further 'the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of Policy 1.1.7.4, which outlines the area in question as being alppropriate for commercial or industrial uses. Ms. Snay stated that this petition is consistent with the surrounding land uses along Kings Highway and is located within the MXD-Airport Land Use designation. Ms. Snay stated that no demand on public facilities will result from the proposed rezoning. All water a:nd sewer services will be provided on-site. Ms. Snay stated that the petition will further the logical growth pattern within this area. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you forward this petition to rezone 3.22 acres of land property from the AR.-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Ms. Snay. Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Pat Ferland, with CAPTEC Engineering, 1870 S.E. Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, addressed the Board. Mr. Ferland stated that they represent Pippin Tractor. He stated that they agree with the recommendation of staff and they request approval. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Ferland. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Fefland if he intends to have a fuel facility/gas pumps on the subject property. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Ferland stated that fuel sales are not proposed. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Ferland if they will be relocating from Orange Avenue. Mr. Ferland stated yes. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Ferland who his neighbors are to the north and south. Mr. Ferland stated that Cassens Tractor Services are to the south, and an RV storage facility to the north. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Ferland. At this 'time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Flores if this will create a flag lot, with the same ownership. Mr. Flores stated that the ownership is the same, and it could possibly create a flag lot. He stated that this; is one parcel of land with road frontage of 30 foot, in the event they split up the AR-1 zoned propertly in the future. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Flores if the split would then meet the depth requirements. Mr. Flores stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After considering the testimony presented during the public heating, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. Matthes moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Pippin Tractor, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because it conforms with the requested changes by County staff as well as being consistent with the existing zoning previously granted. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 4 Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any discussion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved, 9-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING PAUL DUPONT FILE NO. RZ-99-022 Ms. Cyndi Snay presented staff comments. Ms. Snay stated that she was presenting the petition of Paul Dupont for a Change in Zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 db/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family- 9 db/acre) Zoning District :for 5.13 acres of land located at 6870 Andrews Avenue. Ms. Snay stated that the subject property is an enclave of unincorporated St. Lucie County, which is surro'unded on all four sides by the City of Fort Pierce. Ms. Snay stated that the applicants request is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Snay stated that the applicants request will not be consistent with the surrounding properties. North and West Residential Uses - Fort Pierce Zoning and Land Use RS-2 South and East Outlet Mall and Rainforest Golf and , Entertainment Complex 2 db/acre Fort Pierce Commercial Zoning and C3 Land Uses , Ms. Snay stated that although the MXD-Crossroads land use designation allows for RM zoning designations, as a transitional use the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 9 db/acre) zoning district appears to be excessive and will have a negative impact on the surrounding property. Ms. Snay stated that staff is of the opinion that the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 db/acre) is a more appropriate zoning designation. This zoning district will provide for a transitional use from the more intense commercial uses to the south and east, yet will:l'Provide less of an impact on the existing residential properties. Ms. Snay stated that the applicants petition is not expected to create additional demands on the public facilities within the area. Prior to additional development, the applicant will be required to ensure adequate central services are provided for this site as well as provide improvements to Andrews Avenue. Ms. Snay stated that the applicants petition will ensure a logical and orderly development pattern within the subject areaj, ~L Ms. Snay stated that~~poto~n t~e incompatibility of the gM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family- 9 au/acre) Zoning District, stdff recommends denial of the applicants request to rezone the subject property. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning ~Agency September 16, 1999 Page 6 Ms. Snay stated that staff does recommend approval of a rezoning of the subject property from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple- Family - 5 du/acre) as this density is the least intensive of the Residential Medium zoning district and will provide less of an impact on the existing residential communities. Chairman Wesloski asked Ms. Snay if Andrews Avenue is dirt. Ms. Snay stated that Andrews Avenue is an unimproved right-of-way. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Ms. Snay. Mr. McCurdy asked Ms. Snay why staff has chosen 5 du/acre versus 9 du/acre. He stated that he can see where there is a transitional quantity involved, but how can staff say that 9 du/acre will impact the adjacent property owners more than 5 du/acre. Ms. Snay stated that staffwas of the opinion that the existing residential portions to the south and to the west are developed at 2 du/acre, 9 du/acre would have more of an impact on what is already developed, 5 du/acre would bring less of an impact and still provide the transition from the high commercial. Mr. McCurdy asked Ms. Snay if any of the other adjacent properties are developed to the maximum of 2 du/acre. Ms. Snay stated that she is not sure. Mr. Kelly stated that there are scattered homes. Chairman Wesloski asked Ms. SnaY why this parcel has not been annexed by the City. Ms. Snay stated that staff suggested annexation to Mr. Dupont and he chose not to annex. Chairman Wesloski asked Ms. Snay if the property has City water and sewer will it be annexed in the future. Ms. Snay stated that i) will eventually be annexed. She stated that it does not presently have City water and sewer, it ~ ~~ Chairman Wesloski stltted that the drawing provided by Mr. Dupont shows City water and sewer. Ms. Snay stated that City water and sewer covers a portion of the }myllFa~, but it is not on the site. Chairman Wesloski stated the if the County were to issue permits to build, Mr. Dupont would have to use the City water and sewer. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning AgenCy September 16, 1999 Page 7 Ms. Snay stated that when Mr. Dupont develops he will have to bring City water and sewer into the property. Chairman Wesloski stated that he will then be annexed. Ms. Snay stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Lancaster if there are any legal issues of the enclave. Mr. Lm~caster stated that legally it appears to be an enclave within the limits of City and typically it is up 'to City whether they want to annex the parcel. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Trias if annexation agreements are required for utility use. Mr. Trias stated yes. MS. Dreyer asked Mr. Flores if Mr. Dupont were to develop this parcel at the 9 du/acre would he be required to connect to City water and sewer. Mr. Flores stated that Mr. Dupont would need to show that City water is available. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Flores what impact does the County's decision as to zoning have on this property should it subsequently be annexed into the City. Mr. Flores stated that when a property is annexed, the City tries to provide a compatible zoning. Mr. Trias stated that Mr. Flores is correct. He stated that he has some concerns about the reasoning behind 'this request at this point, given the fact it is an enclave, and any type of development would require an annexation agreement. He stated that he does not understand what the purpose is and he would like to have some more input from staff. Mr. Kelly stated that when Mr. Dupont came in he expressed a desire to stay in the unincorporated area of the County and go through the rezoning process. Staff attempted to encourage Mr. Dupont to look at annexation into the City. He didn't particularly wish to do that. He indicated that he had spoken with Wendy Clark, at the City, and the response was you can be annexed, and then go through the rezoning process, there was not a real discussion of what the possibilities were. Mr. Kelly stated that he subsequently called and spoke to Wendy about this and her response was simply if he wants to he can be annexed and then we will talk about it. He stated that Mr. Dupont chose to apply within the County and as a parcel in the unincorporated County, staff believed that was his right to do and subsequently we are here this evening. Mr. Trias stated that to clarify the procedure, when annexation is requested, a zoning designation is assigned at that time, so there is no need to go through a rezoning per se, you get whatever zoning Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 8 you request within the City, as long as it is something reasonable. Mr. Kelly stated that to the extent that our zoning classifications are similar, they are certainly not one to one. He stated that the City and the County do not have identical zoning classifications. He stated tlhat if this parcel were to remain RS-2 and go into the City, it would go in with the most similar designation, and the City has a Single-Family - 2 du/acre designation. Mr. Trias stated not necessarily. It would go in with the designation that makes sense to the applicant and to the City, not necessarily exactly what is there now, because there are plenty of designations. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Trias if the City could bring this in as a multi-family designation. Mr. Trias stated that it would be discussed during the process. It can happen. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Dupont did not understand that could happen, or that there were discussions that would let him know that, and subsequently he wiShed to go through with the County. Mr. Lounds asked Ms. Snay what is the density of Motel 6. Ms. Snay stated that she did not check the density. Mr. Lounds asked Ms. Snay if the density is higher than 9 du/acre. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes that it is higher than 9 du/acre. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Trias what is the area classified to the north of the RS-2 parcel. Mr. Trias stated Commercial. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Ms. Snay. Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Paul Dupont, 6870 Andrews Avenue, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Dupont stated that he is the owner of the property in question. He stated that he talked to Wendy Clark who told him that if he went into the City, the City would adopt a similar zoning as the County, whatever that might be, and once in the City he could apply for a zoning change. Mr. Dupont stated that there are nine units already on the property. He stated that the first unit was built in the 20's, the last unit was completed in 1979 and sometime after that the County designated the property as 2 du/acre. He stated that with 2 du/acre and four acres of property you would only be able to build one more unit, maybe. He stated that he basically has property that he can't do Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 9 anything with, he can't sell the property, he can't develop the property, the only thing he can do is pay taxes on the property. Mr. Dupont stated that he went to the City and talked to Wendy. He came back to the County and decided, since he was already in the County, to just apply in the County and get the zoning changed to a higlher density, because he couldn't do anything with the property the way it was, he just wanted to make the property useful. Mr. Dupont stated that he had the property on the market, potential buyers would go to Zoning and find om: you are only allowed 2 du/acre and there are already nine units, so they can't build anymore, they wouldn't want to buy the property. He stated that he would like the zoning change to make the property usable, as residential property. He stated that he is not hooked up to water and sewer, but it is available. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Dupont. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Dupont why he applied for RM-9 and not RM-5. Mr. Dupont stated that he was told that would make the best use of the property and he believes the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan states that he could go to a medium density, which is 9. Mr. Mc. Curdy asked Mr. Dupont if RM-5 would suit his purpose. Mr. Dupont stated that it would certainly help, it would make the land usable. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Dupont what are his intentions with the property if he is approved for RM-9. Mr. Dupont stated that he would probably sell the property. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Trias what the zoning is to the south of'Andrews Avenue. Mr. Trias stated C3. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Trias what C3 means. Mr. Trias stated General Commercial. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Trias if a track stop would be allowed in C3. Mr. Trias stated yes. Mr. Merritt stated that he does not believes 9 du/acre would hurt with C3 across the street. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Dupont if he is looking at being annexed and then selling, or is he looking Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 10 at selling and let somebody else make the annexation. Mr. Dupont stated that he is looking at selling and let somebody else dO the annexation, but the way the property is now, he can't do that. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Dupont if this went to RM-5 he would have the ability to build about 15 additional units which certainly would make it attractive. Mr. Dupont stated yes. Mr. Grande stated that it appears RM-5 would meet the needs of Mr. Dupont and the concerns of staff. Mr. Dupont stated that RM-5 would help him sell the property. Mr. Grande stated that staff has worked out an excellent proposal and he would be inclined to support RM-5. Ms. Dreyer stated that she believes this is really a difficult piece of property, she can certainly see some reasons to eliminate the residential land use all together, however that request is not before this Board. She really believes this piece of property ought to be regulated by the City, whether the County changes it to RM-9 or RM-5, she suspects in order to develop the property, Mr. Dupont will need to connect with water and sewer. Mr. Dupont stated that he would assume in order to build on the property water and sewer would need to be connected. Ms. Dreyer stated that she would not be able to support RM-9 because of the adjacent RS-2 land use. She stated that the RS-2 does not seem to be very compatible with the commercial zoning to the east and south and the existing uses. She stated that she would probably reluctantly support RM-5. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Dupont what is the length of the property along Andrews Avenue. Mr. Dupont stated that he believes it is 660 ft. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Flores if any type of development will require the pavement of Andrews Avenue and if so, will it be across the entire front or just to the entrance. Mr. Flores stated the entire length of the property. Mr. Matthes stated that the impact to develop this property will include utilities and the pavement at $110 - $120 a linear foot. Mr. Dupont stated that a portion of Andrews Avenue is already paved. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Dupont how far. Mr. Dupont stated from Crossroads Parkway up to his property line. He stated that City water and sewer comes in from Peters Road and up to the second building (6740-6742). Mr. Dupont stated that page 4, paragraph 5, of the staff report, states "The subject property is currently developed with one single-family residential home and two duplex units." He stated that it should read "The subject property is currently developed with one single-family residential home and four duplex .units." Mr. Matthes stated that this would require at least extending the pavement of Andrews Avenue all the way to the other side of Mr. Dupont's property, 660 feet at approximately $110 - $120 a linear foot. Chairman Wesloski stated that would be approximately $66,000. Mr. Matthes stated yes. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Flores if this Board rezones Mr. Dupont's property to RM-5 if the owners of the RS-2 parcel to the north and to the northeast could come in and rezone to RM-5. Mr. Flores stated yes. Mr. Lounds stated that he does not have a problem with RM-9. Mr. Trias stated that he does not have a problem with the request in terms of the concept and use. He stated that he sees a huge problem with the process that we are following. He stated that he believes that whole area is not very orderly developed because we have followed a process like the one being used tonight, with the land then being annexed into the City. Mr. Trias stated that he has had a chance to talk to some of the adjacent property owners about what they want to do with their property with industrial and commercial in tl~e immediate area. He stated that there is a huge problem with infrastructure, with the lack of access into the different parcels, and also some problems with the uses that are allowed. Mr. Trias stated that he believes this is what happens when a County starts to behave like a City, in approving developments, and those areas then become parts of Cities. The result is there is a big mess. He stated that he believes the best thing to do in this case would be to annex into the City because any type of development would require an annexation into the City. He stated that he cannot support any type of rezoning based on the process, it does not mean that he disagrees with the proposed use or the density, rezoning at this point will probably create more problems than it would solve. Mr. Grande stated that he understands Mr. Trias' points. He believes the Board is missing Mr. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 12 Dupont's point in that he is not looking to develOp the property himself, he is looking to sell the property, and he is before this Board asking to make his property more attractive to sell, not to develop. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Trias when Mr. Dupont and/or the new owner goes through the annexation process the resulting zoning will be part of the annexation process. Mr. Trias stated yes. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Trias if this Board were to allow the RM-5 now to give Mr. Dupont an advantage in selling the property as opposed to developing it, would he have a problem with the Mr. Trias stated that he has a problem anytime there is a rezoning proposed which does not result in development. He believes the idea of the zoning process is to tW to create development and growth. He stated that to use that tool for pure speCulation may be a way to weaken the process. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Trias if his suggestion is to ask Mr. Dupont to go through the annexation process prior to attempting to sell the property. Mr. Trias stated yes, or at the same time. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Flores what is allowed in the MXD-Crossroads land use. Mr. Flores stated that is designated for commercial and residential up to 9 du/acre which could include CG (Commercial, General), CN (Commercial, Neighborhood), CO (Commercial, Office), RM-5, RM-7, and RM-9. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Flores with the MXD-Crossroads land use designation you could have commercial use in the area above Mr. Dupont and also on his property. Mr. Flores stated yes. Mr. Men'itt asked Mr. Flores if Mr. Dupont could come in and request a commercial zoning on his propertly. Mr. Flores stated yes. Chairman Wesloski stated that Mr. Dupont would be allowed to add sixteen units at a minimum cost of $66,000. She stated that she does not believe the RM-5 is beneficial to Mr. Dupont for the costs involved nor will it help him sell the property. She stated that she believes he needs the RM-9 to make it cost effective. Mr. Dulpont stated that RM-5 would be better than what he has, although he requested RM-9. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 13 Chairman Wesloski stated that she agrees with Mr. Merritt and would be inclined to go with the RM-9. She stated' that in some respect the County, because of the enclave, should have received comments from the City. Mr. Flores stated that staff recommended to Mr. Dupont that he annex into the City, he chose not too, and staff is simply honoring his request to have a public hearing. Mr. Dupont stated that he spoke with the City. He understood that if he went into the City they would adopt a similar zoning to the County, and then once in the City he could apply for another zoning. He figured since he was County, he may as well go County, and if the new buyer wants to go City, they can go City. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Dupont. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Matthes if the infrastructure costs would be less than $4,000 a unit. Mr. Matthes stated that at RM-5 it would be between $2,400 - $4,000 a unit, for the road. He stated that it would be approximately $120,00 for water and sewer, depending on how far it would need to be mn. Mr. Gramde stated that RM-9 would be great. RM-5 is not very practical for development and a new buyer would roughly have the same view of infrastructure costs coming into this piece of property. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Dupont. At this 'time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After considering the testimony presented during the public heating, im the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie Couni Mr. Lounds moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recomm, Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Change in Zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family- 2 du~ RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District becaus Mr. Dupont's land use designation', it adds value to the property and t ',luding staff comments, and y Land Development Code, nd that the St. Lucie County Paul Joseph Dupont, for a acre) Zoning District to the ~ he believes it is well within ~e property in the area. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 14 Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any discussion. Mr. Grande stated that he would not be able to support the motion because of the impact on the surrounding residential properties. Ms. Dreyer stated that she would not be able to support the motion because of the surrounding RS-2 Fort Pierce land use and Zoning designation. She stated that she als° has a lot of concern about dropping an RM-9 district into the City, when the applicant has a reasonable means of pursuing something that might be even more appropriate outside of residential, through the annexation process with the City. Mr. Merritt stated that he would like to point out that there is very little residential in the area. He stated that this area has a miXed land use designation and he does not believe there will be a lot of residential in the future. Chairman Wesloski stated that within 500 feet there were two. Ms. Dreyer stated that was her point. She is not sure that residential is really the appropriate use for this property. She believes this should be addressed by the City since they surround this entire piece of property, and not by the County. She stated that Mr. Dupont is in the County and he is entitled to ask for a zoning district that is compatible. She stated that she will support RM-5, but not RM-9 for the reasons she has enumerated. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 6-3, with Mr. Grande, Mr. Trias and Ms. Dreyer voting against the motion. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 15 × PUBLIC HEARING DOMINICK R. LIOCE FILE NO. RZ-99-021 Mr. Hank Flores presented staff comments. Mr. Flores stated that he was presenting the petition of Dominick R. Lioce for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Pelican Point) Zoning District to the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District). Zoning District for approximately 5.28 acres of property located on the west side of SoUth State Road A-l-A, adjacent to the south property line of the South Hutchinson Island Water Reclamation Facility. Mr. Flores stated that the proposed use of the subject property is for the development of a nine lot residential subdivision. Mr. Flores stated that the surrounding zoning to the subject property is HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) to the north, east, south and southeast. PUD (Planned Unit Development - Pelican Point) to the east. U (Utilities) to north. Mr. Flores stated that staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Flores. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Flores how much of the 5.28 acres is above the Mean High Water Line. Mr. Flores stated 5.28 acres. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Flores. Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates, 100 Avenue A, Suite 2A, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Boggs stated that he represents Dominick R. Lioce. He stated that he has the development team with him tonight if the Board would like to ask any questions. Mr. Boggs stated that they are requesting a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Pelican Pointe) Zoning District to the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District to allow a straight zoning single-family subdivision. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Boggs why this is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 16 , · Mr. Boggs stated that a coUple of years ago a PUD (Planned Unit Development) was designed and approved which included the east side. The PUD has expired and that particular development team has disbanded. Mr. Boggs stated that the west side has come back and a PUD (Planned Unit Development) is no longer necessary and they would like to revert back to the original zoning. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Boggs why the small parcel just to the south is not included in the rezoning. Mr. Boggs stated that it is owned by a separate entity. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Boggs what is on this small parcel. Mr. Boggs stated that it is undeveloped. Mr. Flores stated that the original PUD (Planned Unit Development) contained three parcels. Mr. Gr~mde stated that nine residential sites are well within what HIRD would allow. He believes that is approximately seven over commencement level and would mn into approximately $90,000 in Alternate Development Fees in lieu of Impact Fees. Mr. Flores stated that he has not calculated what the fees will be. He stated that he believes some of the lots will be subject to the Alternate Development Fee and staff has determined that the Alternate Development Fee includes Road Impact Fees. Mr. Gr~mde stated that Road Impact Fees would not be in addition to, it would be in lieu of. Mr. Flores stated yes. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Boggs if there was a reason for HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) as opposed to a PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Boggs stated that the performance standards outlined in PUD (Planned Unit Development), are not called for in this basic and very fundamental single-family subdivision. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Boggs what is the result of the site plan that is no longer active, when only one parcel is being rezoned, what does PUD (Planned Unit Development) mean on the other parcels. Mr. Boggs stated that the approved development plan contained forty-five units, has expired. The underlying PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning is still in effect. He stated that someone could come in, prepare a deVelopment plan under PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the other two parcels, and go before the County Commission for site plan approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Flores stated that any type of development on the PUD (Planned Unit Development) would need to come back before this Board, and the Board of County Commissioners. It would need to be rezoned, because the site plan which is tied to the zoning, has expired. Chairman Wesloski stated that in-other words it is not zoned at this time, because the PUD has expired. Mr. Moore clarified with Mr. Boggs that he is planning to place nine home sites. Mr. Boggs stated yes. Mr. Gnmde stated that he believes nine homes is a great plan. He stated that he has a problem with the nine unit plan not being part of this approval and that this Board is being asked to approve the ability to build twenty-five or twenty-six unit on this property. Mr. Gnmde asked Mr. Flores if the property were to remain PUD (Planned Unit Development), the applicant could come in with a nine single-family home plan as the PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Flores stated yes. Mr. Gnmde stated that he would like to recap, if this Board approves this rezoning, we are stating that the applicant can put in up to twenty-five or twenty-six units. Mr. Flores stated that the zoning would allow possibly twenty-five or twenty-six units. Mr. Grande stated that the Parcel is already zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and if it were left at PUD (Planned Unit Development) the applicant could come in ~Vith the nine single-unit lots as the PUD (Planned Uni~ Development) and ask for approval qf the PUD (Planned Unit Development) as opposed t6 a rezoning, and the County would be guaranteed the nine units. Mr. Flores indicated that Mr. Boggs stated the development regulations of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) would prohibit him from doing the type of plan that he is looking at for the nine units with a straight zoning. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Flores ifa PUD (Planned Unit Development) could be submitted that contains nine single-family units. Mr. Flores stated that he believes Mr. Boggs is unable to submit the he is looking at as a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and asked Mr. Boggs to confirm, plan Mr. Grande stated that he would like to have this confirmed because it sounds like this application is unnecessary. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 18 Mr. Flores stated that a rezoning is required on this property, either as a PUD (Planned Unit Development) or HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District). Mr. Grande asked Mr. Fl:ores if the applicant came back with a PUD (Planned Unit Development) containing nine units, would that be an approvable PUD (Planned Unit Development) plan. Mr. Flores stated that the original PUD (Planned Unit Development) included the east and west side. Mr. Gnmde asked Mr. Flores if the applicant could submit the existing plan for a nine unit residential community as a PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Flores if the applicant goes forward with a PUD (Planned Unit Development) he would come back before this Board to approve the PUD (Planned Unit Development). If the applicant goes forward with HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) it will go through the standard St. Lucie County Subdivision process. Mr. Flores stated that is correct, as a minor site plan approval. Mr. Matthes stated that the only differences are 45, 60, sometimes 90 days of time, and that this Board would see it again as a PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Grande stated that the applicant could have come here tonight a PUD (Planned Unit Development) to approve the exact plan presented to staff since the and is already zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). That would have given this Board the ility tonight to approve the exact plan in one shot, with no time wasted. Mr. Kelly stated that either situation described by Mr. Grande have required a change in zoning. It would have been from PUD to PUD. It would have been development plan and that site plan would have been tied to the zoning, which would have b~ en a new PUD. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Boggs and the Development Team need to r~spond to whether the PUD (Planned Unit Development) would meet the open space requirements xVith the straight subdivision he is looking at. Mr. Boggs stated that they did not take the site and mn the calculations as a PUD (Planned Unit DeveloPment) He stated that if Mr Grande is concerned that the co ild come back with twent five units, that is not why they are going through rezoning back to HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District). He s~ated that the land plan they prepared does not need a PUD (Planned Unit Development), it is a stand alone, very straight for~a~rd subdivision. He stated that there was no need to .go through unnecessary public hearings and additional fees for nine single-family sites. Mr. Boggs stated that they did not intentionally avoid coming in with a PUD (Planned Unit Development), they just didn't need it. He stated that they have applied for variances to go PUD (Planned Unit Devek~pment) on sites less than ten acres. He stated that ih this particular case, it was Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 19 so simple to revert to HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) to get the subdivision approved and built in a timely fashion, for nine seventy-five foot wide lots. Mr. Grande stated that he thinks the plan is great, and he expects to vote in favor of this application. He stated that he is a little sensitive about two areas' contract zoning and statements that are asked of people asking for a zoning changes which enter into that gray area. Mr. Grande stated that he would like to ask Mr. Boggs a question and get a straight answer. He asked Mr. Boggs if this Board approves HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) zoning which will be followed up with a site plan presentation to staff, will this create a problem for him if staff does not approve a site plan which is not generally similar to what he has been discussing so far. Mr. Bo.ggs stated that knowing the land and the site there will not be any particular concerns staff could raise that would make it a difficult planning challenge for him or for the owner to overcome. He stated that often there are a few tweaks that need to be made in a subdivision layout. Mr. Grande stated that he assumes Mr. Boggs has discussed with staff'the overall layout of the nine unit subdivision which he believes is similar to the original overall PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Boggs stated yes. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Boggs if the final site plan doesn't resemble the original PUD (Planned Unit Development), and staff found reason to question the site plan, would that be a problem. Mr. Boggs stated no. Mr. Trias stated that he is ready to support the rezoning because it makes sense. He stated that he would like to make one editorial comment. Here we see the problems that we have with zoning. Zoning is not a very good tool for smart growth and good design. He stated that in this case it makes a lot of sense to go back to the previous zoning and it just shows how incredibly impractical the process becomes. Chairm~m Wesloski asked if there were any further questions or comments. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 20 After considering the testimony Presented during the public heating, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. Grande moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application ofDominiek Lioce, for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Pelican Poime) Zoning District to the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential DiStrict) Zoning District because the application is consistent with the sunrounding land use and wOUld be beneficial to the County. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any discussion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved, 9-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 21 PUBLIC HEARING REAL STONE & GRANITE CORPORATION FILE NO. CU-99-007 Ms. Cyndi Snay presented staff comments. Ms. Shay stated that she was presenting the petition of Real Stone & Granite Corporation to allow the manufacturing of cut stone and stone products in the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District for property located at 427 South Market Avenue. Ms. Snay stated that the applicants petition is not in conflict with any portion of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The proposed use is not expected to adverSely impact the surrounding properties or the natural environment. Ms. Snay stated that applicant, has indicated that the products will be manufactured entirely within a building utilizing water-fed hand tools for grinding and 100% air powered tools There will be , , . , { m~mmal pollution or impact to the environment from this use. Ms. Snay stated that staff finds the applicants request meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucre County Land Development Code and that the proposed use will not be in conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Snay stated that staff is recommending approval of the applicants request subject to the following condition' The manufacturing of the stone products shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Ms. Snay. Mr. McCurdy asked Ms. Snay what the zoning is to the south and east. Ms. Snay stated CG (Commercial, General). Mr. Matthes asked Ms. Snay if there is an existing building on this parcel. Ms. S naly stated yes. Mr. Matthes asked Ms. Snay what is the existing use. Ms. Snay stated that the building is vacant. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 22 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Ms. Snay. Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like' to address the Board. Mr. Jose Ubilla, 427 South Market Avenue, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Ubilla stated that he is the owner of Real Stone & Granite Corporation and that he would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Ubilla. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Ubilla what type of stone will he manufacture. Mr. Ubilla stated marble and granite. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Ubilla if he will manufacture any imitation materials. Mr. Ubilla stated no. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Ubilla if he will use only natural stones. Mr. Ubilla stated yes. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Ubilla what type of machinery will he use. Mr. Ubilla stated diamond blades for cutting, and water-fed machines for polishing. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Ubilla if he will be doing any sand blasting. Mr. Ubilla stated no. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Ubilla if he will be occupying the blue metal building. Mr. Ubilla stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Ubilla. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 23 Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After considering the testimony presented during the public heating, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. McCurdy moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County' Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Real Stone & Granite Corporation, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a stone cutting and fabrication business in the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District because it fits in with the character of the neighborhood with the following condition: The manufaCturing of the stone products shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any discussion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved, 9-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 24 OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any other business. Chairman Wesloski requested those petitions with properties adjacent to the City of Fort Pierce and/or tlhe City of Port St. Lucie that zoning for that City be placed on the maps and transparencies. Chairman Wesloski requested that staff revisit PUD (Planned Unit Development). When a site plan no longer exists, we should consider going back to what it was befor~ or notify the applicant that something 'needs to be done, instead of the black hole. Mr. Lancaster stated that staff has recognized this as a problem. He stated that he would report back to this Board at the next meeting. Mr. Grande stated that he had met with Ms. Shewchuk relative to an o' eration philosophy of staff, which was kicked off by the Eckerd Youth Alternatives and he wa~ ted to bring this up to the members of the Board before he moves forward to the County Com~ Board recommended approval of a rezoning and conditional use permit, heard by this Board and presented to the County Commission, the pr{ stated that this Board approved the entire piece of property being rezom was presented to the County Commission was half of the prope~ (Institutional) and half would stay CG (Commercial,: General). He stat~ discuss 'whether or not it was a good idea. He believes that the Co~: informed that the information being presented to them is not what was ~ stated that he intends to ask for this change and if any member of the B{ idea, he 'would like to hear from them. [ission, He stated that this md between the time it was ,p, erty was split in half. He d to Institutional, and what ~ would be rezoned to I that he does not intend to ~ty Commission should be ~proved by this Board. He ,rd thinks this is not a good Chairman Wesloski stated that the County Commission receives the minutes from each petition which state what was approved and how it was approved. Mr. Merritt stated that he does not have a problem with this if it was done at the request of the applicant and if part of the zoning is being taken away. If they were adding to, he would have a problem. Mr. Grande stated that he believes it is unfair~to place this burden on staff to make the decision as to what is an acceptable change and what is ~ot. He believes the County Commission should get exactly what this Board has reViewed. He suggested if there is a change, it should come back to this Board for review. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Flores during the presentation to the County Commission was the history mentioned. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 25 Mr. Flores stated yes. Chairman Wesloski stated that the County Commission could have sent this petition back to this Board. Mr. Kelly stated that the County Commission knew this petiti~ five acres. He stated that to shrink a legal description i~ less it probably was. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Grande's. argument was shrinkin~ verall Impacts ~n the area because it left a Commercial parcel He stated that Mr. Grand~i~ felt this was a material change ~ P&Z deserves another look at it. Mr. Kelly stated that he is not sure who draws the line betweet is not, maybe they all recycle back to P&Z, but there are a 1~ stated that in this case he fully understands Mr. Grande's argu Mr. Moore stated that he would hope the County Commissio~ you split a piece of property does not mean it is less intensive Mr. Trias stated that if an applicant makes a proposal during th because it is a normal part of the process and it should not com~ a recommendation based on information received after P&Z, Mr. Kelly stated that staff will be more careful with this in th direct or have the Board direct a change in policy, staff will cc Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Grande if he would like for this on the change in policy. Mr. Grande stated that his intention was to go to the County body, and indicate to them that he thought this was poorly hand He stated that he is sympathetic to creating a lot of extra work fi the applicant should be forced to come back every time. He wo' from receiving an application from this Board with a vote, and was voted on by this Board. Mr. Matt]res stated that he agrees with Mr. Grande. He would Iii disclosure on the process to the County Commission in their p~ It was the consensus of the Board that staff provide a full discl{ their presentation. )n had been altered from ten acres to of an impact, and in most every case the legal description increased the >etween the two Institutional parcels. nd where there is a material change, what is a material change and what of them that are pretty simple. He .ment. would understand that just because ~ meeting, that would be acceptable back to P&Z. If staff were to make aat would not be appropriate. future and if Mr. Grande wants to ,mply. 3oard to make and motion and vote Commission, as the policy making [ed and request a change in process. >r everyone and he does not believe ald like to prevent the Commission the application not be exactly what .ce to request that staff provide a full ;esentation. ,sure to the County Commission in Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 26 Mr. Kelly stated that staff will be more careful. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if any Special Meetings for the Comprehensive Plan have been scheduled. Mr. Kelly stated no. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly when the Public Participation Element will be heard. Mr. Kelly stated that Public Participation has already been heard by only outstanding element is Capital Improvements. A meeting will n~ Board. He stated that the to be scheduled. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Grande if he is satisfied with the response of staff, or will he go before the County Commission. Mr. Grande stated that he is ~satisfied with staff's response. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 16, 1999 Page 27 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLORIDA AUGUST 19, 1999 - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT': Stefan Matthes, Carson McCurdy, 'Noreen Dreyer, Charles Grande, Albert ~Moore, Ed Merritt. Ed Lounds, Diana Wesloski OARD MEMBERS ABSENT. Ramon Trias (excused) OTHERS 'PRESENT: James LanCaster, Assistant County Attorney; Julia Shewchuk, Community Development Director; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Hank Flores, Planner III; Cyndi .Snay, Planner II; and Jo~ Riley, Planning Tec~ician . PLEDGE OF ~ .:LEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page-1 APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND 'ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 15, 1999 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any additions-or corrections to the minutes. There being no .additions or ~. corrections ~to the minutes of the July 15, 1999 meeting, Chairman wesloski asked for a motion. Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Mr. McCurdy, Upon ~roll call, the motion was approved 7-0, with Mr. Merritt abstaining. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ASSEMBLY OF GOD FAITH TEMPLE CHURCH FILE NO. CU-99-006 Chai.rm~m Wesloski explained .the Planning and Zoning Commission.heating procedures. Mr. Flores presented staff comments. Mr. Flores stated that he was presenting-the petition of Assembly or,God Faith Temple Church for a Conditional Use Permit to allOw-eduCational services and facilities in the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning' District for property located on the southeast comer of the intersection of Avenue T and North 29th street to allow for a child care facility. Mr. Flores stated that the subject property is surrounded by the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District. Mr. FlOres stated that educational services and facilitieS are allowed as a COnditional Use in the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District upon the approval of the Board.of County Commissioners. expired without being activated and a new one must be approved in order to establish the services as desired by the .applicant. Mr. Flores stated that the proposed child care facility will have a student population of approximately 30 students and the applicant proposes to conduct weekday school activities from 7:00 ~a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Flores stated.that staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lu¢ie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the St. Lucie County .Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to two conditions: The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. - Monday through F15day. The :total school enrollment shall not exceed 30 students. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Flores. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Flores if the hours of operation as stated in the packet, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., was a t~o. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Flores stated that the application that was originally submitted :stated 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Upon.receipt of the packet, the'iapplicant called and corrected the hours of operation to read 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. David Cleveland, 100 Avenue A, Suite-2E, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Cleveland stated that he is ~the .agent for Assembly of God Faith Temple Church. He stated that staff has addressed his only concern, .the hours of operation. 'He stated that he apologizes for the erroneous listing of 7:00 p.m.. to 9:00'p~m. which is too restrictive for ~their needs. He stated that if there were any questionS he would be happy to answer them. Mr.. Lounds asked Mr. Cleveland if the school enrollment'will be limited to 30 students and ~hether future expansion might occur. Mr. Cleveland stated that the facility intended to be constructed has a maximum capacity of 30 students, if the church were to hcre'ase the number of s~dents, they would have to increase the size of the facility. Chairman Weslo-ski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Cleveland. At this time, Chai~an~Wesloski opened the public portion of the heating. . Chairm~t Weslosh asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing :no further arguments 'in favor of or in opposition to the petition,: Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what woul.d be the pleasure of the Board. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review asset fOrth in Section 11,07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. Merritt moved that the Pl~ng and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County.CommisSioners ~ant approval to the application of AsSembly of God Faith Temple C'zhurch (David. Cleveland,. Agent).for a Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the~ (Religious Facilities) Zoning District because it fits the need along with the conditions placed by staff. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was ~any discussion. 'Upon rOll call, the motion was approved 8-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 4 'Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a'recommendation of,approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 1'9, 1999 Page 5 UBLIC HEARING SURF 'N SAND PROPERTIES, INC. FILE NO. PA-99-002 Chairman WesloSki convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly addressed the Board stating that the applicant 'was not present. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Lom~ds made .a motion to continue this item until September'l 6, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. - · Mr. Grande .seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was approVed 8-0. Mr. Kelly addressed the Board stating that the applicant had arrived. Mr. Lounds madethe motion to rescind the motion to continue. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon roll[ call, the .motion was approved 7'-1, with Mr. Moore voting against the motion. Ms. Cyndi Snay presented staff comments. Ms, Snay stated that she was presenting the petition of Surf 'N Sand Properties, Inc. to amend the Future Land Use Map by changing the Land Use Designation for property located at 3000 North State Road A-1-A from COM (Commercial) to RM (Residential Medium). Ms. Snay stated that the p~ose of the Change in Future Land Use Designation is to Construct a residential high-rise condominium. Ms. Snay stated that the property to the north, the Sands Condomi~um, and to the south, the Atrium Condomiaium are desi~ated with RM.(Residential Medium) Land Use Designation. She stated that to the west, Sands Plaza is COM (Commercial) and to the east, is the Atlantic Ocean. Ms. Snay stated that Residential Medium Land Use Designation allows a maximum density of 9 du/acre. She stated that at the time.of site plan approval, the applicant will not.be allowed tGexceed the maximum density. - Ms. Snay stated that staff has reviewed this petition and determined that R conforms with the. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 6 standards of review as .set fo~h in 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, State Comprehensive Plan, and the Treasure 'Coast Regional Planning Council Strategic Policy Plan. Staff i.s, therefbre, recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with .a recommendation of approval. Chairman Wesloski asked if.there were any questions for Ms. Snay. Mr. Merritt asked Ms. Snay whether or not the petition included the commercial properties on both sides of A-1-A. .L Ms, Snay stated that the property under consideration was the commercial site east of A-1-A. Mr. Grande asked Ms. Snay whether :or'not the applicant has been spoken with regarding the total number of units. Ms. Snay stated-that at 'the time of Site plan approval, the total number.of units for the subject site would be identified. She stated that.under the proposed land use' designation the maximum permitted is 9 du/a(:re. Mr. Grande ~asked Ms, .Snay if the applicant was aware of the altemative development fee. Ms.. Snay~stated that the applicant is the developer of the Atrium Condominium. She stated that he has a copy of 'the HIRD Zoning District regulations and, therefore, is aware of the alternative development fee. Mr. Lounds asked Ms. Snay to review the density issue. Ms. Snay stated that the RM (Residential Medium) Land Use Designation allows for a maximum density of 9 du/aCre. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly if the developer knows that the Alternate Development Fees are in Mr. Kelly stated that the alternative development fee kicks in for units above a certain percentage, he believes the number is. nine. He stated that either the Alternate Development Fee or the impact fee is paid, it is not in addition to the impact fee. Mr. Kelly stated that the Alternative Development Fee is more than the impact fee. He stated that for example, for the first x .units (whatever it calculates out), the impacts fees are paid. For units atler that, the Alternate Devel6pment Fee, which is a_larger number', is ~aid. . Mr. Grande stated that he had the opposite perception, that on North Hutchinson Island,the Altemate Development Fee is lower than the impact fee. He 'stated that he saw nothing in the Alternate Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 7 Development ~ Fee legislation, that indicates it is in lieu of the impact fee. He stated that he believes it is intended to be in addition to, and he can't imagine that anyone would have attempted to reduce the impact fee. Mr. Kelly stated that at this time it is not a relevant issue, because it comes up at Site plan process. He stated that he would check it out, prior to site plan approval. Mr. Grande confirmed that it was a mute point at this. time. Chairm~m Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. MitChell Malvan_, President of Surf'N-Sand Properties, Inc., addressed the Board. Mr. Malvan stated that. he is the owner of the property being considered tonight. Mr. Malvan stated that the property is 'located in.an area where primarily residential high-rise buildings are being constructed as well as two adjacent parcelS directly north and south of the subject property. Mr. Malvan stated that there was not a great need for a restaurant or commercial usage 'in the vicinity. He stated that the parcel directly across the street is commercial, and the Radisson has a couple of restaurants: Mr. Ma!van stated that there is a need in this area for more low density ocean front residential property and, therefore, they are requesting a change in the Land Use Designation and a rezoning of this parcel. Chairmma Wesloski~asked if there were any questions for Mr, Malvan. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Malvan-what the acreage of the parcel is. Mr. Malvan stated that the previous platting indicated a 4.2 acre site. He stated that a new survey has been completed and shows with beach renourishment and the settling of the sand, the parcel has grown to almost five acres. Mr. Grande stated that the increase in property size would justify the 44 units. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Malvan. to explain 44 units on 4.2 acres 'of land. Mr. Malv~ stated that the Mean High Water Line has been extended further to the east, due to the deposit of sand and build up of property. The s~eyor then fixed the property at the new size which qualifies the 9 du/acre. ._ Mr. Lounds~ asked Mr. Malvan if this occurs only 5'n North Hutchinson Island and not South Hutchinson Island. Mr. Malv~m stated that South Hutchinson island, because of its location, south of the jetty, has been Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 8 losing sand, and that sand has been building up naturally on North Hutchinson Island, Mr. Matthes stated that it is not actually the sand from South Hutchinson Island that is building up, it is a natural movement, of sand from-the north part of Florida south. Ms. Dreyer asked.Mr. Flores-:if the ownership of the property is in question. Mr. Flores stated that the property was bought by Mr. Malvan's company three years ago, and this has been verified ~through the Property Appraiser's office. .At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the heating. ~hairman Wesloski ~ked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this p~,tmon. 'i Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petit on, Chairman Wesloski closed the public,portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After considering the'testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, Mr. McC~dy.moved that the Local: Pl~ng Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. LUcie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Surf 'iN Sand Properties, Inc. for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from COM (Commercial) to .RM (Residential Medim) because it fits in with the character of the neighborhood, it effectively down zones the commercial, and allows for a better use of the site. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Chai~an WesloSki asked if there was any discussion. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 8-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that. the petition would be forwarded to 'the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 9 UBLIC HEARING SURF 'N SAND PROPERTIES, INC. FILE NO. RZ-99-020 Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board Will now reconvene as the Planning and Zoning Commission Mr. Kelly.addressed the BOard stating that the.applicant was not present. At this .time, Chairman Wesl0ski opened the public portion of the heating. Mr. McCurdy made a motion to-cominue'this item until September 16, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as :possible. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion was. approved 8-0. Mr. Kelly addressed the ~Board stating that the applicant had arrived. Mr. McCurdy made the motiOn to.rescind the motion to continue. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the 'motion was apprOved 8,0. Ms. Cyndi Snay presented staffcommems. Ms. Snay stated that she was presenting the petition of Surf 'N Sand Properties, Inc. for-a Change in Zoning from the CG (Co~erCial, General) Zoning District to the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District for prope~y located at 3000 ~North State Road A-1-A. Ms~ Snay.stated ~that the property to the no~h, the Sands.Condominium, and to the south, the Atrium Condominium are.desi~ated with H~ (HutchinsOn Island Residential District) Zoning District. She stated that to the west, is CG (Commercial, General) and to the east, is the Atlantic Ocean. Ms. Snay stated that the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District will allow the development of residential property at the maximum density of the Land Use Designation. Ms. Snay stated th-at.the request of the applicant is consistent with the existing land uses of the ~surrounding properties and the character of the area. She stated that this request will not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment and is not in conflict with public interests. Planning & Zoning,Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 1.9, 1999 Page 10 Ms. Snay stated that Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in Chairman Wesloski asked if there were 'any questions for Ms. Snay. Chairman Wesloski askedifthe applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Mitch Malvan, President of Surf 'N Sand Properties, Inc., addressed the Board. Mr. Malvan stated that he is the owner'.of the property being considered tonight, las stated by Staff, this is a petitiOn 'to rezone property from CG (Commercial, General) to HIRD (Hhtchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District. Mr. Metritt 'asked Mr. Malvan what the proposed height will be for the condominium unit. Mr. Malvan stated that it will be approximately 113 1/4 feet, the same height as the Atrium, measured from the flood plain ~to the top of the roof slab. Mr. Merritt asked .Mr. Malvan what the price range for the units will be. ~Mr. Malvan stated at t~s time, they are not quite sure ~ofthe construction cost and this will determine the pricing. Mr. Grande 'asked Mr, Malvan-if he was aware of the North Hutchinson Island Alternative Development Fees and that may affect the development of the property, ~He stated that it may be a significant amount somewhere between $80,000 - $100,000 and suggested that this should be discussed' with staff. Mr. Kelly Stated Ms. Shewchuk had found the proper references since th~ prior hearing-and that any road imPact fee paid pursuant to Section 1-17-30 of the Code of Ordinahces of St. ~ucie County, impact fees. Chairman Wesloski asked if ~here were any questions for Mr. Malvan. At this tirne, Chai~an Wesloski .opened the public portion of the heating. C~airman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further argumentS in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 11 closed ~he pUblic portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards ofreview as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. Grande moved that the: Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County CommissiOners grant approval to the a lication of Surf'N Sand P o er ' - ~. · · ~ . · , PP.. r 0 t~es, Inc. for a Change in Zoning ~°m the .CC (Commercial, General)Zoning District t~ the HIRD (Hutchinsonlsland Residential District)Zoning District'because it Will cOnform to the community and is generally.better for the community as a whole, Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if them was any discussion. Upon rOll call the motion was approved 8-0. Chairm~m Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 12 OTHER BUSINESS. Chairman Wesloski asked if there .Was any other business. Chairman Wesloski asked whether or not the Board had received the very nice letter concerning Mr. Kelly and JoAnn Riley, regarding their hard work on the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Wesloski stated that she personally did not want to receive the Board of County Commissioners Minutes in her packet. She further requested those members that did not want to receive tlhe minutes to let Ms'. Riley know or if only those minutes in relationship to what the Board does, to alSo contact Ms. Riley. Chairm~m Wesloski asked what Board.members required the minutes, Ms. Dreyer .stated she would like to receive the minUtes. Mr. 'Grande stated he would like to continue to receive the minutes. Chairman Wesloski, clarified and it was confirmed that only those minutes that pertain to the action of the Board were necessary. Mr. Lounds asked Mr, Kelly if there are a lot of land locked parcels in the County. Mr. Kelly stated that there are a number of parcels located within the County from actions that previously took place in the County. He stated that they are primarily in areas of old plats. C-hairmm.~ WeS!oski asked Mr. Kelly if'the Board would be doing another Comprehensive Plan meeting soon. Mr. Kelly stated that the Capital Improvements Element would need to' be dealt with at sometime. Mr. Kelly' stated that he currently is attempting to put the individual sections of the plan together into a unified document. He stated ~that this is necessary to figure out how you pay for the recommendations Mr. Merritt asked ~. Kelly why the MPO selected 25th Street as their number one priority to four- lane since no concurrency had been. invoked, 'but was invoked on Midway Road. Mr. Merritt asked, "Mr Kelly why 25th · Street takes precedence over Midway Road?" Mr. Kelly stated that 25~ and Midway has been considered as a package and they are being looked at together, Mr. Kelly stated .that 25th Street is a critical link between Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucieo Mr. Merritt stated that the rationaledoesn't make sense. Chairman Wesloski ~stated that there appeared .to be someone in the audience who would like to ask a question. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Kelly stated that he spoke briefly to the ladies in the audience and informed them that he would speak with them again at the end of the meeting. Ms. Wesloski-asked Mr. Kelly: if it was regarding something the Board. had already acted on. Mr. Kelly stated that the ladies were concemed about who actually owns the Assembly of God Faith Temple Church property, they thought they owned the property. Mr. Kelly stated that staff will verify who owns the property. Chairman Wesloski requested that Mr. Kelly speak with the ladies and ensure that the property is actually owned by Assembly of God Faith Temple ChurCh. Mr. Kelly stated that the petition would not go forward until the ownership of the property is clearly delineated. Mr. Kelly stated that after speaking with the two ladies it was determined that they actually own the property next door. There being no ~rther business, the meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency August 19, 1999 Page 14 PLaNiNG, ~D~ ZONING COMMISSION/LOC~: PLANING AGENCY ST- LUCIE' COUNTY, FLORIDA JULY15,1999 ' ~GUL~ MEETING Ui~.~~I~~L~ MINUTES SU J ECT TO PLANNING & Z NgNG BOARD MEMBERS .PRESENT: Stefan Matthes, Carson McO~dy, Noreen Dreyer, Charles Grande, Albert Moore, Diana Wesloski BO~) MEMBERS' ~.SENT: Ramon.Trias, Ed .Merdtt, Ed Lounds (all excused)' OTHERS .PRESE.NT: Heather Yotmg, Assistant County Attome..; JUlia ShewChuk Communi Development Director; Dared Kelly, Plannmg Manager; Hank Flores, Planner III; Cynd~ Snay, Planner II; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski ANNOUNCEMENTS: -Mr. Kelly stated that he had two announcements: Mr. Kelly stated that the' Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge and Solid Waste Sub- Elements have been provided to the Board tonight for the July 29th meeting. These Elements have also been provided to-the StudY Group. The Potable Water and Sanita~ Sewer 'Sub-Elements will also be provided to 'the BOard and the Study Group next week. Mr. Kelly stated that he would .like to comment on Agenda Item #8, Joseph E. Hemdon, for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval, and a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) ZOning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Hemdon Estates). ~Zoning District. Mr. Kelly stated that the Board has before them a request from representatives of the project to postpone the public heating because there are wetland issues that need to be resolved on the ~project. Mr. Kelly stated that he woUld recommend.the Board use the words "continue until a date certain of August 19, 19:99 at 7:00 p.m. or as' soon thereafter as it may be heard" rather than the:word "postpone." He stated that in order for this Board to continue the public heating until August 19, 1~999, the public hearing 'tonight will have to be opened. He stated that there are a number of people present tonight and ~he has spoken"to at least one who will likely object to the cominuance. - Mr. KellY stated that it has been the policy of this Board if the public hearing is opened tonight and planning & Zoning Commission/ LoCal Planning Agency July ~! 5, 1999 Page 1 APPROVAL OF PLANING ~D ~ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 20, 1999 Chairman Wesloski asked.if them were any additions or corrections to the minutes. There being no additions or .co~ections to the minutes-of the May 20, 1999 meeting, ~Chairman Wesloski asked for amotion. Mr?.. ~hes made a motion for appm;val} and it was seconded by Ms, Dreyer, Upon ~roll call, the motion was .apprOved 5-0, with Mr. McCurdy abstaining. APPROVAL OF PLANING ~D ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - ~GUL~ MEETING OF JUNE 17' 1999 Chairmm~ Wesloski .aSked if there were-any additions or corrections to the minutes. There being no additions or corrections to the minutes of the June 17, 1999 meeting, Chairman Weslosh asked fora motion. Ms. Dreyer made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon roll[ call, the motion was approved 6-0. Planning:& Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 3 lots, and into the ~hmre which is consistent, with the St.' .LuCie:-CoUnty Mr. Zeiss stated'that he has copies .of the proposed site plan and provided such to the audience. At this time, Chaim~ Wesloski Opened the public portion of the heating. that residents work, . ~Fort Pierce, addressed the'Board. 'Mr. Hall stated m~ea decision tonight. He stated that ~everyone'is here, ~most of the for everyone to come back next .month. Mr. Hall stated that the resi He stated that.~e residents the residents doubts cannot ~tm down,the mst. There is enough land Chai~an WeslOski asked 'do' not have a problem With the homes being placed in a ,cluster. the property rezoned. He does not understand whY the same ~the Property, there are twenty-fiVe acres, make six and'one- dom the center of the property, He Stated that will eliminate ~owth on the parcel. He stated that once the property is reZoned to and the ~ residents have the fights to build on one acre lots, you theY do not want to deny. e the fight to live out there. to bUild four homes~.on 'six and one'quarter.acre l°ts. .- happen in ten years. cul-de-sac can be placed in one-quarter .acre lots, .and is-no telling what could Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Hall if he believes .if the Hemdons' move ~e cul'de-sac to the center of the property that would elevate any further posSible development on another owner's piece of property. Mr. Hall stated that the res: eliminate the-PUD (Planned 1 homes on. twenty-five acres a they can still have the same dents do not want this property rezoned, He stated that he would Jm't Development), give the Hemdon's a Variance to build these four ~d allow them to do the improvements that they want. He stated that subdivision, Hemdon Estates, divide the Property into six and one- ty~would be satisfied. Iteould stay G-5 (A~cultural- 1 du/5 acres) ~e on six and one-quarter acre tracts an~l the pUD (Planned Unit acre for future problems, once you al~°w a PUD (Planned Unit tou will have to give it to someone else. There are 300 acres on that ns fight now. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency JulY 15, 1-999 Page 5 Mr. Kelly stated that Designation on this 1 .du/5 acres), so there is no way.that more.density-than five homes on twenty-five.acres coUld be there. Mr. stated that 't : ' ff ~ he. ~Hemdons ~ ~ c KellY's comments. He stated~ that they are present tonight a PbrD (Planned Unit Development) in the area. He in AG.5 (AgriCUltural- 1 d~5' acres), then let it haPpen. Hemdons' could bUild in AG-5 aSk. solution, - 1 du/5 acres) · for six and one- that the Hemdons' have Mr. Hall. stated that he believes there is a-wetland in the ~ea where one of the homes is to be cons~cted which would cause the cul-de.sac to be moved. Mr. Ke ly stated that.~s why the request for the postponement came ~n, because the'Hemdons' need to leek at. 'the ~design and figure o.~]t :hOW to wo~'k arOund th:at situation. Mr. Hall stated that- .if the. eul,de-sac were moved down, with six and one-quarter acre lots, with the same design of homes built :in the Cul'de-sac, the residents would n6f argue at all, and it would eliminate the possibility of the fifth home. Chainnm~ Weslosh stated:that the proposed site plan cOuld change prior to the next meeting due to the wetland question. Mr. Kelly stated that if the Board were to consider this petition tonight, the proposed site plan that has been submitted would have ~to be considered. The. drawing has a significant problem with a wetland, the applicant has ~ked for'time to :researCh and deal with the wetland, and come back, and staff believes that 'is a reasonable request. Chairman Wesloski stated that she Would like to .take an uncommitted poll of the ~Board as.to their willingness gUity of a possible wetland. The members of the Board were all in faVOr of Mr. Moore stated that the continuance may. benefit Mr. Hall and .the residents as well as the Board in mahng a decision tonight and he understands 'Mr. Hall and the residents have to work. Chairman WesloSh' stated that an .offiCial vote did not take place, but is seems sensible to.continue this petition. Chairman. Wesloski stated that if you have an objection to the continuance that is what should be addressed at this time. Planning & Zoning Commission/' Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Kelly stated yes thatthat is the limit on the.number. P~ (Planned Unit Development) would allow them-to be CluStered differently. Mr. JaCkson asked Mr, Kelly what can the P~ (Planned Unit Development): tum into. Mr. Kelly stated that ~the Use Designation which Development) Mr: JaCkson asked .~. Kelly 'ri:he property cannot be left the way' it is. Mr. Kelly ~stated hat the Hemdons have-asked to have four two--acre lots and a big .open field, instead ¢~f having five.or mOre acreS, in each lot. Mr. Jackson asked ~, Kelly if this is because of the cost of the road. could pack in more homes p acre? that it Will acres for that large western because conditions change. ~.-Kelly stated life times, because this County will enforce one home per five and that Land Use Map will stay the same. Mr. Kelly , stated ~ that this Board is curremly, in another venue, looking at the St. Lucie County ComprehensiVe Plan. He s~a~ed that this Board'has reviewed that map and no one has made any effort to-Change to have mo~ densitY ~ ~. jack:son asked Mr. Kelly if he can guarantee that. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not believe that is going tO'happen. Mr. Jackson. asked ~m, ne were to propose a big development or other homes near happen again. Mr. Kelly stated yes, it coUld! Mr. Jackson asked Mr, Hemdons' say they want to' if the residents would have to come back and fight again, if the in more hOmes for other family members. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 9 to have .Somet~g Other than fo~ homes on this property, because they do not trust the Hemdons' to take .care of the Property, the way they:have.t~en care of their property, they are proud to live there. She stated that.they are ve~ proud people who like their country living, they are proud of their prope~y and they wish th Hemdons were ~as proUd .of their property. Ms. Sinbine :stated that ~ey :do not want a PUD (Planned unit Development). If the Hemdons' can change the proposed site pl~: to. avoid the 'wetlands-that they have :been. throwing, garbage into, then maybe t~s can be'worked Out. As lOng as the residents do not 'trust'what is going on, :the residents · do not want this done. Chainmm Wesloski-asked :if them was anyone else who would like to speak that possibly will not be here next month, or to object to the continuance. Hearing no fu~her arguments, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the ~hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure-of the 'Board. Mr. McCurdy made a motion to cominue this petition to the August 19, 1999, meeting. Mr. Moore seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski a" ' sked if there was any discussion. Upon roll call, the.motion was approved, 5-0. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly once the proposed site plan has been amended if staff could contact a representative.of the community to let them know that it is available and/or if there are.any further changes. Mr. Kellty stated yes and asked if there is a representative of the community that would like to vOlunteer. Mr. Kelly stated that Mimi 'Smith has volunteered to be the representative and asked Mr. Kelly if residents would receive a new'letter. Mr. Kelly stated that because this hearing 'has been continued to a date certain of August 19, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon ~thereafter as_possible, there is no reqUirement for-additional notice. Chairman Wesloski stated that Mr,' Kelly will be in contact with Mimi Smith as soon as new information is available. Mr. Kelly stated that he will request that the applicant provide drawings on a small scale that can be distributed to the neighborhood so they will have enough copies to look at. Chairmm~ .Weslosh. stated that if there are any questions, residents can contact~Mr. Kelly. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, I999 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING PIPPIN TRACTOR FILE NO. ~'99-016 MS. Cyndi Snay presented staff comments. Ms.S petition of Pippin Tractor for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agficult~al, I d~acre). Zoning District-to the CG (Co~ercial, General) Zoning Dis~ct for property located on the e~t Side of~gs Highw~ approximately ½ ~le'n0rth of St. LOcie:Boulevard. Ms. Snay stated that the purpose of the rezoning is to construct a retail tractor sales and se~ice facility. demands on service deliveries. Ms. Snay stated that staff has reviewed this petition-and determined that it conforms with 'the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Goals, ObjectiVes, and Policies of the St. Lucie county Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefi>re, reco~ending that you fo~ard this .petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Ms. Snay. Chairmm~ Wesloski asked if~the applicant was present: and would like to address the Board. Mr. Joe -.;apra, with-CAPTEC Engineering, 1870 S.E. Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, addressed the Board. Mr. Capra stated' that they represent Pippin Tractor and he is available to answer any questions the Board might have about the project. Chairman 'Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Capra. At t~s time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Westoski asked if:there was anyone that would like to. speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments, in favor of or in opposition' ' to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Planning & Zoning 'Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARING ANTHONY COSCIA & SONS, L.C. FILE NO. RZ-99-018 Mr. Hank Flores presented staff co~ents. Mr. Flores stated, that he-was:present~g the' petition of Anthony Coscia & Sons, .L.C; fora Change in Zoning from the CN (Commemi'al, Neighborhood) Zoning Disffict to the HiRD (Hutchinson Island Residential.~DiSffic0 Zoning Disffict for 3.81 acres of property located on.the west .side of South ~State Road A-I-A, directly across from 'the Regency Island D~es, .Phase II. Mr. FlOres stated that the applicant is proposing that the subject property will complete the developmem of the Isl~dDunes.Comm ~unitY.with a residential subdivision. Mr. Flores stated that the surrounding zoning .to the subject property is HIRD '(HUtchinson Island Residem:ial Dis~ct) to the east, CN (Co ~mrnercial, Neighborhood) to the south. CG (Co~ercial, General) to the northwest. Mr. Flores stated that staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. LuCie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the St. Lucie County Compr:ehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you fo~ard.thi's petition to the Board of County Co~issioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman WesloskJ asked if there were'~y questions for Mr. Flores. Chairman WeSlosh ~asked if the applicant was present and would like to address.the Board, ~. Hgold Melvilie, 2940 South 25th Street, Fo~ Pieme, ~ad~essed the Board. ~..Me!ville stated that he represents Anthony Coscia & Sons, L.C. As stated by staff, this is a petition to rezone approximately. 3.81 acres ~o'm CN (Co~erCial, Neighborhood) to H~ (Hutchinson Island Residemial Disffict). This is the last parcel of the Ocean Dunes complex. To the ~south of this p~cel is the Island Dunes Country Club. Across the street is the Regency Island Dunes, Phase ii. Mr. Melville staed that the subject parcel w~ zoned CN (COmmercial, NeighborhoOd) back-in the ! · , , -980 s w:tth the ong~na! concept to have limited commemial in connection With the overall Island Dunes project, there has not been a market demand for l~ted commercial in the area, in the s~er, a small business just could not s~ive. ~.-Melville stated that ~e B~d was provided in thek packets a of Country lub. As set forth in this letter, the I the residents of the Island Dunes Directors are of the Condominium As a result, they feel they representative of the support from the President Dunes Country Cub s and it's Board of ociations in Island Dunes. as a whole and they are Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 15 five or six minks clustered:together. Gumbo'LimbO,.numerous ranging from.sixteen to thirty-five inches in diameter. These must :be.preserved and we must look to this government to secure that for US. Cha rm,m Weslosk~ asked Mr. Flores if the applicant.will be required to prepare a tree invemory. Mr- FloreS.~stated .that 'the petition before the Board: tonight is to dete~ine if H~ (Hutchnson Island ReSidential District)~ is compatible and to determine if the the standards of review, staff on-site, the plan ~in an attempt to avoid the areas :where the-more significant vegetatiOn, exists. Chainn~xt Wesloski stated-to ~ LiPpineott that. some .ofhis concems are being addressed. Mr. Lipl?inc0tt asked ~. Flores When more ~formation'would be available regarding these issues. Mr. Flores :stated .that staff has not received a formal site plan submittal. Chairman Weslosh stated to :Mr.. Lipp~cott that there are roles in place ,that prevent clean clearing. Mr. 'Lippincott stated that he just wants, to be on record. Mr. Lippincott stated that they would not be happy with the density stated tonight. They believe three or f'our homes ~:~e appropriate, fiReen is totally inappropriate. They-are happy with moving from commercial to reSidential, Chairman Weslosh asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Melville if he would like to speak again. Mr. Melville stated that this is a very valuable piece of property and the issues raised by Mr. Lippincotl are impo~ant to the applicant. Keeping the property looking nice is extremely important to having a high sales value ~and they Will continue to work with staff on these issues. He stated that the issue is CN (Commercial., Nei~borhood) versus HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential Disffict), not the site plan of the property. He believes there will be less environmental damage with .HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District)than you would have with CN (Commercial, Neighborhood).. Planning & .Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15; 1999 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARING 'CROCE GIAMB~CO FILE NO. RZ-99-019 Mr.'Hank Flores presented staff comments. Mr. Hmtk Flores .that he ~was presenting thy petition ofCroce Giambanco for a Change in Zoning from the CG (co~ereial, General)Zoning Distfict to the I (Insti~tional) Zo~.ng Dis~Ct fOr proPerty located at-6609 NOah U,S. Highway N°. 1. ' Mr. Flores stated that' the p~oSe of the rezo~ng is to establish an Institutional Residential Home. 1 dU/acre)to the 'west.across'Turnpike Feeder Road. CG (Co~ercial, General) (Agrieult~al, Residential - Mr. Flores stated that the proposed home is next to a restaurant also subject property isc i~ the location. of a-non'conformh rezo~ng is to allow for the establishment, oran hsfimtional disabled, adults. the applicant. The Theintent of this Mr. Flores stated that staff has reviewed this petition and stand,ds of review as set forth in the. St..Lucie County Land conflict.with the ~St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, forward l:his petition to the Board of Cotmty Commissioners with a~ that it conforms with the Code and is not in recommending that you approval. Chairmma Wesloski .asked if there were any questions for'Mr. Flores. Mr. Moore stated-that the staff report reflects this is-to establish an or developmentally disabled adults. Mr. Moore~asked Mr. Flores as~a permitted use in I (Institutional). Residential Home would come under item c Mr. Flores stated yes, an.~stitutional Residential Home which could be a Congregate Care Facility or an Adult Living Facility. Mr. Grande asked ~. Flores if.this-~pOtential facility is approved and licensed by HRS (Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). Mr. Flores stated no because, at 'this time the facility does not meet code~ requirements. Ms.. Dreyer stated that she does not believe HRS Will license the facility without confirmation zoning. of¸ Planning,& Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 19 .contact .with, the subject property dates back t° 1952 when hs parents ran a restaurant and gas station at this location. He stated that.Mr, C~ambanco has d0nea wonderful' job with ~the building and business. He takes'his hat offto Mr. Giamb~co. It is athing ofbeauty and the residents are proud of it on. No~h U.S' 1. He stated that he supports Mr. Giambanco's efforts if he were to do as present~,d here tomght ~th the ap~ents. He is a good beautiful-property, he has t~en a nm-dom .area and made something the Co,unity proud of,: Cham~m WeslOsh asked if there was anyone that Would like to spe~ in favor of or in opposition Chaim~m Wesloski asked:if:there were any fimher questions for Mr. Giambanco. Hearing no further arguments, in i~avor~ of or ~n' opposition· to the petition, Chairman WesloSki closed the pUblic 'p'ortion of the hearing. Chairman Weslosh asked.what would be the pleasure of the Board. Zomg District Change. Mr. McC, urdy seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any discussion. Upon mill cai1, the motion was approved, 6'0. Chainnm~ WesloSki stated~ that the petition would be forwarded to the ~Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 21 Ms. Dreyer asked Ms. Snay to explain the dia~am: with the houses and numbers prOvided in the packet. Ms. Snay stated that the nUmbers depict the number of family residential homes within 1,000 feet. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After-considering ~e'testim0ny presented d~g the.public heating, including' staff comments, and the stamtardS of reView ~set fo~in Section 11.07,03, St. Lucie County Land Development COde, Mr, McCUrdy moved that the Pl~ng .and Zo~ng Co~ission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board .of-Co~ty Co~issioners grant approval to the application ofMarlene Hadden, for a Conditional Use Pe~it ~to allow a.family-residential home within 1,000 feet of'another family residential ~home in.the RS-4 (Residential, single-Family_ 4-du/acre) Zoning District because it conforms with all apPlicable codes .~d regulations. Mr. Grande secondedthe motion. Chffmnan WeSloski asked if there was any discuSsion. Upon rOll call, the. motion was approved, 6~0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approVal. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1'999 Page 23 D~FT ORDINANCE 99-017 Mr. Haxtk Flo'res presented.staff comments. Mr. Hank Flores that he was presenting Draft Ordinance 99-017 which proposes to-mend the St. Lucie Co ~unty, Land~ Devetopment.,,-Code.. by. amending Section. 7.10.16(Q)(1)(a)(1)(c) to provide for the cI~fieation of common: use areas m refer-tO public and private road fights-of-way only. Mr, Flores stated ~at the proposed amendment was.submitted by Jacquelene E. Veach in accordance with:the provisions of the St. LUeie Land Development Code. Mr, Flores .stated that ~ the ~petitioner ,would like.to amend the definition of common use areas ~ used the setback from the.pedes~an access is a~~mum of five (5) feet, e, r is loCated,on the lef~ or the fight Side ofthe :lOt. The petitioner is propo~ lots l: .regardless-of whether or there is a pedes lot. The f the St. LUcie Code do not allow ~owners of lots ~' the Nettles Island deVelopment to fi lots. rdless of whether the access ing that the setbacks fOr ail .tiaa access ~adjacent to that 2o~ty L~d DevelOpment tlly:utilize the space oftheir Mr. Flores stated .that staffhas reviewed the request and recommends approval of a change to the text of the St. LUcie-County Land Development Code as stated in Ordihance 99-017. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Flores. Mr. Moore asked ~. Flores what negative ramifications this could have on future RV Parks. Mr. Floras stated that he is not aware of any negative ramifications on future RV Parks. He stated Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 page 27 Ms. Dreyer aSked Mr. Flores .if this is What the residents want. Mr. Flores stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked if:there were any fi~her questions-for Mr. Flores. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public portion of the heating. Chairm~m Weslosh :~ked ifthere was anyone that would like to speak in favor ofor in opposition to this [)raft Ordinance. ' The Cormty has alloWed them to.build single-family residences. Ms. Brown :stated that she is :one 'of fi~y five unit owners who feel they are being penalized for o~ngthree sided lots (whch have been referred to as comer lots). They are asking that the County not condemn-five feet.-oftheir property: because theY are next 'to a co ~mmon use area, they are being taxed and they pay :taxes to-the County on thek. survey. She stated that at the time their Board ask for the five foot to be included in the Ordinance (96-010) they thought they would gain three feet, but ~ey ,cannot build be~een structures,, only to their survey. If they are deprived of five feet, either side, whether it is to the left or to the fight,' they are cut ~down five feet on their bUilding space. Ms. Brom stated that ~e-wording on page 3 of Draf~ Ordinance 99-017, paragraph (c), "five (5) feet ~ nly, is b~~s:xng'"the~: five foot they.~are'being penalized for, because thek land is' neg a.common area. She stated .that if she Were ~to move her 1980 ~ailer to build a single-family residence, she would be~-penalized fiVe foot or.her property that she is paYing taxes on. Ms. Brown stated that Nettles Island is referred to as a Recreational Vehicle Park. They are not- They fall[ under 'the County Ordinance of a Recreational Vehicle Park. They are zoned H!RD (Hutchinson Island Residential Dis~ct). She' is not .sure how :the roads and the right-of-ways were entered into this petition. Mr, Grande asked Ms. Brown if she would agree that Draft Ordinance 99-017 ~should be passed as presented, bY staff. Ms. Brown stated no. She would like the wording "five foot on either side of a common use area" deleted. ,~he stated leave the words right-of-way as far as roads. She stated that their roads are private and they main~in them. She stated that the roads should not enter into this request for an Ordinance change.at all. ' Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 29 a waI~ay and Mr. Veach has lost:three, sales because, of t~s clause. Mr, Kelly a lot line to a public or 99-017 in ve~ simPle terms. If you have public or the roles are on which side of the Ms. Dreyer.asked Mr. Kelly if it would be PosSible to grant a variance to Nettles Island, Inc. as a whole and not amend the ~St, Lucie County Land Development Code. Mr. Kelly stated ~that the v~ance 'procedure is intended to look at individual'circmstances. He stated that Nettles Island, may not .be able to-meet all of the tests fOr a variance, i.e., hardship, uniqUeneSs and the Othe; go with v~ances. Mr, Grande asked Mr. Kelly if the specific language that Ms. Brown is concerned With does not apply to Nettles Island, Inc. because their :lots are platted. Mr. parks si~nilarly It.does not apply to Nettles Island, Inc. It would not apply to other there are pedestrian fightS-of-way. Mr. Grande asked Mr. KellY if leaVing the language as presemed by staff~will have no affect whatsoever on Nettles Island,~ Inc. because their lots are platted. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Chairman Wesloski stated that:she believes 'there is still some confusion regarding common areas. pedestrian areas. He stated that the intent of "lotS adjacent to pedestrian access shall not be considered comer lots" is that comer lots are only thOse lOts that .are adjacent-to roadways. Mr. Moore asked Mr. Kelly if the sentence could be reworded to "the common use areas Shall not refer to p~destrian rights-of-way. Mr. Kelly stated that canals are considered common use areas. ~He would not want to place a structure up against a canal fight-of-way in other RV Parks. Ms. Dreyer suggested using "roadways". Mr. Bill iDeiters, president of.the Board of Directors at Nettles Island, .addressed the Board. Mr. Deiters stated that they would'like the deletion of the present role that states the oWner t° the fight of a. sideV~alk must give :up five feet of their property. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 3-1 BOard. Ms. Miller stated that five 'feet may not sold like a'lot, but these lots are thirty five feet wide, siXty five feet deeP, If you take five feet away, you are talking a considerable amount of .ahome. With the new language.that is being proposed, everyone 'you are located next to the sidewalk. The residents who have a~s: even'with azero lot line, end up with more than eight feet between their neighbor :and their home. Ms. Miller stated that the e~ent.language states those RV lots .that have not been platted. That Should have exclUded Nelles Island from the entire five foot issue. It very clearly stated unless there are no lot lines 'established, then the' mie is put.into play. As a result of the interpretation there are residents in this mom who spent five hundred dollars in an attempt to obtain a variance and were denied.. She does not believe the 'variance should have been required in the first place.' The interpretation w°Uld 'indicate that Nettles Island should not have fallen un ' der that partmular paragraph. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else that would .like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this Draft Ordinance. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in. opposition to-the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairm~m Wesloski asked if there were any questions or discussion, Mr. Grande-asked ~Mr. Deiters if:the language proposed by Ms. Young would specifically meet his concerns. Mr. Deiters stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure .of the Board. After considering the tesfimo~ the standards of review as set Mr. Grande moved that the approval, of Draft Ordinam does not contradict anything ~y presented.during the public hearing, including staff commems, and forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Pl~ng ~d Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of :e 99-017, as amended by Ms.' Young's comments to the St. Lucie missioners because it meets all of the objectives of the residents and :hat exists currently in the County. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Chainnma Wesloski asked if ~here was any discussion. Upon~roll call, the motion was approved, 6-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that Draft Ordinance 99-017 would be forwarded to the Board of County Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 33 OTHER BUSINESS: Chairm~m Wesloski asked if there was any other business. · Chairm~m Wesloski stated that the next meeting is scheduled for July 29, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Chairman WesloSki 'stated .that .she Will not be able to attend this meeting. Mr, Matthes stated that 'for.the record he will-not be able to attend this, meeting. Chairman WeSlosh stated ~tha~ the July 29"' meeting could possibly be the last Comprehensive Plan meeting she would like to th~ Staff and the Study Group. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 15, 1999 Page 35 PLANNING ~D ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA JUNE 17, 1999- REGULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Merritt, Ramon Tdas, Carson McCurdy, Noreen Dreyer, h "~ m Carles Grande, Albert Moore (arrived.at 8:24 excused) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Stefan Matthes, Ed Lounds, ~Diana Wesloski (all excused) OTHE~$ P~SEN~i'.: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Julia Shewchuk, Community Development Director; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Hank Flores, Planner-III; Cyndi Snay,' Planner II; Cheil Thoie,'elanning Intern; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ~LEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman McCurdy ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Kelly stated that Agenda Item #I, Adron and.Pamela Chambers, for a Ch~ge in Zoning fi. om the RS-3 (Residential, ~Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial., .Office) Z°ning District has been Withdram by the applicants. Mr. Kelly .stated. that Agenda Item #2,-Pippin Tractor, fOr a'Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (AgficulturaI, 'Residential - 1 d~acre) Zoning District to the.CG (Commercial, General) Zoning DiStrict has been withdrawn by the applic~t. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 1 PUBLIC' HEARING CASSENS LAND ENTERPRISES, INC. FILE NO. RZ-99-007 Chairma:n McCurdy explained the Planning and Zoning Commission heating procedures. Ms. Cyndi Snay presented staff comments. Ms. Snay stated that she was: presenting the.petition of Cassens Land Enterprises, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the AR~-I (A.~cul~al, ReSidential - 1 du/acre)Zoning District to the.IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District. Ms. Snay stated that the purpose of the rezoning is to continue the existing warehouse/storage operation, for property located at.3180 North Kings Highway. The subject property is located within 'the ~-Ai~ort land use desi~ation. Ms. Snay stated that according to Policy 1.1.'7.4. of the. St. Lucie County~Comprehensive Plan the subject pyoperty Would be appropriate for :either co~ercial or industrial development. The -applicant:~'s request for a change in Zoning would .be compatible and would ~rther the Goals, Objectives, ~d POlicies of the St. Lucie 'Co~ty Comprehensive Plan, The rezoning is not expected to create additional dem~ds ~n se~ice delivery as the subject property is already being utilized as a storage/w Use facility in association With a.grove. '-' Ms. Snay ~stated that staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards ofreview as set forth inthe St. Lucie County Land Development Code and that the request is consistent with-the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the St Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, .reeo~endmg that you forward this petition to the Board of County -Commissioners With a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy .asked if there was any discussion of the Board. At this time, Chai~an McC~dy opened the public portion of the hearing, Mr. Steve Cassens, 3180 North Kings Highway, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Cassens stated that he would be: ~happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Cassens if this parcel of land is currently in operation. Mr. Cas'se:ns stated that c~ently there is ~ office, a warehouse, and a maintenance shop. He stated that he is concerned about the warehoff~'e which he stores agricultural products and repairs pallet bins for pachng, houses'. He saidthat he would like to use this .warehouse for other reasons, such as for paper goodS. Planning & 'Zoning Commission/' Local .Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Merritt ~asked Mr. Cassens what is located next to the warehouse. Mr. Cassens stated that.the piece of property that is located directly to the south of the warehouse is a mower repair shop. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any other questions from the 'Board. Chai~anMcCurdy asked if there was anyone elSe from the public that would like to speak on this issue. Hearing no arguments in favor.or in opposition to Cassens Land Enterprises, Inc., Chairman McCurdy Closed the public portion of the hearing. Chainnm~ McCurdy ~asked what was. the pleasure of the Boardl After considering the testimony.presented during 'the public hearing, including staff commems, and the st~d~ds of review ~ set forth inSecfion 11.06.03, :St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Mr. Memi~ moved ~at the P!~g and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board ofCo~ty Co~issioners ~ant approval to the application of Cassens Land Enterprises, Inc., for alCh~ge'in.Zo~ng from the ~-.1 (Agricultural, Residential - ! du/acre),Zoning District to the :IL (Indusffial,. Light)Zoning District. .- Mr. Grande.seconded the :motion, and :upon roll call the motion was .approved 5-0. Chairmart .MeCurdy stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County CommisSioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING SEMINOLE FARMS (DANIEL .A. RUBINO, AGENT) FILE ~NO. RZ-99-015 Ms..Cyndi Snay presented staff comments. Ms. Snay .stated that'she was presenting the petition of Seminole Farms (Daniel A. Rubino, Agent), for a Chang ~ in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the ~-1 (AgricultUral, Residemial - 1 dtffacre) Zoning District for a 1.15 acres ofland located at 505 East Midway Road. Ms..Snay stated that the purpose of the rezoning is to expand an existing grove. Ms. Snay stated that the subject property is designated with an RU (Residential Urban) land use. The s~o~ding .zo~ng to the subject property is RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family -3 du/acre) to- the south., east, and west, RS'2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) to the north. Ms.'Sn' a~.~ stated·" that~ ' the~" ..... general development character of this area is. residential. The existing. · use of the.'suPject property ~ a ~ove, is-not permitted within the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 d~acre) Zoning Di.stfiet, Based upon the. use being in existence prior to'zoning going .into' effect, the use is considered'~a non. confOrming use.of record. According to the Land Development'Code, the a pphcant may not expand a non-cOnfo~ing use. In:order to expand the use, the applicant is requim~d to rezone to a diathct which will allow agricultural uses. Ms. Snay stated that the area is developed with an urbanized residential character. This area was developed under the 'RS-3 (ResidemiaI, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning Disffict guidelines. Therefore, the AR-1 (Agricul~al, Residential - 1 du/acre) district would not be appropriate for this area. Ms. Snay stated that.the pphcant's request is incompatible with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning would not result in the continuing orderly and logical development pattern of this area. Ms. Snay stated that staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform with the standards of review .as set fo~h in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is in conflict with.the Goals, Objectives, and.Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, reco~ending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Chairman. McCurdy ~asked if there were any questions .from the Board. At this time, Chairman McCurdY opened the public portion of the hearing. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 4 Chairman McCurdy asked if there ~was anyone who would like to speak on this issue. Hearing. no comments in favor or in oppoSition to Seminole Farms (Daniel A. Rubino, Agent), Chairman McCurdy closed the public.portion of the hearing. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr. Grande stated that:if he ~derstood correctly, granting this would be memorializing the current non-conforming use for the purpose of expanding the non-conforming use. Ms. Snay stated that is correct. After considering the testimony ~presemed during the public hearing,-including staff comments, and the standards of review aS.set fo~ in :Section 11.06'.03, St. Lucie Cotmty Land Development Code, Ms. Dreyer moved :that the Pl~ng and'Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the ~application of Seminole .Farms (Daniel A. Rubino, Agen0, :for a'Change 'n Zomng from the RS-3 (Residential Single-Family 3 du/acre) Zoning Land Development 'Code., itwould appear to place spot zoning in the middle of a residential area and while the.omer can· . continue .with~ the non-confo~ing use. as is, 'sh.-.~' e does' not want to see that use exp~ded. Mr. Grande-seconded the motion, and upo.n roll call the motion.was approved 5-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING WOLFGANG HOFHERR FILE NO. CU-99-001 Ms. Cyndi Snay presented staff comments. Ms. Cyndi Snay stated that she was presenting the petition of Wolfgang Hofherr for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the manufacturing of cut stone and stone products in the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District for.property located within the Kings Highway Industrial Park. Ms. Snay stated that the apPlicant is proposing to manufacture marble and stone custom objects. The operation of the business will occ~ completely inside the building. The ~ngs Highway Industrial park was;. develoPed .for multiple industrial Uses. The proposed use will be compatible with the uses located within the exiSting industrial park. Ms. Snay stated that. the proposed use: is not expected to negatively impact any property located Within the surrounding area Or produce additional demands on pubic services. Chairm~ McCurdy asked iflthere were ~any comments.from the.'Board. Mr. Grande asked Ms..Snay if there was any chance for discharge of pollutants imo the canal. Ms. Snay ~stated that the applicant has submitted information that the production would only include the cutti:fig'of stone and n0i'the actUal ~making of it' Chairmm~ McCurdy asked if there were any other questions for staff. At this-time, Chairman McCurdy opened ~the public portion of the hearing. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this issue.. Mr. Michael Jacquin, of Paul Jacquin & SOns, 7348 Commemial Circle, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. jacquin Stated tha~ he would like to provide the Board with infOrmation on the machines that will be-used. He stated that the machine is designed for cutting and is on order from 'Italy. They are also involved with c°~terltops. He Stated that the business is currently lOcated in tndi~n River County mad they would like tO move to the Industrial Park. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Jacquin stated that in regmds to the question regarding contaminants, the products used ~are made of natural stone, which they grind with water. He stated that there are no effects at all. Ms. 'Dreyer asked Mr. JaCquin: if there are appropriate exhaust fans to filter the dust. Mr. Jacquin .stated that theywill be using water and, therefore, there will ~be no dust. It is almost like sand. Mr. Menitt asked Mr. Jacquin if sand blasting is involved. Mr. Jacquin stated that there ~was no sand blasting involved. All natural products are used. Chairmm~ ~McCurdy asked if there .was anyone else fi'om the public who would like to .speak on this issue. Hearing no further comments .in favor or in opposition to Wolfgang Hofherr, Chairman McCurdy Closed the public portion of the hearing. 'Chairman McCurdy aSked if there were any other questions from the Board. Chaimaart:McC~dy asked what was the pleasure of the Board. After.considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth h Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land DevelOpment-Code, Mr. Merd~.moved'that the Pl~g and ZOning Commission recommend that the St.' Lucie County Board of County Co~issioners grant approval, to the application of Wolfgang Hofherr, for a Conditional Use Pemt to allow the operation of'a marble and granite cutting and polis~g ,business in the IL (IndUstrial, Light) Zoning Dis~ct. Ms. Dreyer seconded the motion, .and upon roll call the motion was apprOved 5-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING ECKERD YOUTH ALTE~ATIVES, INC. FILE NO. RZ-99-017 Ms. Ch{:ryl Thole presented staff comments. Ms. Thole stated that she was presenting the petition of Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. for a Change in Zoning fi'om the CG-(Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District. The subject pmpertyis 10.25 acres and is located at 8500 Orange Avenue Extension which is on the north side of' Orange Avenue and approximately 1,000 feet west of Rock Road. Family- 4 du/acre). Ms. ThOle stated that the surrotmding land uses are T/U (Transpo~ation Utilities) to the south. PF (Public Facilities) to the north and east. RU (Residential Urban) to the .west. There .are several i (Institutional) uses in the area. The Future Land Use Classification of the immediate surrounding area is COM'(Co~ercial). Ms. Thole stated that Eckerd Yomh Alternatives is an educational service. This use requires a Conditional Use Pe~it, 'which will be considered tonight as an accompanying petition. Ms. Thole stated that staff has.reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with. the standards of review as set forth in. the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in Chairmm~ McCurdy asked if there were any questions for staff. At,this time, Chai~an McCurdy opened the public portion of the hearing. . Chairman McC~dy asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to speak on this issue. Mr. George Young, Vice President of Operations for Eckerd Youth Alternatives, addressed the Board. Mr. YOung th~ed ~the BOard for the oppo~unity .to present their need-for the property to be rezoned. He stated that Eckerd Youth Altematives is a non-profit organization .which started in 1968. They operate residential'and'non,residential-programs. He stated that one .of their better programs is the one in Fort Pierce, which has been operating since 199.6. He stated: that this program would be-a non-residential program that would se~e a maximum of 30 students between the ages of 1.3 and 18. These students are first time offenders, many Who are local to the City ~d the County. Planning & Zoning COmmission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 8 He. stated~that their cu~ent site has been sold and they need to move to a new ~site by August 30, 1999. Juvenile Justice provides a review of the program on a regular basis and he read a statement from Juvenile Justice that stated an all site review was conducted and the performance rating deemed it satisfactory. Mr, Yotmg stated that this 'isa good program that will continue to assist youth in the area for years and that he hopes this Board will approve their petition. He stated that there are various people present tonight who will be able to provide any other information that the Board may require. Chairman. McCUrdy asked if there were any questions from the Board. Ms. Shelly Owens, '.124 Corinne Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Owens stated that her lot .is the nonconforming lot that is located within the residential area'to the ~est of the site. She. stated that there is ~not a Jean'Road that appears on the GIS maps and therefore, this site is directly against her backyard. She .stated :that she is opposed to this petitiOn as it will be for juvenile offenders. She stated that there is. an area that is loCated to the.east of the subject property that she believes'has been rezoned from Institutional to Utilities. Mr. Hank.Flores said that he believes that an area may have been rezoned to Utilities m allow for a telecommunications tower 'at .one. time, but he is no.t exactly sure where it is located. Ms. OwensaSked why it was. rezoned Utilities if there was an Institutional use. within there instead of directly adjacent to their residential area. Ms. Owens stated that she wanted to go on record as being opposed'to the change in zoning for the subject property. Chairman MeCt~dy asked if there .was anyone else Who would like to .speak on this issue. Mr, Arthur Pratt, 8'6.70. West Avenue B, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Pratt stated that he has owned his property for 19 years and When the St. Lucie County jail was built in the area, the Cotmty Co~issioners promised to keep an agriculture buffer zone. He stated that the first 2.5 acres of the property was Co~ercial.and he' would like to know when the back half of the property was changed, He stated that he is concerned about who will be responsible for paying for the EPA clean- up that is :needed. .. Mr. Ralph Oakey, 124 Corinne Road, Fort.Pierce, addressed the' Board. Mr. O~ey stated-that his property is' 30.feet .off the property line. He stated that-they just had a difficult time with a bus company that used to occupy the lot which made it undesirable to live there. He stated that the area that is.located be~een the jail and.the Emergency Operations Center is currently Institutional and he was wondel~g why Eckerd Youth Alternatives could not operate in this :area. He believes that it would be more r.easonab!e. He stated, that the area in which they live is going to be developed. He does not think that it Wilt be easY to devel°p and sell this land if this use. is put in. Mr. Ben Robinson, 4804 Mat~as Avenue, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Robinson stated that he serves as Deputy to the Juve~le Justice Manager for the Department of Juvenile Justice. He Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 9 stated that he is sensitive to the, concerns of the 'neighboring residents. Eckerd Youth Altematives would like .to :be good neighbors. He stated that the program will mn during typical school hours and there will be noOne .on the prope~ at :night. He said that they have been good neighbors with the residents on Atlantic Avenue. Chairman McCurdy asked Mr. Robinson if.he had stated that this would ~be a strictly daytime operation. Mr. Robinson stated that it is a daytime program. He stated that the students are bussed in and out. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Robinson if they would be bussing the students. Mr. Robinson stated ~that there are-vans which they use to pick-up the students.. Mr. Menftt asked Mr. Robinson if parents would be transporting any of the children. Mr. Robinson st.ated 'that the.program picks the ~students up from their homes .and at the end of the day brings: them 'home. Mr. 'Me~ asked.Mr.. Robinson if~the.individuals have felony.records. Mr. Robinson stated that there may be some and the offenses are minor, He stated that Juvenile Justice runs several pro.ams, :the 'most severe being a level 10 which is a residential pm.gram, a level eight, six, and four 'are residential programs as well. He stated that a level two is .one in whch the Cou~ will .attempt to give a youngster another chance to W°rk with the co--unity. Mr. Me, itt asked ~. Robinson if there'would be security on site. Mr. Robinson stated that ~there will be staff present to make sure that the roles and regulations are imposed. Chairman: McCurdy thanked Mr. Robinson. Ms..Shelly Owens, !24 Coffine~Road, Fort Pieme, addressed the-Board. Ms. Owens stated that she did not :have the oppo~nity to see a site plan for this and is not aware as-to the type of bUffer that is being proposed for :the site, She asked that this be considered when m~ing their decision on the rezoning. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Flores if this would have to come back as a Conditional Use.- Mr. Hank Flores stated that the next agenda item i§ the: Conditional Use petition for this property. He stated that a decision on the rezoning must b.e made first. He stated that conditions could be decided at that time. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 10 Ms..Owens asked Mr.. Flores what a Conditional Use is, Mr. Flores stated thata Conditional Use is a use that you can have on a property subsequent to. Board of County .Commission.approVal. He stated that certain limits and numbers of hours can be set, etc. Ms. Owens 'asked Ms. Young if this heating is so, one can move forward with the plan before they go before.the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Young stated that there .are two.:heatings for each of these agenda items. She stated that this Board is a recommending body to :the Board of County Commissioners who makes the final decision.. Ms. Owens asked ~ .Mr. Kelly if it"has-beet established whether or not the entire property is designated as Co~ercial. Mr. Kelly stated 'that the informatiOn came from maps of the County and he does not remember if one of the.areas was changed. Mr. Pratt stated that the prior' owner said that the front 2.5 acres is zoned Co~ercial. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff will research this before the Board of County .Commission meeting. Ms. Owens stated that the data is incomplete regarding this. area~ Mr. Kellly stated'that he believes there is complete information and that the. entire property is CG (Commercial, General)at this time. . . NOTE: Ms. Shewchuk left.the 'meeting to check the zoning records..When she returned, she confirmed that the entire site Was zoned CG (Commercial, General). Mr. Merritt asked ~. Kelly if SOmeone could explain where the roads are and where the buildings sit in reference to the prope~y. Mr. Kelly suggested to Mr. Men~ that he discuss that infom~ation in the Conditional Use and to only deal With issues that pertain to the rezoning at this time. ~. Dale Johnson, who is employed by kene Reese Realtors, 2401 West Midway Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Johnson stated that they represent approximately twenty property owners in the Jay Gardens subdivision. He stated that. Institutional zoning would p.robably be more desirable than Commercial zoning providing there isa good buffer, a good building style, and the aesthetics are pleasing. He stated ~that he Would like.to have more information on tli~ proposed area to report to the land owners that he is represents. He believes th}s would be:a good use for the property. He questioned the property to the north of the sUbject area and to the ~east as well. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Kelly ~stated that he believes .the specifics of the .use and the site plan of the building should be discussed when the ConditiOnal Use is addressed. He believes it is more appropriate to only question material dealing with the reZoning at this time. He stated that the intent is to renovate the existing building. The children will be bussed in each day and they are not allowed to use their .own cars. It i who are first time offenders: He stated 'that staff loOked at the current site and that seem to be a problem. Mr. Johnson stated that heis :particularly concemed with a buffer that would go along Jean Road. Chairmam McCurdy asked if'there was anyone else who would like to speak on this issue. Ms. Diane Burton, P.rogram Supervisor 'for' Prevention Education for Children Homes Society, addressed the Board, Ms. BU~0n stated that they have worked with Eckerd Youth for approximately three years and that she believes that the program is exemplary. She stated that the children are strictly supervised .and that these are hds with hope. She stated that this program needs this parcel for their facility. Mr. Jam¢~s H. Brom, 5200 Mat~as Avenue, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Brown stated that he is the Executive Director for Project ROCK (Reaching Our Community Kids), and they have been involved with'the Eckerd Youth program. He stated that the kids come to the church, they clean ~d work with the ch~ch in their various activities. He stated that the Eckerd Youth kids are very well ma~ered, .they got off track, ~and are working their way back. He stated that he underst~ds :the concems of the'neighbors. He hopes this Board Will V~te in favor of this rezoning to give Eckerd Youth the oppoaunity to continue their services to the County. Mr. Gerald.Mitchell, Senior Counselor at Eckerd Youth, addressed the Board. Mr. Mitchell stated that there are kids that recently gradUated in the area and have received scholarships to local colleges, He stated that he thought :t~s would be a great opportunity for the hds and the community and they hope to be able to cofitinue their service. ' · .Mr. Dennis Raulerson stated that- he has ~a daughter in the program and it is a good program. He believes that Eckerd Youth is a great service to the kids. Ms. Fran CriveR, 'Treatment.Coordinator at Eckerd Youth, addressed the Board. Ms. Crivett stated that. she wanted to 'let the Board ~ow that the program is likea family. She stated that she never has had any concern about whether 'the kids would 'do anything wrong and if something were to happen-she believes that the. staff is strong and will work things, out immediately. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this issue. Ms. Eve MaRile stated that .her son_was in the progra~ and she understands the concems of the residents. She stated that Eckerd Youth was better for him than the public schools. She stated that she supports this program. Planning & Zoning CommissiOn/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 12 Vernon, a previous stUdem ~ofEckerd Youth, addressed the Board. Vernon stated that Eckerd Youth helped him get back on track 'in dealing with his anger management and how to communicate with his family. It~is a good program. Mr. Sandy Mack,.Supervisor ~at'Eckerd Youth, addressed, the Board. He stated that kids need therapy and if Eckerd Youth is not.able to function., the kids would be without help that-they really need. He stated ~that he sympathizeS with the residents. Mr. (unintelligible).stated ~at he haS been with Eckerd Youth for three years and that they need the support of the community to continue the program. Chai ~rpa~an McCurdy asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this issue. Hearing no. further arguments 'in favor or in opposition to Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc., Chairman 'McCurdy closed the pUblic portion of the hearing. Mr. Kelly stated that Ms. Shewchuk had checked the County records and in December of 1985 the entire 10 acres: was zoned Commemial. Chairmm.a McCurdy thanked Mr. Kelly for the information. Chairmm~ McC~dy asked 'if there was any discussion among the Board. Mr. Grande aSked Mr. Kelly about Jean Road and what kind of access 'exists to the residential properties along Jean Road. Mr. Pratt stated that road does not exist. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly if there was a fight-of-Way for Jean Road. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Dale Johnson,.who is employed by Irene Reese Realtors, 2401 West Midway Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Bo~d. Mr.. Jo~son stated that he had some information on this issue. In 1958, the Jay Gardens subdivision was accepted and puton file. Since then only a few homes have been built and the Co~ty has not done much work in that area. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was any other.questions for.staff. Chairman McCurdy asked Mr. Kelly if going from a CG (Commercial, General) Zoning to an I (-Institutional) .Zoning is considered a d~m zoning, Mr. Kelly stated that in general., he would say yes. There are generally 'less intense uses in I (InstitutiOnal) than-in CG ~Commerci.aI, General). Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 13 Chairman McCurdy asked Mr, Kelly if trucking operations would have been permitted in that area. .Mr. Kelly stated .that trucking operations are a permitted use. Chairman McCurdy asked if:there was any discussion from the Board. Chairman McCurdy asked what was the pleasure of the.Board. 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 Co~ty Land Development Code, Mr. Merri~ mOVed that ~the planning and ZOning Commission recommend that the St. £ucie County Board of County Co~issio.hers grant approval to the application of ECkerd Youth AlternatiVes, Inc., for-a Change lin Zoning from the CG (c°mmerCial, General} Zoning District t° the I (Institutional) Zoffing'DisffiCt. Ms..Dreyer seconded ~the motion, and upon .roll call the motion was apProved 5-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June l 7, 1999 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING ECI~RD YOUTH ALTERNATIVES, INC. FILE NO. CU-99-003 Ms. Cheryl Thole presented staff comments. Ms. Thole stated that.she was presenting the petition of Eckerd Youth Altematives for a Conditional .Use Permit to allow a Private School Establishment in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. The subject property is 10,25 :.acres .and is located at 8500 Orange Avenue Extension which is on the north side of Orange AvenUe and approximately 1,000 feet west of Rock Road. Ms. Thole stated that the surrounding zoning to the subject property is U (Utilities) to the south. I (InstitutiOnal) to the nOrth ~d east. AR_ 1 (Agricultural' Residenti'al- 1 rib/acre) t~ the West, with a nonconfOrming subdiviSion of which several lots have been changed to RS-4 (Residential, Single' Family- 4 dWacre). Ms. Thole stated that the surro~ding land uses are T/U (Transportation Utilities). to the south. PF (Public Facilities)to the-north .and east. RU (Residential Urban) to the west. There are several I (Instituti~>nal) uses in the area. s.Thole stated:that Eckerd youth. Alternatives curremly operates within' the City of FOrt Pierce. e building WhCh they have been leas~g has been sold. Approval of'this petition'would allow for continued serviceto the. commmty. Ms. hol{~ stated that Eckerd Youth Altematives has provided information which is attached to the r . .n, . ' ~ · . . . ' ~ · meeting packets that describes their educational progrms and operations. The attached plan shows Ms. Thole stated that staff finds that this petition., with the recommended condition, meets the '.standards of review as set forth in Section 1 !.07.03 of the St. Lucie Land Development Code and Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any questions for the Board. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. KellY if bufferS can be made a requirement, Mr. Kelly stated that appropriate conditions can be placed in the Conditional Use. He stated that Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 15 .staff included the Single condition that Eckerd Youth meet the required Code is for two reasons: The requirement fOr parking; an all weather surface needs to replace the dirt surface that currently exists. The buffer 'between residential and non-residential. Mr. Kelly stated that if the Board would like to make additional, more specific requirements, that would be fine. Chairman McCurdy asked if'there were any other questions from the. Board. Ms. Dreyer stated that she believes We need to locate these facilities, they do provide a badly needed community service and at the same time we need to provide appropriate protection for'neighbors who e concerned. She believes the applicant needs to assist in fashioning appropriate conditions that would allow the facility to operate and not to be too restrictive. She thought about: Limiting hours of operation. Appropriate buffers on the'western property line. Assuring-that the access remains where it currently is to avoid ~affic issues that -.could affect the residential neighborhood. Limited to non,residential students only. A limit to the number of full time students. Ms. Dreyer stated that she would look to the applicant and staff to look for the appropriate conditions. ~ Mr. Kelly stated that he-does .not have a problem working with the applicant. He stated that he would look at '.he ~tems mentmned by Ms. Dreyer and any other items that are appropriate before the County Co~issiOn meeting. Ms. Dreyer stated that she does not believe it would be appropriate to adopt the whole program attached to their Packets~ becaUse some ~of the items may change and some j~ist are not appropriate. as conditions. She stated that She would-like to see a restriction on the.level of offense of which the students have co~itted. Mr. Kelly..suggested establishing some ground roles and having a representative from Eckerd Youth supply additional infOrmation, so that we do not come to an impasse after the meeting. Mr. Kelly stated that access is from the south of the property line. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 16 Ms. Dreyer.stated that she was juSt trying to avoid access on the eastern boundary line. Mr. Kelly stated that the intent of Eckerd Youth is to continue the use of the current access and acknowledged their agreement .made from the audience. Mr..George Young stated that the program is non-residential and activities occur during the day .except fi>r one meeting a month that is held in the evening which parents attend. He stated that all of the programs mn by ECkerd Youth depend on a Citizen Advisory Co~ittee and-membership on t~s Cornrnittee is alWays welcomed. He'stated that there are twelve programs in the State of Florida and they' are .sensitive to :the concerns of the neighbors and they plan to appease them. Mr. YoUng stated that the contractor for this project is present tonight. He stated that they plan-to renovate the current facility and they plan to .build a fence for their own benefits as well. He stated that any suggestions to the buffer are' welcomed. Mr. Young introduced Daniel Arroyo who is the contractor for this project. Mr. Pratt: asked Mr. Arroyo if there are any plans to build any more buildings on the site, Mr, ArroYo stated that them are no plans to build anything other than what is ct~entl¥ there now. He stated :that theY intend to renovate.the inside.of the building and 'the.non-structural lguilding will be renow~ted'on .the inside. This is where the students and faculty will be spending their time- Mr. ~oyo stated that an original site plan was submitted with the initial .application. He stated that the building is roughly 5,000 square feet.. This will be divided in half between offices and the classroom ~ea. He stated that they intended to build a fence along the residential area. Mr. O~e~y asked Mr. Arroyo if Eckerd Youth has purchased the subject property. Mr. A~oyo stated they have not. Mr. Pratt asked, who will be held responsible for the environmental clean-up. Chairman McC~dy asked My. Pratt-if he could .hold his questions until later. Mx. Oakey asked Mr. Arroyo if there was a site plan available this evening. Mr. Arroyo stated yes and he ~Would be happy to go over it. He stated that he would be happy to .go over the floor plan as well if the Board would like. Mr. Arroyo reminded the Board that they area non-profit organization and they are trying to make use of the existing buildings ~s much as poSsible. He stated that the plumbing facilities fit ADA standards. He stated that'they Will be le~ing with an optiOn to buy the from 5 acres. He stated that they will use .the from building and the onlY use that he can foresee for the pole barn would be to Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 17 park the vans in there at night so they will be more secure. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any questions. Mr. Pratt asked about the environmental clean-up that is estimated to be $60,000. He stated that Eckerd Youth needs to look into this situation. Chairm~m McCurdy thanked Mr.. Pratt for' bringing this concem forward. Mr. Arroyo thanked him as Well and said that he would discuss the situation with the current owner. He stated that the reason that they chose this property was for the location and their need to have a place to house their-'facility before August 1999. Chairman McCurdy referred to the site plan. Chairman McCurdy asked Mr. Arroyo if the first building is 50 feet off'of the westerly~property lot. Mr. Arroyo stated ~that he thought it to be be~een 30 and 40 feet. Chairman McCurdy asked Mr. Kelly if Jean Road would be around 30 feet. Mr. Kelly stated that it should be in the range of 30 to 4'0 feet. Chairman McCurdy asked.~, Arroyo ifthis would,be enough to create a bUffer and the fence and what type of fence would they'be putting up. Mr. Arroyo stated-that the area would be large enough for the buffer and the fence. The type of fence'would ~depend on what the Co~ty would allow them to do. He stated that they would like to put up a solid wood fence and also. landscape. Chairmart McCurdy asked Ms. Dreyer if she had any other concerns. Ms. Dreyer stated that she..wrote her concems down. They areas follows: Limiting ho~s of operation. - Appropriate buffers on the western property line. Assuring that the access remains where it currently is to avoid traffic issues that could affect the residential neighborhood. Limited to non-residential students only. A limit to the nUmber of ~11 time students. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 18 Ms. Dreyer stated that she is not aware of the number .of students that are involved in this program, Mr. Arroyo stated that ~Mr. Young would be the best .one to answer this question. Mr. Youmg stated that the.program is operated by contract and reads that there can be 30 youth who are level 2 offenders. Mr. Kelly asked ~Mr. Young if it were agreeable to him, staff'Will place a condition that would limit the number.of s~dents to thirty, if he would ever want that number to be higher, he would have to come before the Board again. Mr. Young stated that would be-agreeable with Eckerd Youth. He stated that he would hope that the Department of Juvenile Justice would have the same opportunity as well. He stated that Eckerd Youth is a contractor who responds to the needs of the area. Mr. Kelly stated that :~Mr. Robinson, Deputy to the. Juvenile JUstice Manager for the Department of Juvenile Justice nodded his head in agreement and he stated that this is something that his staff can work with. Mr. Robinson stated' :that the:re is another program that is operating in.the City. 'He stated that the conditions mentioned'would be ~a~eeable to his Department. Mr. Grande asked Mr. YOung about the buffeting on the western property line. He stated that he believes that one.of the things mentioned was that the studems gm'den. He asked if Eckerd Youth could giYe this Board .a better idea of what would be a minimum footage for the buffer area ~that fence woUld mn east' and then south to tie back into the building. He stated that would be the prima~ activity area for the yOuth, the students garden in all of their Programs, and.the shrubbery should not be a problem. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly-if fencing requires a landscaping requirement. Mr. Kelly stated that a shrub is required every ten feet and there is a standard size ~for the shrubs, but he is not able to quote it at this time. ~ Mr. Young stated 'that if it is required, they will fulfill the requirement, and they will not have an open area to the west. 'He stated that they are more concerned with the landscaping that will be Planning &~Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 19 viewed by the public. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kellyif there is vegetation already there and they are not exotic, she would not want them to ~have to move the natural buffer out. Mr. Kelly stated that the COunty has some flexibility to move landscaping around and get the required landscaping in. Chairman McCUrdy asked Ms..Dreyer if there were any. other points that she would like to make. Ms. Dreyer stated no. Mr. Merfitt asked Mr. Pratt if the landscaping would eliminate some of the problems. Mr. Pratt stated that he is not sure, .Mr. Pratt asked Mr. Kelly what they plan to do with the area to the north of the pole barn, 'He stated that he believes the landscaPing is not going to change anything. Mr. Kelly stated that.nothing would be done-for the balance of the property unless they come back to the Board. Chairmm~ McCurdy asked if there were any other comments concerning this issue. Hearing no further comments in ~favor Or in opposition to the issue, Chairman McCurdy ~closed that public portion of the hearing. Chairman McCurdy asked i.f there were any questions or co .mmems for staff. Chairman McCurdy asked what was the pleasure of the Board. 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, Ms. Dreyer moved that the Piing'and Zo~ng Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Bard of County Co~lssioners grant approval to the application of Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an educational service and facility in the I (Institutional) Zoning District with the following conditiOns: ' Limiting hours of operation. Appropriate buffers on the western property line. Assuring that the access remains where it currently is to avoid traffic issues ihat could affect the residential neighborhood. Planning & Zoning CommisSion/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 20 Limited to non-residential students only. A limit to the number of full time-students. Mr. Grm~de seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 5-0. Mr. Kelly stated that he would 'like Mr. Pratt to give his phone number m him and he would keep him informed as to the information thru will be presented to the Board of'County Commissioners. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 21 PUBLIC HEARING MATT STONE FILE NO. CU-99-002 Mr. Merritt stated that he would have to recuse 'himself from this heating. Mr. Flores presented staff comments. Mr. Floras stated that he was PreSenting the petition of Matt Stone for a Conditional Use .Permit to allow the manufacture of concrete products in the IH (Industrial, Heavy) Zoning District for 11.66 acres .of property located on Lots 3 and 4 in the proposed Midway Industrial Park in order-to manufacture concret~e brick pavers. Mr. Flores stated that the surrounding zoning .to the subject property is IH (Industrial, Heavy) and the existing land use surrounding the subject property is vacant and some InduStrial. Mr. Flores stated.that the proposed manufacture of concrete.products is allowed as a conditional use in this zoning diStrict upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners, Mr, Flores stated that staff.has reviewed 'this petition and determined that it meets the standards of review as set :forth in the St. Lucie. County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, .therefore, recommending that you forward this petition.to the Board of County Commissioners with ~a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Flores why the configuration of the ~property is an odd shape and if the hatched area is the area being discussed. Mr. Flores; stated that. the hatched area is the entire Midway Industrial Park which as of this date is proposed. He stated that there are two lots within the park that are more of a conventional shape. .Chai~an McCurdy asked Mr. Flores where in,the Industrial Park are the lots located. ~. Flores stated that it is located around the southeastern portion. He referenced the.wetland is near ·the subject property. ~Mr. Kelly stated that for clarification, the subdivision is not approved yet. There are not yet specific lots, the legal description of the entire parcel was used for advertising purposes. Mr. Flores pointed to the area on the site plan. Chairman McCurdy. asked if there were any other questions for ~taff. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 22 At this time, Chairman McCurdy opened the public pOrtion of the heating. Chairm,m McCurdy asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this issue. Mr. Butch Terpening, Vice- President of Culpepper & Terpening, 2980 South 25th Street, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Terpening stated that Matt Stone is not an individual, but a Company. He stated that this. type of industry should be encouraged in the County. Mr. Terpening stated that.Matt Stone is a heavy, clean manufacturing facility located in Zephyrhills, behind tl.~e water bottle company, which is an ex, ample of how clean they are. He stated that they proVide paver stones, stepping. l}locks for-Lowe s, Home Depot and oth;r stores, of this tYPe.. He Chairman McCurdy asked:Mr. Terpening what type of buiiding is proposed for the ..prop erty. Mr. Terpening stated that he did not know. Chairman McCurdy asked' if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this issue. Ms. Dreyer :asked ~, Te~e~ng if the work is being done within the portion that is marked building phase .one and the ~rest of:the facility is to be used as storage. Mr. Terpening stated that is correct. He stated that the actual production would be done inside the building. Chairman. McCUrdy .asked if anyone else' would like to speak on this issue. Hearing no further comments :in favor or in opposition to Matt Stone, Chairman McCurdy closed the public portion of'the hearing. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were anymore questions for staff. Chairman. MCCurdy asked what was the-will of the Board. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standm:ds of review ~ set fo~h in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County L~d Development Code, Mr. Grande moved that the Pl~g and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Co~issionem grant approval .to the application of Matt Stone, for a Conditional Use Permit ~to allow the 'manufacture of concrete products in the IH (industrial, Heavy) Zoning District. ~ ~ Mr. Trias seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 5-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local' Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 23 PUBLIC HEARING ~CHARLES A. WHITE FILE NO. RZ-99-014 Mr. Hank Flores presented staff comments. Mr. Flores.stated that he was presenting the petition of Charles A. White, for Preliminary Planned Unit DeVelopment approval for the project known as Pine ~Summit - PUD, and for a Change in Mr. Floras stated that the surr0~ding zo~ng to the subject property is RM-9 (Residential, Multiple- Family- .9 du/aCre) i CO (Co~ercial, Office) and CG. (Commercial, General) to the west. ~-5 (Residemial, ltiple-Family- 5 du/acre) to the east. He stated that the surrounding land use~ are to the. north. RU (Residential Urban) to the east. COM districts, :. ~md in the ability to ClUster dwelling ~ts ~to protect enviromental!y sensitive areas on site. Mr. Flores.stated that:Section 7,01.03(1) of the Land .Development Code at the time the proposed project was submitted, required thru a mi~mum of 3.5% (27.23 acres) of the gross area of land to be must consists of native habitat to be prese~ed in its natural condition. Mr. FlOres stated that the ~proposed ~planned ~it development ~maintains 25.49 acres of Wetlands (32.76% of the site), 2.00 acres in the recreation tract (2.57%), Open Space of 2.69 acres (3.46%), Mr. Floras stated 'that as .staffmviewed tbs project and prepared the staff report, an issue concerning access emerged. Subsequent to this con~-em being raised, the petitioner's representative submitted an addendum to :the TransPo~ation Impact Report explaining his traffic analysis and effectiVely addressed c°ncems about this issue, ~ ' Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 24 Mr. Flores stated.that staffhas, therefore, determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary-Planned Unit Development site plan is compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area, has met.the.standards of review as set forth in 'the Land Development' Code, and is not ~in conflict with the'ComprehensiVe Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr. Gra~ade asked Mr. Flores if one hundred percent of the current wetlands are being preserved. Mr. Flores.stated that 32.76% of the overall project consists of wetlands. He stated that 27.57 acres of wetlm~ds 'exist on-site, of which 2.08 acres need to be mitigated. Ninety-two and one-half o f the wetlands on-site will, therefore, will be preserved. Mr. Grande :~ked.Mr. Flores if the uplands .that are being preserved met the standards at the time when the application was submitted, but no longer meet the standards as of this date. Mr. Flores stated that is his understanding. Mr. Grande asked ~Mr. i effect at'the .time the applicati be reviewed based on the standards that were in Mr, Flores stated yes. Chairmart MCCurdy asked if there were any other questions of staff. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Flores if there is only .one way to enter and exit this development. Mr. Flores stated yes. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Flores if there are any requirements as far as the length of cul-de-sacs for emergency response and other ~imations. Mr. Flores stated that would be a general review of the Fire Department. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Flores if tl~e County staff reviews this or not. Mr. Flores stated that the County does this in conjunction with the Fire Department. Ms. Dreyer stated that she is Cpncemed about the length of BristleCone Drive She stated' that p rm_anent dead end streets, as'h~ted In the Code, should not exceed 1,000 feet in length. She stated that it was her ~derstanding thai ~a portion of this Project was not to be c°mPleted until the Lennard Road and prima Vista Boulevard. additions'" ' -'--' ' · -_ . were commetect. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 25 Mr. Kelly stated that the 'Original was approved several years ago and it is back before them now. When it was first was approved, there were_ conditions that limited it :to being developed until Lennard Road.and Prima Vista Boulevard was completed. ~He stated that since that time, FDOT has completed six-lanes to the south of this and oVer the next five years has over $19 million committed to the ~ ' section from Rio Mar to Midway Road. He stated that the capacity of U,S. ! is changing dramatically and the requimment~ to have Lennard Road and Prima Vista Boulevard in place for .He stated that in the.long term for marketing and other.reasons, Lennard.Road ~and Prima ~ are important to the project. It ~can, however, .function with U.~-,. l'as its Pfim~ .access. Ms, Dmyer stated.that some history on this subject would have been helpful. She asked Mr. Kelly what was the nature of this, petition if it had already been'approved priOr to this meeting. Mr. Kelly 'stated that'the project has expired, this is a new project, and that is why a lot of history was not.[~mvided. He stated that stafflooked into the history of this project and found this condition. Ms. Dreyer asked if that was the Condition regarding Phases IH, IV, and V. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. MattheS, Project Engineer at Culpepper & Terpening provided a letter today to staffw~.eh exp!ained that U.S. 1 provided the necess~ capacity and that staff did not need to dd that condition. Mr. Kelly stated.~that Mr. Matthes is correct. Ms. Dmyer ~ked ~. Kelly what do we .do with the access to Lennard Road that is on the site plan. Mr. Kelly' stated when Lennard Road is constructed it will be linked and until then the project will use circular p'attems .with one access. Ms. D' · ' ' myer stated.that she. was concerned about whether Bristlecone Drive met Code requirements. Mr. Kelly stated that.the Fire Department sits on the Development Review Committee and that he recalls there was no objection to that, but he will check with the Fire Department. Mr, Moon~ stated that he understood staff's position.with the traffic impact, but he was wondering if staff had: any t~e of time table on the Lennard Expansion. Mr. Kelly stated no. Ms. Dreyer stated that there, was a concern from a local resident of this site that they may be rezoning Residenllal to Commercial. She asked Mr. Flores whether or not that concern was before the Board at this .moment. Mr. Flores stated 'that 'the request is to change from Commercial to 'Residential. Planning & Zoning. Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 26 Chairman McCUrdy asked if there were any other questions of staff. At.this time, 'Chairman McCurdy opened the public portion ~ofthe heating. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this issue. Mr. Chuck White, Post Office Box 3146, Tallahassee, addressed the Board. Mr. White stated that he was speaking on-behalf of Pine Summit. He stated that the project was originally submitted in 1992 in anticipation of Lennard Road and Prima Vista Boulevard being constructed. He stated that it is in the COmprehensive PI~ to be completed in. 1995 or 1997. He stated that the project did not also gO fo~ard because of their problems with off-site sewer available to the site. He stated that subsequently :they worked with the City of Port St. Lucie to obtain a ~ant that extended sanitary sewer into the area, which they now have. Mr. ~te stated that they would like to see Lennard Road developed because it would be beneficial to the commmty. He stated that they cannot tie themselves with the development of the roadway because they have .no idea if the County is going to act or not. '~. ~ite stated that the available density of 389 units is based on old zoning, they have reached 216 ~ts. They have protected all of the wetlands of the property. 'There are 25 acres that have been put ~ide. Tbs is consistent with the Treasure Co~t.Regional Planning Council which encourages development-to the east side of U.S. 1. He stated that around the property to the north is a condominium project, to' the west as well. To the east are residential projects. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any questions of the Board. Ms,. Dreyer asked Mr. ~ite if this was going to be developed in phases or all at one time. 'Mr. White stated that they have not :specified phases in the project. They are considering doing it in ~o se~gnents, howeVer, they need approval on the whole thing before they can start working. He statedthat it is ~s understanding that this submission is for preliminary and final approval. Mr. Kelly stated that this will be preliminary and final at the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman McCurdy aSked if there were any other questions. Ms. Debra Ross, Esq., with Comett, Googe, Ross and Earle, a-law finn in Stuart, addressed the. Board. Ms. Ross stmed that .she represents the Vista St. Lucie Condominium Association, which is located to the north .of the SubjeCt property. She stated that they had not seen a site plan until tonight. : Ms:. Ross stated that the residents have three concerns: · Access Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 27 Buffeting Traffic Ms. Ross referenced access of the 'project. She stated that they have been told that access to the project will be °nly to the.south of the western parCel of Pine Summit. She stated that she thought there would not be access to 'the north of that parcel which is Vista St. Lucie's access road. Mr. Kelly stated that the plan does not show any access off of Vista St. Lucie's access. Ms. Ross referenced traffic impact. She stated that it appears that Pine S~it would Only be accessible by a fight .turn in, right turn out. She asked Mr. Kelly if she was correct. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Ms. Ross stated thatthey do have concerns about this-since it will result in a substantial amount of traffic making~U, tums in front of Vista St. Lucie. She stated that they pemeive this to be a traffic >roblem up to the northern access of the PUD. Ms. Ross stated that the third concern they had is buffeting, She stated that the northem property one being a six foot shadow box fence as well as a 15 foot no disturbance zone. She stated that they have not seen the final development plan and do not know whether these buffers were :on it, but she would request that they be put on before the plan has received approval. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any questions. Mr. Moore asked Ms. Ross if Pine S~it agrees to the buffeting, if Vista St. Lucie would be okay with that. Ms. Ross stated that the'buffer proposed is satisfactorily. She stated that they did have substantial concern about the .traffic coming out to the north of U.S. 1. Mr. Grande asked Mr. ~ite if the buffering as just described would be acceptable to him. Mr. ~te stated that it would be, with a slight change in wording. He stated that he has agreed to construct the: wood cedar shadow box fence. He stated that the 15 foot buffer is fine except the undisturbed pOtion. He stated that he did not have any intentions of removing trees, but that these will be peoPle's backyards so to say that no one will disturb the growth is not reasonable. He stated that the fence will be'the furthest away from the adjacent property. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 28 Mr. Grande aSked Mr. ~ite if he would consider doing this in two phases, although he-is seeking full approval. Mr. White 'stated that the bank will not loan him any money until this is approved. Mr. Grande asked Mr. White if he wOuld have a problem with having the second of the two stages contingent on the Lennard Road Extension. Mr. ~ite stated that respect~lly with the history of the County and its:performance on that issue, he would. ' Ms. Ross referenced buffeting. She stated that the restrictive covenants for Pine Summit can be written so the' buffer areas contained on the lots that are to the southern boundarycan be restricted as.no disturbance zones. She stated that.the issue is not the fence as much as the greenery that exists beyond that. ' Mr. Kelly.stated that Mr. ~ite stated that he is happy to leave the'trees, but if the owners wanted to clear the understo~, they should be able to. Ms. Ross stated that they would be fine with that. Mr. Grande Stated that he understood Mr. ~te stated that is the way it will work out, but what was within the fences was owned bY the purchasers and.he did not hear any intention of Mr. White to restrict them from removing trees withn 15 feet of the fence. Mr. White s~ted that he did not have any problem putting that restriction in and that he wants the trees to remain as they are. Mr. Kelly' stated ~that ~he would recommend that :the Board place a condition stating that. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kelly if there is ~ything in the power of the 'County to limit the number of U-tums. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes that staff wilI need to meet with the applicant before the Board of County Co~issioners heating to discuss this issue. Ms. Dreyer stated that she is sure that FDOT would have a lot to say about whether you can have left hand tums onto U,S. 1. Mr. Kelly stated that FDOT would have to make that decision and that there might have to be a decision made about a median. He stated that there is a concern which will have to be discussed. Mr. Merritt'stated that he believes that there is a median there at this time. Planning & Zoning. Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1'999 Page 29 Mr. Kelly stated that is accurate at this time and when the widening of U.S. 1 is constructed, the median will be maintained. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this issue. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the issue, Chairman McCurdy closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any other questions. 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 C°unW Land Development Code, Pine 'Summit) Zoning District With the conditions of: The fence Should be put in place. ° The 1'5 feet of' ~.~derstOry should remain unless owners decide to remove it. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Ms. Dreyer asked for cl~fiCation concerning the prohibition on the removal of trees and was wondering if the conditions included .that or'not. Mr. Moore stated that they could make the restriction of the removal of trees as part of a condition for the PUD. Upon roll call., the motion was approved 6-0. Planning &.Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 30 OTHER 'BUSINESS: Chairman McCurdy asked if there was any other business. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly about decisions of the Board of County COmmissioners on the items this Board has already .made decisionS on. .~Mr. Kelly stated that the Board of County Commissioners have heard the rezoning petitions, but not the Ordinances. He stated that 'the Board of County Commissioners agreed with the decisions made by this Board. Ms. D ,' r~,yer asked if it would be possible to receive minutes from the Board bf County Commissioners which 'have information on the items heard by this Board. Mr..Kelly .st.aed-that staff will provide them as they become available. 'Chairman McCurdy.confirmed the. meeting date of July 15, 1999. There being no ~rther business, the meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Planning & Zoning CommissiOn/ Local Planning Agency June 17, 1999 Page 31 PLaNiNG ~D ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANING AGENCY APmL ~5, 1999 - ~REGULAR MEETING ~ MINUTES g[J]]~[~' T0 BOARD MEMBERS P~SENT: .Stefan Matthes, Ed-Lounds, Ramon Tdas, Carson. McC~dy, Diana Wesloski, Nomen Dreyer, Chiles Grande - BO~D MEMBE~ ABSENT: E'd Merritt and Albe~ Moore (excUsed) Planning T eian PLEDGE OF ~LEGiANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance wasled by Chairman Wesl~sM APPROVAL OF .PLaNiNG ~D ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- ~GULAR MEETING~ OF M~CH 18, 1999 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Ms. Dre:yer.stated that on page 13, the ninth.paragraph, second line, the word "Major" should be "Mayor'". Chairman"Wesloski asked if'there were any other corrections or changes. Chairman 'Wesloski asked for a motion. Mr. Lounds made amotion for .approval, 'and it was seconded by. Ms. Dreyer. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 7-0. Planning & Zoning CommissiOn/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page l PUBLIC HE G Mr,-Kelly stated he spoke with.Mr. Harold Melville'late tbs a~emoon. continuance. stated that if~~ that he w~. request a Keny not believe there' is. a need for staff to. go ~. Harold Melville, 2940 South 25th~ Street, Fo~, that he was .present tonight onbehatf of change to'theLand' Devd~ment Coderdat~g s~eets. He statedbeeause of-this change, .a few probtems exist with Pamela Ch ~ambers. He stated they would l~e to request and work on the problems. indicated to request repo~. :ed :material Mr..Melville stated that.he no~aily~requestS a 30-day continu~ce. meeting is heavily booked. He would .not have a problem .with .a .f that is At tNs.time, Chairman Weslosh opened: the.public he~ng. '" Chairman Wes!osk/~ked ~.. DeWi~ if he would like 'to :speak tonight or woUldhe like m wait until the June 17th meeting. Mr. DeWitt stated that he would like to speak at the June 17th~meeting. Hearing no fu~her ,arguments in favor ~ofor in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wes!oski closed the public .portion of the hearing. Mr. Grande made a motion to continue until June 17th, and it was seconded by Mr. Tfias. UPon roll call, the motion was approved 6-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ LOcal Planning Agency April t5, 1999 Page 2 PUBLIC HE~NG ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE~ PLAN POLICIES ON.F~ WO~R HOUSING Chairman Wesloski convened the Board as the Local ~Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly stated:that he has provided the Board with a memorandum.on Policies on F~ Worker Housing.. He stated that at the April .8, 1999 Local Planning Agency meeting the. Board:requested that he meet with'~. Trias:conceming those policies, Mr. Kelly briefly reviewed each of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Policies on .Farm Worker Housing. Chairman Weslosh.asked ifthere were any questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Grande stated ~at~at ~the 8, 1999 ~cal P!~g Agency :meeting ~..Tfi~ w~oncemed about the ~distance.be~een farm Worker housing and the: work sites. ~. Grade asked Mr' Trias if he is in agreement with Policy 5.1.2'.8.D. Comprehensive.Plan, the .intent would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan. will be a. very good Way to find some .of the answers. Chairmsm WeslOsh asked ifthere were any fi~rther questions for ~. Kelly. Mr. Lounds ~ked ~. Kelly why in the-County are we Concemed ab.om farm labor housing. Mr~. Kellly stated :that-~ a'County we have a Goal that indicates "provide~an adequate ~x of safe and sanitary housing w~eh meets the needs· of existing and fia~e St. Lucie CounW residents ."~ "' He stated that farm.~wo~ers are-residents ~d we need to provide an adequate mix of safe and.smta~ housing. He stated that t~s :Goal does not recommend that the County go out and construct housing, it recommends that .the County Study the problem and make recommendations to assure that farm workers along with all other residents have safe and sanitary housing. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if this is leading to a point, where a grower, land owner or rancher has 500 acres of land, that he cannot build houses for his labor on that piece of land,'that we are going to put the housing in a specific area. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Kelly stated that at this time it is not leading anywhere 'except. for a Task FOrce· to look at .and Mr.¸ on their land and this build housing Mr. Lounds stated 'that he believes-.thiS, is .dangerous. if there were ~y er .questions for: Mr,, Kelly;' .~ ~ At .this time, Chaiman Wesloski opened the public he on the P°lici" e::s ~ F~ Worker Housing. ' Chai.nn~ ~an Wesloski asked if there, was anyone that would like to~.speak on ~ Poli~ies on Farm Worker Housing. Hearing. no. arguments in. ·favor. · .of.or in. opposRion:to the· ~ . ~Po!iciesonFarm'~ e :ousing, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. ~ Chaimaan Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure .ofthe Board. Mr, Tfias made.a motion to approve the Po!ieies onF~ Worker Housing, Mr. Matthes seconded the motion, ~and upon roll call the motion w~. approved 6-l-i ~ith ~, Lounds voting against the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 ,Page 4 PUBLIC HE~NG ST. LUCIE: COUNTY COMP~HENSIVE .PL~ THE TRANSPORTATION ~D LAND USE STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Kelly stated that ~h¢ has provided the Board with a memorandum that summarizes thc Final Report of The spo~ation ~d~. Land Use ~Study Co~ittee dated January 15, 1999. He stated that attached.m ~the memorandum are'the Cover 'Sheet,. Table of C0ments, EXecmive 8 ary, Appendix A: Legislative Charge, :and Appendix B: Summary Of Reco~endations. forty recom~.~mend~ions reference local Metropolitan Plying Org~zations (MPO)~d local governments and not. all ~of those were direct actions. ~. Kelly stated - that .he :does not.recommend that any specific Changes be made to the Transportation Element baSed-on the repoa2 He.stated that he created an'Objective several Policies i~ased On the: and implement the Smart He stated that they .simply the C0~ty to a Sm~ Gro~h Plan .and policies. Chairman WeSlosh stated t-hat She thought the Board had alreadY passed the Transportation Element. Mr. Kelly briefly reViewed ~the'Objective and.Policies.pertai~ng to The Transportation and Land Use Study ~' Committee Report. Chairman Weslosh-asked if there ~Were any questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr.-Grande stated that ~Recommendation #10 in Appendix B states "The Co~ittee reco~ends that local governrn. · ents be required to submit to FDCA evidence of an annual review of their capital improvements program (CIP). Mr. Grande-stated that he does not see this submission to FDCA ad&eSsed in the policies. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not include this in the Transportation Element. He stated that if it is apProPriate' it 'should ~be in th~ CaPital improvement Element. Mr. Grande stated that Recommendation #I 6 in Appendix B states "Local governments should be Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 5 required to .publish on an annual basis, as improvements ~ Mr. Kelly stated that he did not create a policy for this because it is currently being done. Chairman Weslosh stated that:~he stat Commission has. Voted :~d: she does not Mr.. :Kelly stated this B-o.~d'has not .nor has. the .Co~ty ~derstandingthat to' word the Objeefive'~so that consider whe~er theCO will ~te a pl~. Growth Plan means~ e~wil!.:comptete it, She stated that talked about it. Mr. Kel!y~stated thatif theCO~W considers-Sm~ Gro~h and then would never be a completion, and we woUld not be required Goals, ObjeCtives, and Policies ofthe~Comprehensive'P!an' He stated read.the PoliCy in context with ~e. Objective, He stated.that he :ffled to ~te have. come: out that way. The Transp0aation :~d rather long report, S~ it is his poim, butto ma~ it may not to Chai~~ Weslosh statedthat ~ti! the Co '-C ission votes to go. in~ d~ction ofSm~ - Growth, she would rather'not see it in the Comprehensive Plan, tO that if we Mr. Kelly stated that if the Bogd does no tonight and take on :Sm~ Growth, staffwillbfing it'back to this Board,. go w~ch: ge. inconsistent with the Compr siveP!an: go t~ough the process we. will. get here, whether Ornot you .act tonight. · .~ Mr. Trias stated that acronyms .~, New Urb~sm ~d now ~Sma~ · believes that-trendy names and terms should not be used in Ms. Dreyer stated that she is concerned with it is we are talking abom.. She Stated that she.believes the five policies on memorandum are appropriate. . for. the Tr~spo~.ation Element .as they contains. ~ . e ofthe to:look, at when Planning &~Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 6 you set leVels 'of se~ice'and land' use Pattems, Chairrrtan Wesloski asked if there'were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. At this time, Chai~an Wesloski opened the public hearing on The Transp-o~ation and Land Use Study Co~ittee Report. was .anyone that would like to'spe~ on The Transportation and Mr. Bill Hem, ,who resideS the staff memorandum had a chanCe'to review the. that he sees a few things Chairman' Board. decides to before 'this Board makes a recommendation. Heam if he would like to point out some of his concerns in case the Mr.'He ~ stated this withoUt a chance · to cogent. He hates to move forward ~on something like it. He stated that he knows next-month is bad. L Chairm,an Wesloski asked if~ere was anyone that would like to speak on The Transportation and and Use 'Study Co~ittee ~ort, Hearing no arguments o. pposition to The Transportation and Land Use Study WeSloski clOsed the public portiOn of the hearing. ~Chaim~ Weslos~ change 'the Policies, it is her understanding that-the Board .can adopt some of the policies, or table. Mr. Kelly stated that is correct. .C mrm~m Weslosh :aSked if there was .any ft~her discUssion of the Board. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly to define urban sprawl. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly for an example. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Kelly Stated tim service,.mnning water and long mn of water and sewer lines, nature require Mr. Lounds asked Mr, Kelly for.example the Cowry would not have another Po~ Pines. Mr. Kelly stated that Pony Pines.is alow densiW 1 unit per 2.,5 acres,, l:~it per allowed, He stated that greater ~ contaiffing be ed. Mr. Loundsasked Mr. Kelly if the ~urban se~ice district is East-of I~95, Mr. Kelly stated.roughly 1,95 .and The. ike co.~dor. Mr. Lounds asked'Mr. Kelly if this would.shut dOWn development West °fi~95.. ~ Mr'. Kelly stated yes at increased densities which has been County policy for a er.of years. Mr.. Trias stated that when the Regional Plan was developed it allowed for villages and fully comained developments occur outside °fthe urban that the service and encourage sprawl. -the urban :this Mr. Kelly stated that a city, town. : or village created west of the :urban self-contained over time, for example, it provides its om se~ices, water, .semites, and itmay. . have its own police dep em, does~ not...fit within hi s--rawLt, i ~ Mr, 'LoundS: stated for examPle you. have..a been agriculture. He stated that at tbs time agriculture in St. progressive. It is not going up, It is stable or gohg stagnate. He Stated that to land it' becomes feasible to put developments .on this land. is :not Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if this would restrict.this St. Lucie County can ~ increase its quality of development. WoUld had it been in effect. so that Mr. Kelly· stated, that what is ~~en.here. isnot po~cy._ It.is' ~written ~ an. . atte ~ ~ .t tobegin~. ~ ~:. . to define what the County-will look at as it creates~ policy. .: Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if he is wo~ing about a.needle in'a hay stack. Mr. Kelly stated thathe believes so, but he would like to cominue to respondi ~ stated that Mr. Planning & Zoning Commission/ LOcal planning Agency April 15, 1999 page 8 Lounds is correct~ in that we .have square miles of agriculture land. · the :impacts of the.scattered development. He stated that if you are and everybody who gets here can have a subdivision, he does not believe if you are talking 'about the Culverhouse RanCh, the Brown Ranch ~or al ~sca!e well-planned ~development 'that is providing some of its own services and is goingto ~mature into something that is a real commtmity that is a different story. Mr. Lmmds stated that as The Reserve is headed. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Lo~mds stated ~that his concern is that people will not :be able to take a one acre, five acm, ten acre piece.of land and put a house on it and have what we use to ca!l'.a ranchette. - - Mr. Kelly stated ~at one house.on five acres has not been impacted by anyt~g that he has .written even if it becomes 'policy. Chairman WeSloski asked ~, Kelly if the Transportation and Land U: came from the State. Mr. Louxtds asked ~. Kelly if the development of West Midway Road and Okeechobee Road would be affected. ,Welling unit per five acres, e up hun&edS of acres into ~issible ~der our code. He ble. e Study Committee Report Mr. Kelly .stated yes. Chairm~m WesloSki .stated that she is not comfortable with the policies saying Smart Growth. Mr. Lounds ~stated that he-is not comfortable with Smart Growth. ~. McCurdY stated that:he woUld like to suggest some changes: · Objective - d~lete the Word "Smart". The first unnUmbered policy- delete the word"Smart" Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 9 The second unn. mbered po!icy '.-delete the word."Sm~". The third unnumbered :policy- change freight.and.co~eetions~m- Federal, State lan .shall :.and be :enc.~ ,~aged, The fifth unnumbered pohcy delete the word: Smart. The sixth-~umbered policy- .change to read "Traffic ca~ing ~asures shall be encouraged". Chairman Weslos~ asked:Mr.: ~McCurdy if he would 'like to~ .make. a,motion w~. ?,, ¥: se.changes. Mr. McCurdy madea motion.to 'approve The Transportation and.Land'Use with his changes, Chairman Wesloski asked if there was a second. .. Ms, Dreyer stated that she believes the first ered policy is .Unnecessa~ must be consistent with state, regional ~d federal laws. She at Chairman 'Wesloski asked Mr. McC~dy if he .would !iketo~ ~s moti°n!~ith the~ changes suggested by Ms. Dreyer. Mr. McCurdy stated yes. .Chairman'Wesloski asked if there was a ,second. Ms. Dreyer seconded the motion. Chairman Weslo. skiasked if there was ~any discussion. Mr. Grande stated that he believes the changes.... ~ ,~ -~ indicated.~ ~e excel!em, to vote against this motion because the'S~dy Gr°up'has not been this. He stated that the Board should ~deny this motion and table this a chance to work with 'Mr, Kelly and come back with have · ,eW had Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any further discussion. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local planning Agency April 15, 1999 ,page 10 Upon roll call the motion was denied.7-0. Ms. Dreye~ a future report. Land Use Study Committee Report to Group and this Board the oppommiw to review .the Mr. McCurdy seconded the~motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 7-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY Mr, Kelly stated that he reViewed the CiW of Port St. Lucie and Transportation standards~ :..~d dete~ined that both were using Level: of S e~ice a Level of SerVice 'C in the ComprehensiVe Plan. Dep~ent of has Mr. Kelly stated that he has provided ~ .~.altemate Table 2-4 w~ch: requested.by Ms. Dreyer. He stated that the Levels,of Service of Transportation an~d in fact ~we are sfi.ll' slightly more sffingent-because this of average annual daily'traffic (~ ~.~~T)~d-the Dep~ent of Transpo~ation for the pe~ hour- peak season which would make it more difficult to get' to. fora degraded system such'as DOT, It'wil! ,allow fOr a lower Level of.Semite '.the use will :not allow Chairman Wesloski asked Mr, 'Kelly if the only change to Table 2-4 is the ~al eol~ Mr. Kelly stated that he added the R~al .¢olUm, he reworded .the Constrained and Backlogged :'and he changed the C s to D s rathe Urbamzed columns.Which were foomotes in'the-original Table, ' ' ~ ' "· "~' ~"" : column. Chairman WeStoski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Kelly, M~. :Matthes-asked ~, Kelly if the .de~fion o . the urban boundary, or is it .the .definition .of a type of roadway. A drainage and an ~urban roadway is one that has curb and grater type drainage.- Mr. Kelly stated that it was intended not .to .be the type of roadway, but to cate the urban boundary. Ms. Dreyer asked roads exist, What the. levels of sea--ice are :on certain roads, .~d if'there :are ro of service might be appropriate for. Mr. Kelly stated that .if Ms. :Dreyer would like m defer-this, discussion to a subsequ~ meeting where the TranSPo~ation Maps ~will be discussed he could, anSwer these questions at ~ time'' Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kelly during this ~ture discussion if he ..the Board if there are areas that may have .an existing : :alleviated ~by this change. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Planning &Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 p~ge t2 Mn Trias asked of service ~d :if it how the Transportation System Management applies to level ~nding for roads, - Chairman Weslos~ stated that ~a motion to'move Level of Service Standards to the Transportation Mapping Section would:.be appropriate, Mr. Mc:CUrdy made:a'motion.to move.Level of Service Standards to the Transpo~ation Mapping SeCtiOn, Mr. Grande seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 7-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 13 PUBLIC HE~NG Mr. Kelly stated :that the next item he 'would' like to cover is to place a policy inthe COmprehensive Plan to Fort Pierce in its effo~s to implement the !996 Po~ Charrette Mr, Kelly stated that Mr, Tfi. as.has recomm, ended the policies be placed' in Coordination Element. he public Mr. Kelly stat'~'that he h~ reviewedthe policies.~d~believes ~the Intergov al Coordination Element woUld be the, appropriate place. Chairman Wesloski..asked .if there were .any questions for ~, 'Kelly. Ms,. ,Dreyer stated .that .she ..is not 'sure of the implications of Policy .2 :and' d request an explanation, reads ~St, Lueie County will :-~d :and. Mr. Kelly stated that Policy 2" "· ~d-park projects in the Po~ and along the 'Water~ont consistent with the t 996 He stated.that fitn&ng will be subject to the availability of ~ds. committed to a park project in the Port .area. inff;astrucmre tan". has Mr. Tri~ stated thi's w~ ~s best attempt.to responded to the public wanting the ~harbor .and the ~Ch~ette Master Plan. He stated the Co~ty is not the Po~. The only real involvement the ,County. has is'to Engineering. Depa.rtment~,, . ,to ~continue the m~agement· and ~deSign of,the ~road, County were not to do-these, ~the development of'that~'~ea would be Mr. Kelly stated that even though the policies should Element it seemed to parallel the ~~o~ whch the Board wi!! discuss to~ght Transportation Element issues,, It can'be defe~ed. It was not'on the Agenda,, of for the if the CoordinatiOn with-the~ other Plan. Mx. Kelly stated that'the Board discussed the issue 'of the Po~ at a felt that since the Board was discussing the ~rport tonight it request had been ~received from the public and to bring it ,fo~ard. that he- indicate that a Planning &Zoning Commission/ LoCal Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 14 Mr, Grande .stated fi~lly resOlved who may be premature of t~s. Board to include this language in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly Policy 2, ~until: there, is some fu~her resolution between the County and the City. Mr. TH, as asked ~Mr~. Grande what he. means by not fully resolved..Mr, Trias stated that he thought the Comprehensive Plan,:.the.mgulation of land uses and zoning had.been resolved. Mr. Grande stated .that he understands there'are ongoing discussions be~een the City and the the Cotmty and the CiW, with ~. reg~ding the ongOing negotiations regarding Which pm of the plan is going to be paid for ~d .by whom. Mr.' Kelly stated that this was simplY a response to a.request from the public. ~. Kelly stated that he asked Mr. Trias.to respond to 'the request because he seemed to be the appropriate person. Chairm~m Weslosh stated that it Was her °Pinion the Board had already voted on tbs, however, she woUld ente~ain a motion. Mr. Tri~ asked Chairman Wesloski if the Board should receive public input. Chairmzm Weslos~ stated that this Board held a public hearing on Intergovernmental Coordination. Mr. Grande made. a motion .to not inco~orate the Policies written by Mr. Trias into the Intergovemrnental'.CoOrdination Element at this time. Mr. Mc zurdy seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 6-1, with Mr. Matthes voting against the motion. Ms. Dreyer stated that although it is a little premature at this time and that we do not have exactly hat w{~ want before us at thru t~me, she believes we need to have an ~Objective in our Intergov'emmentalCoordination Element that covers 'the Port and the City of Fort ~ierce. Mr. Lounds .stated that he did not want ~. Trias and the CiW of Fort Pierce to think he is not supportive of the Port. He stated that he does not want to commit County fimds or direction that the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local .Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 15 Board,of a support group., Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999. page 16 PUBLIC HE~NG ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AIRPORT ELEMENT Mr. Kc~lly stated that he h~ ,provided the Board with the Airport Element as if it were a .separate element. He stated the Airpo~ Element will be incorporated into the Transpo~ation.Element. Mr. Kelly statedthat the new material is:shaded and the strike through is for deletion from the 1990 Comprehensive Plan which is consistent with Prior discusSions. General Aviation ~~ort ~and that ~we .are simply meeting the needs .of that we operateit.~ a safe and efficient manner, that~we review and upC on a five~year cycle and that we complete a DRI for the Airport. Mr. Kelly ~staed .that Goal 4.! d°wnscales ~the fimction of the Airp¢ ~ by specifying that it is a the community.. !t requires ate the ~rport Master Plan Mr. Kelly stated'that.a ~D~ .for the .~rpo~ is necess~ regardless ofwh Mr. Kelly stated that the' Coumy Commission on April 20, 1999 will tt the ultimate .development 'equire a DRI. If it remains tiscuss the Airport and the DRI, i.e., Will the runways s levels of details. Mr. Kelly stated that the ~CompmhensiVe Plan is not as detailed as ~he DRI 'wi!l be once it is complete. He .stated :.~ere is no~ng 'in the Airport Element that directs~ it simply states that it is the policy of the "County to haVe a good General Aviation Airport, to nm it safely and efficiemly, to update the Master.Plan on a five-year cycle, and to complete the DR[. Chairman Weslosh ~ked ~. Kelly if he could fill in the blank in the unnumbered Objective on page 2. - .... _ Mr. Kelly stated that.until the Board of County Commissioners discuss this on April 20th he will not be able to fill in the blank. Chairman WeslOsh asked if there were any questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Grm.~de stated that the first tine of Policy 4:1,2.4 ~should read "St. Lgcie County shall continue to enforce its height restriction". He stated that on page 3, the first tmiimbered i~olicy, the fifth word, should be "with". Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly why the,DRI is necessary. Mr. Kelly stated that if the'County were to continue with a full scale development of a Commercial Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 17 Airport it would require a D~. If the COunty were be req Mr. Lo~ds stated that them is'a lot .0f that iVe Plan. ~the for .the He stated that the D~ ShOuld look at Mr.-Lo '~ ~unds stated ~at there, is open sp He stated be con the D~ it would ce~ainlY benefit the package. Is uld :the DRI look Mr. want the :Mr. Tfias:asked Mr. include fprocess will 'be used to' decide the:~e °£USes and will it Mr. Kelly stated that there will be public input through 'the D~ proceSs, Mr. Trias stated that he'would like. m enco~age public He believes t~.s is the most ptactical way to deal and possibilities for sueh.a large piece of land. Mr. Lounds stated that he does not have a'pmblem with Mr. Kelly D~. His concern is that he ~does not w~tto msffict the D~~ either by :its to it. Ifthe. Airpo~ is being developed co~ercially, not cohabit with c.o~er¢ial buildings. If it can be not.Want to restrict the DRI. in the d He does Chairman Weslosh asked if there were any ,further questions for Mr. Kelly. Ms. Dreyer stated that the~o unnumbered'POlicies on page 3 need a subject, The County or St. Lucie Cou W Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 'Page 18 Ms, Dreyer stated that she would like to.suggest a rewording of the second unnumbered Policy on page 1 to-read "The Master Plan shall contain a scope of development which minimizes environmental impacts, noise impacts, and ~the need for mitigation". Chaim~m WeSloski asked if there.were any further questions: for Mr. Kelly. At this ~time, Chaiman'WeSloski opened the public hearing on the Airport Element. Chaim~tn.-Weslosh asked if there was ~anyone tha would like to speak on the Airpo~. Element. Board of County Commission :meeting. on April 20th. 'Ms. W~aer ~Ch losh if there will be an oppo~tv for the'Studv :Grou~ m theirverbiage~regarding~St, "' ' ' ~'~ "~ ''~ le County's support .of the City of Fort.Pierce regarding the Po~t- Chairman Wes!oski staed 'that the' Port was discussed during the Intergovernmental Coordination Element public being, She' stated that the ~tergovemmental' Coordination Elemem.will be heard before the County Co~isSiOn and-perhaps'at that time the Study Group could present their comments. Chairman 'Wesloski asked.Mr. Kelly if she is co~ect in .staing that the Intergovernmental Coordination Element still has;to gobefore the Bo~d of County Co~issioners. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Grande staed'that the'verbiage within the Intergovernmental Coordination Element'addresses the concerns o f~the StudY Group. Chairm~ WesloSh,stated.that tbs Board .Mded a section supporting'the Port and suggested to Ms. W~er fl~rat,she may w~t 'to reviewthe revised Element before it goeg to the Board of Comaty Co~issioners. ~ ~ Chimnan Weslosh asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak on the Airport Element. Mr. Bill lq[earn, who resides inhdrio, addressed the Board. Mr. Heam stal~ed that he agrees with Ms. W~yner that this Element should be postponed to allow an opportunity to provide meaningful suggestions to this Element. Planning& Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 19 year ito· year. :-and'a half we' have. moved ~towmds a .general-aviation ..... ai~o~:~ ~he~ believes the~ Mr. Heam staed that on page read "Develop a marketing Alrpo Mr. Heam 'stated-that on page 4, Policy 4.1.3,2, the second line, the-wOrd belong ~.t~s Policy, certain location that was hrtctioning. does not Mr. Hem~-~stated Chai~~ Wesloski is co~eet, He fimetio~ng 'wetland ~by mitigation, wetlands. will not.be mitigated, ~it~stating that~it 'Mr. Heam.stated that he does not want .mitigation removed, in the Policy it. reads '~-habitat is :degraded, St,: Lu¢ie County shall . He stated that Policy 4,l,3,1-states ".aviation facilities. Or ai~0g ed:activities m areas whch~Would result in alteration, de~adation or ~Mr. Grande stated that at the end of Pohcy 4.l,3,1 there ~s a caveat an terms of .~less m compliant~ with Policy 3.2. ~' Mr. Heam stated that he does not know what Policy 3.2 states. ~.' Grande stated Policy 4,1.3.2 states~ that there is a posSibiliW legally-and if the. destruction of that wetlmd complies with pOlicy 3.2, of the wetlandw°uld be required. Mr. Heam. stated that he has .a high regard for wetlands and .it was just his o~°n and.he would rather see the word "destro:yed" removed. ~ Chairman WesloSki asked if there w~ anyone else that would like to speak~on.~ ~ort Element. ~,. H~old.Melville, 2940 South 25~ '$~eet, F that he 'was ~present toffight.on behalf~of The, Chamber' of Co~erce~ Mr, would like for ,the Bo.~d.. to defer action on.. t~s Element.. staed tha he impo~-ant c ents. Planning & Zoning,CommisSion/ Local Planning Agency April :15, 1999 Page 20 Mrs.-Shirley B~linghm, 5312 Loggerhead Place, Fort Pierce, addresSed the Board. Mrs. Burlingham stated that she would like for the Board to defer .action on this Element. Mrs"Burlingham asked-~Mr. Kelly if any part of the No~h Savannahs ~e wit~n the Airport lands. Mr. Kelly stated that.there are potions of the North Savannahs within the AirPort. our water system. ~s functional and pristine. Mrs. Bur!ingham stated .that you arenot hurting Jack Island by going 'through and loohng at the beauty out .there, you are not.destroying .it. She stated that if the Airpo~ were to expand into areas that would go into that water.system,. . then you~ are des~oying the water' sYStem.~ ~ She stated that you can'mitigate other:areas, but you cannot: mitigate the water system. Chairman Wes!oskj. asked if there'w~ anyone else who would like to spe~ on the ~~ort Element. Hearing no. fu~her argu:ments in favor of or in opposition to the Airport Element, Chairman Wesloski~ clOSed the public P°rtion of the'hearing. Chairman. Wesloski stated that she would like to provided a recap: Mr..Lounds would like to encourage recreational use of a portion of the land at the Airport. Ms. Dreyer.recommended rewording the second unnumbered Policy on.page 1. Mr. Heam suggested the rewording of Goal 4.1. Mr. Heam ~suggested the rewording of the second unnumbered Policy on page 3. , ~ '1 Mr..Heam suggested the word "destroyed" be .removed frgm Policy 4.1.3.2. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 21 .Create. a ~Goal m ~proteot the: recreation of those ~eas, !ude .~the Desire of the public ~to table,this item. Chairman Weslo:ski asked,what :wouid be the' PleaSure of the Board, Mr'..Matthes stated that~in the~ event t~s: El is not'tabled ~he.woutd 'like. to p de his ..input regarding ~'. He~am's rewording°fG°'a! 4,1. · Mr. Matthes stated that he-does not want to reword Goal 4.1 recommend "air transpo n means,, stay inGoal 4,~!. Mr. Grande stated~that philosophically he a~ees-~with be removed ~om Policy 4.1,3::2. He. stated that he:believes if Policy 4.1.3.2 we ~e s ifwe~do~des~oy do not have to mitigate, He stated 'that we measure. Chai~an Wes!oski asked:ff there~were. any~ ~her. questions, we .2 ~as ~a's She Ms.~ 'Dreyer. aSked .Mr~.~ Kelly what. the. :Bo~d of'Cowry.Co sioners ...... wil!;do.: . on:,Apnl~ ~ · .2 · with regard to. the Airport. Mr. Kelly stated some direction as rathe .level of iSsues'that Ms. Dreyer made a :motion to table this discussion to .the May !3th meeting. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. ' Mr. Grande asked if the~ch~ges''that have been'diseussed~c°uld'be :madeb~re:'~this Element is 3th brought back to the board on May' 1..' . Ms. Dreyer stated that she would accept that modification. Chai~an Wesloski stated that.the B°ard really did not discuss removing the word"destroyed". Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if~he could update' the E1ement with' the items that the Board Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency April 15., 1999 Page 22 phmarily agreed on. Mr. Kelly stated that he.would listen ~to the tape with the Recording Secretary.and try to get what the Board agreed on. Upon roll call the motion was' .approved 7--0. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Weslosh stated that Levels of Service will be discussed again during the mapping segment of the Transpo~ation Element. ' The ~~ort Element will be discussed on May 13th with the changes discussed tonight. The Transportation .and Land Use-Study Committee Report will be discussed on May 13th. Mr. Kelly stated that he has attempted to put together a schedule for the remaining Comprehensive Plan Elements.. ~ Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if he needed more 'time for the Airport Element and the Transportation and Land Use Study .Committee Report. Mr. Kelly stated that~ he would like to reco~end that we meet on May 13th and May 27th for Comprehensive Plan discussions. ~. Kelly stated that with the ~nUmber of items .on the regular May 20th agenda it 'will not be practical to try to add Comprehensive Plan isSues to this meeting. ' Mr. Kelly stated, that he would like to have a meeting on June 3rd and also June 10th, if necessary. andMr' JuneKe!lYlStated0th. that Comprehensive Plan discussions will be held on May 13th, May 27th, June 3ra, Mr. Kellystated that we need to look at Data and Analysis and Mapping for a number of Elements. He stated that we stillneed to look at Concurrency, Capital Improvements and . . ,. · are Pohc~es that other de , Infrastructure whmh '~[' '~ ~' ~' partments are still working on. ~ ' Chairman'Weslos~ asked ~ Ke'l '~ ~ -'t · ~. . ...- I y if the Board can look at the Airport and The Transportation. and Land Use S' udy Co~ittee RepOrt on May '! 3th. Planning & Zoning CommisSion/ Local Planning Agency April 15, 1999 Page 23 Mr. Kelly stated yes. . th a.27· Compreh. .. . . e Plan meetings on.MaY,. ..~. I~3: ,'M' y ~,., p,m. Mr. Kelly stated that would.be no problem for .staff. Mr. Grade stated that'he moved that we table The'Transpoaation and Rep°rt. He stated'that he wanted to indieatethat.he agreed with evew suggested, and that he would suggest ~at when.staff bringS this back'to it contain those changes. .May 13th that There being .no further business, the meeting ~adjoumed at 8:38 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency' April 15, 1999 Page 24 PLANNING ~AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA MARCH 18, 1999~- ~GULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Stefan'Matthes, Ed Lounds (arrived at 7:-04 - excused), Ramon Trias, Carson McCurdy, Diana WeSloski, Albert Moore, Noreen Dreyer, Charles Grande BOARD MEMBERS:ABSENT: Ed Merritt (excUsed) OTHERS PRESEN . Heather Young, Assistant' County Attorney; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Hank ~ores, Planner Ill; Beth Ryder, Human Services Manager; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ALLEG~NCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - ~-GULAR.MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25' 1999 Chairman Weslos~ asked if there were any additions or corrections m the minutes. Mr. McCurdy stated that on page 27, the second line should read "both positions should be presented d" to the Boar . Chairman WesloskJ asked if there were any other corrections or changes.' Chairman Wes!osh asked for a motion. seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Mr. Moore-made a motion for approval,, and it was Upon roll call, the motion was approved 7-0. Chairman' We.slos~ stated that the record should reflect Mr. Lounds arrived at 7:04 p.m. Planning & Zoning Cgmmission/ Local Planning Agendy March I8, 1999 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING FATHER MICHAEL SAJDA FILE NO. RZ-99-004 Chairman WesloSki explained the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing procedures. Mr. Hanlk Flores presented staff comments. Mr. ~ores stated that he was ;presenting the .petition of Father Michael Sajda for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (ReSidenfi~, Single-Family -3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I.(Instimtional) Zoning District fbr 3.67 acres of land ~!ocated on the North side of Delaware Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of Hartman Road. Mr. Flores stated that the appliCant is proposing ballfields for soccer and baseball for the John Carroll High School. Mr, Flores stated that the su~ounding zoning to the subject property is .RS-3 (Residential, Single- Family - 3 du/acre) to ~the noah, south., east, and west. CG (Commercial, General) to the northeast. I (institutiOnal)to the. east. ~Mr. Flores stated that.staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the stand,ds of review as set forth in.the St. Lucie County.Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the St. Lucie County comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you forward this Petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. 'Chairman Wesloski asked'if~there were any questions for Mr. Flores. Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Mike Driscoll, 1920.'Wren Avenue, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Driscoll stated that - he represents Father Michael Sajda and John Carroll High School. He stated that he is a member of the School AdviSOry Board and is involved in the long range planning process., for. the schOol. Mr. DfiacolI st.ated that Lots-4 and .5 were. purchased a few months ago, they are currently zoned residential and cannot be used .for the school's intended pu~ose. He stated that as shown on the overhead, the Diocese of Palm Beach owns the Parcel zoned Institutional and all the way back to South 33~d Street. He stated that the Institutional parcel is currently used 'as a football field and track. Mr. Driscoll stated that Lots 4 and 5 'are intended to be used for softball and practice fields for soccer. He stated.they.recognize wit~n the Institutional zoning any building structure placed on this property, in the.future, would require, a conditional use approval before this Board and also the County Co~ssion. Mr. Driscoll stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 2 Chairman Weslosh asked if there were .any questions for Mr. Driscoll. Mr. McCurdy asked-Mr. Driscoll if the school will be expanded in the future. Mr. Driscoll stated that John Carroll High School currently has approximately 500 students with a planned 10% increase at a slow progression for'a total 'of 550 .students. There is no interest in trying to expand John Carroll into-a large major school. The property, and the facilities at the present time, with a few more classrooms, will facilitate their needs in the future. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Driscoll if the Diocese plans to stay with this location for the foreseeable future. Mr. Driscoll stated ~that there have been no discussions or plans for any other schools at the secondat)' level. He stated that John Carroll is the high.school for the" Diocese, serving a four county area. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. DfiscOll if the fields will be lighted. Mr. Dfiscoll smtedthat t~s property is a very old citrus grove with a few oak trees: He stated they plan to cle~' the majority of the:property, leVel it, grassy, it, and possibly install some fencing to separate it from the neighbo~ng proPerties. He stated that'because of the size and the layout of the lotS the only thing that could be placed on these lots would be a practice soccer field and a softball field. He stated that it would not be.economically feasible to install lighting for a very short softball season. A football field had-also been discussed on these lots, physically, and economically it just would not work. Mr. Driscoll stated that another limiting factor on the use of this property are the FP&L high powered, tension lines that mn ~along the east side of Lots 4 and 5 and between the currently owned and zoned InstitutiOnal property. The~lines mn to the north and back to the east, down to the comer of 33~d Street and .Delaware to the'transmission substation. He stated that they need to stay.clear of the concrete poles, the lines and the FP&L easements. Mr. DdscoH stated that when the school considered' placing a football field on these lots he asked about lighting. He w.as~told they wOuld not be able to install lighting because FP&L already had poles on the north and east boundaries of the lots. Additional poles would not be allowed as they coUld possibly go down during ~a storm, affecting the FP&L high powered tension lines. Mr. Driscoll stated that they do not' have any plans nor Would it be feasible m have lighting. Chairman Weslos~asked if ther~e were any further.questions for Mr. DriscolI. At this time, Chairman WeSloski opened the Public heating. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 3 Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of this petition. Chairman Weslosh aSked if there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this petition. Mr. Terry Cooper, 3912 Delaware Avenue, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Cooper stated that he owns Lots 1, 2, and 3. He stated that Lots 1 and 2 are vacant and his home is located on Lot 3 which is adjacent, to Lot 4. Mr. Cooper stated that he does not have anything in particular against the proposed use of Lot 5, Lot 4 leaves a little bit to be desired, He stated that Lot 4 runs the full length of his' yard and his house Would just be 30-40 feet away from the athleticl fields. Mi:, Cooper referred 'the Board to. item #8 in the staff report which reads "whether the proposed amendment would ~be in.conflict With the 'public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and ' de" intent of th~s Co'~',, . He Stated that-he does not know about the purpose and intent of the Code, but as far as public interest, he is probably the most affected public in the area, because he will be surrounded on three borders of his property by this. Mr. Cooper stated that he is not concerned about Lot 5. He is hesitant about Lot 4 being zoned Institufi()nal due to the number of uses that could take place. It has been stated that-Lot 4 will be used .as a, p.ractice socCer~, field,,, ~ . This will create, a lot of activity at the side of his· house. Chai~an WeSloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this petition. Chairman Weslosh :asked Mr. DriscOll if he would like to .address the concerns of Mr. Cooper. Mr. Driscoll stated'that they purchased'Lots 4 and 5 knowing if they ever wanted to develop Lot 5, they would need the Delaware Avenue frontage from Lot 4. If they only owned Lot 5 they would not have the required .aCcess of 60 feet. Mr. McLu dy-asked Mr. DriScoll if the high powered tension lines mn north and south along the eastern border of Lot 4. Mr. Driscoll stated that they mn north and south along the eastern border of Lot 5. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Dfis¢oll if they plan to have traffic flow onto Lots 4 and 5. Mr. DfiscOll stated that they have not made any plans beyond the clearing and the placement of grass. He stated that there is a potential for some minor traffic if a game or practice .were to be held. He stated that .: there~s sufficient parking to the east side of the Institutional parcel with 50 spaces being added at the present :time. Mr, Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll without lights would he anticipate 'much activity after sundown. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 4 .Mr. Driscoll stated no. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll if practices would occur in the late afternoon. .Mr. Driscoll stated that practices would occur after school. Mr. Driscoll stated that he spoke with Father Michael.regarding the'possibility of having Physical Education classes on these lots.. Father Michael immediately said no. Mr. Driscoll stated that from the~center of Lot 5 to the closest building is approximately 1,200 feet, which is almost a 1/4 mile. Mr.-Driscoll stated that having~access to practice fields are a problem in the after school hours. The current soccer and softball.fields are :shared with St. Anastasia School because this is 'when all the kids are. available m practice. He stated that many of the seasons overlap now and this is the primary reaSon the school needS additional fields. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Driscoll. Mr,.Lounds asked Mr.:COoper.if at the present time there is any noise intrusion from the school. Mr. Cooper stated that When they use .the P.A. system or when the band practices,. It is not a particulg.a~oyance, He' unders~ds there are children present and they have activities, but to bring them even closer would be more of an intrusion. Mr. Cooper stated that he was involvedin the planning of the' subdivision. The County insisted that Lot 5 not be land-locked. It is by County roles that Lot 5 has a peculiar shape which would give adequate vehicul~ access to Lot 5 without having to use Lot 4. He stated Lot 5 was planned to be 15 feet wide from Delaware and then open up '.to 30 feet to handle the vehicular traffic needs of the future. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Cooper if he and his wife are employed. Mr. Cooper stated that he is a retired police officer. His wife is employed by the citrus industry in Fo~ Pierce. Chairman Wes!osh asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this petition. Ms. Judy Dennison, 195 'Hartman'Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Dennison stated that they are relatively close tothe proposed changes and are concerned about the flow of traffic and noise. Ms. Dennison stated that many times they can hear the kids practicing. It is not especially annoying, butif it Were closer, perhaps it. could be. She stat-ed that she understands that if the school were to change the intended use of the property, to inClude a structure, the residents would have the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 5 opportunity to raise questions. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this petition. Mr. Cooper asked Chairman Wesloski if he could voice one more concern. Chairman Wesloski stated that this would have to be the last time. Mr. Cooper stated that every:~so often the school has an activity and the parking is not contained on their Property..He haS noticed neighbors up and down Delaware Avenue place ribbons on their property to block people from parki'.ng in their driveways. He stated that he is concerned the school would use Lot 4 for parking. Chairman Wesloski asked-Mr. Driscoll if he would like to address the cOncerns of Ms. Dennison and Mr. Cooper. Mr. Ddscoll stated that the School experiences a problem every year in October during the Fall Festival,. The Festival Co~'ttee places ribbons in yards and driveways to help the residents.protect their yardS and driveways frOm the public. Mr. Driscoll stated that the school would certainly like to cooperate with the residents to continue' the placement of the ribbor~s. He stated that the school als° p;oVide's security durin~ the event to try tb control the traffic-as much as possible. Hearing ~no further arguments' in ,favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed ,the .pUblic portion of the hearing. Chairman Weslosh asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. ~MCCurdy asked Mr. Flores if a buffer or vegetation is required between the reSidential and Mr. Flores stated that a buffer zone would only be required if a'circulation area were installed. Chairman WeslOsh asked if there were any further questions for staff. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Flores if site plan approval would be required if ballfields were put on these lots. Mr. Flores stated no. Chairman Weslos~ asked ~what would be' the pleasure of the Board. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would like to hear a motion. Planning & Zoning.Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 6 Chairman Wesloski stated that she was passing the gavel to Mr. McCurdy. Chairman McCurdy asked if there .was a motion. After c°nsidering the testimony presented during the public heating, including staff comments, and the standards of review as.set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Ms. Wesloski moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County ComnfiSsioners grant approval to the application of Father Michael Sajda for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institufi°nal) Z~°ning District. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Chairman McCurdy passed the gavel back to Ms. Wesloski. Chairman Weslosh ~stated that .the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 7 puBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY ,COMMISSIONERS FILE NO. RZ-99'005 Mr. Hank Flores presented staff comments. Mr. Flores stated that he was presenting the petition of' The St, Lucie County.' Board of County Commissioners for a Change'in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the I (Institutional)Zoning District for' 250,72 acres of land located on the Southwest comer of the interSectiOn of Okeech°bee Road and West Midway Road. Mr. Flores stated that the pu~ose of the rezoning is to relocate the St. Lucie County Fairgrounds to the 'subject property, The Fairgrounds'are currently located on Indrio Road. Mr. Flor,s stated that the ~ surrounding zoning to the subject property is AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 acres) to the north, ~south, east, and 'west. Mr. Flores stated that staff has reviewed this. petition and determined that it conforms with-the standards of review .as set fOrth m the St, Lucre County Land Development Code and is not in conflict'.with the St. LuCie .County 'Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Weslos~ asked if there were any questions for Mr. Flores. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the':public hearing. Chairman Wesl.osh asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition, Mr. William Phares, 3658 Eleven Mile Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Phares stated that he is the President of the St. Lucie County Fair and with him tonight are the Vice-President and Trustees to show their :support to the Board o'f County Commission requesting this rezoning. Chairman Weslos~ asked if there were any questions for Mr. Phares. Chairman Weslosh asked if: there was anyone else that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Planning & Zoning COmmission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 8 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions.. Ms. Dreyer~asked Mr. Flores when the fair is relocated how will water and wastewater be .handled. Mr. Flores stated through a package plant. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions. Mr. McCurdy stated that ~the package plant Would be for the wastewater and then use treated well water. Mr., Matthes asked Mr. Flores if this property is located within the urban service boundary. Mr. Flores stated no. Chairman WeSloski asked.if there' were any further questions. Chaima~a WesloSki aSked What would be the pleasure of the Board. After cOnsidering the mstim0ny 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, Ms. Dreyer moved that'the Planning and Zoning Co~ssion recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of ~County COmmissioners grant approval to the.application of.The St. Lucie County.Board of County Commissioners for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural- 1 du/5 acres) Zoning [)istrict to the I (instimti°nai) Zoning District. " Mr. Grande seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Co~ssioners With a reco~endafion of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Chairman Wesloski convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly stated that' in JanUary the Board was provided with the Transportation Element and earlier this week Board members were provided with an amended Transportation Element as a result of a meeting held between staff and the "Study Group". He stated that very few changes were made and they are underlined. Shaded and underlined material has been added. Underlined and struck through has been deleted. ~ .. Mr. Kelly briefly reViewed each of the~Gofls, Objectives, and Policies in the Transportation Element. Mr. Kelly stated that the "Study 'Group" asked what section of the Comprehensive Plan covers the Airport, He stated .that the Ai~ort and the Port were in the same element-and when the Port was transferred to the City of Fort Pierce, the Airport'was inadve~entlY dropped. Mr. Kelly stated that 'the Airport information will be consistent with the prior element, which indicated the County should go through the DRI process, whiCh has not been completed.. Upon completion of the DRI staff Will need to amend-the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated .~that he would .recommend that the Board make their recommendation on the Transportation Element without the Airport. 'He :stated that he will create- the Goals, 'Objectives, and Policies covering .the Airport and bring it back to the Board. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly ffthe phrase landscap with native vegetation" on page 3, Policy 4/5 would exclude the opportunity to place flowering trees, or are we referencing the need for 100% native vegetation. Mr. Kelly stated that 100% .native landscaping is consistent with current County policy. Mr. Lounds stated that if you develop Midway Road. you would not get what you have.on Virginia Avenue with palms and flowering trees. It would have to be cypress, pines, maples, myrtles, and palmettos. Mr. Matthes stated that a lot of money is being spent placing sod dn new roadways. The_County does not'have the budget to widen and build roadways in a timely fashion. Landscape plans that he has reviewed recently range from $25 -$150 a linear foot. Water conservation, landscaping and having beautiful, roads are very important, Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 10 Mr; Matthes stated 'that to require by the year 2000 that all roads built and deSigned, that County residents are paying for, to have these types of improvements with them are too expensive, the County cannot affOrd that right now. Mr. Trias stated that there is a need to have landscaping. It would be'a mistake to limit it to only native vegetation. He would prefer to have roadways landscaped at least in urban areas. He would "By Year (designate the year), the CoUnty will'require that like to amend this Policy to read. transportatiOn right-Of-ways will be landscaped. Native vegetation will be encourage in order to conserve water and '~nimize maintenance requirements". Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Trias if he wanted to amend the Policy to include "at least in urban areas". Mr. Trias stated yes because it defls with the issue of cost. He stated that when you design a roadway Several miles~long, it is very difficult to keep a high level of quality in terms of landscape. If you prioritize the design and locate in the correct plaCe, you achieve a better investment. Ms. Dreyer stated that the Land DeVelopment.Code is the place to put the specifics as to how much landscaping is required, not the.Comprehensive Plan. She believes native vegetation should be used for landscaping when possible. · Chairman Wes!osh'asked if.there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr, Lounds stated that.he does not have a problem with total native. He believes it limits us to not use some landscapes that would provide color and uniqueness to a wide corridor. Port St. Lucie has done. a good job with their roads using myrtles, pines and maples, they blend in well. The Reserve is nice. ~ere are areas of PortSt. Lucie that haYe used.flowering trees (tabebuias and crape myrtles) that have added a degree of color during the year-that is very unique to this area. Mr. Lounds stated that he does not'have :a problem with the way this is written. He would like to limit the, amount of non-native to a percentage as this discussion has brought forward it may be ii.ting-to a factor.. He stated that another concern would be maintaining the landscape which has not been addressed, If the County is not going to maintain it, don't put it out there. Mr. Kelly stated that "native or drought-tolerant" is sometimes used. If non-native items are not selected at least the drought, tolerant would not'require a tremendous amount of water to maintain. If the Local Planning Agency would like m consider adding "drought-tolerant" this may address-the concerns stated and also add some flexibility. Mr. Lounds stated that we are limiting ourselves to unique color and variety in areas we are_ going to ask people to travel into and judge the Count~ by-their first sighting at various times of-the year. Mr. Grande stated that he agrees with Mr. Lounds that if we leave the native_ vegetation comment in the Policy we are limiting ourselves too greatly. He stated that if we are going to keep this Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 11 paragraph we need to limit it to urban areas so that we do not have incredibly ~expensive restrictions on roads that are way out west, 'Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Chairman Wesloski ~asked Mr.' Kelly where the hurricane evacuation route would be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. .Mr. Kelly 'stated that a good portion was addressed in the Coastal Element wherein protection of resources from storms was covered. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if it would be appropriate to address the re-routing of. traffic during a hurriCane, Mr. Kelly stated that the maps which will come before this Board will.indicate the mutes and may. be placed'in the TranspOrtation Element. Chai~an Wesloski asked.Mr. Kelly if we should include a Policy that would make residents aware of possible changes in the evacuation, routes. Mr. Kelly stated that it wouldn t . Chairman Wesloski stated that if it is not necessary in this element and we address it in the Coastal Element that'.s fine, we don't need to be redundant, Mr, Mc zurdy asked Mr. Kelly to define what is a bicycle facilities as stated in Policy 2.3.3.2. Mr. Kelly stated that there are two types of bicycle facilities: bike path and bike lane. Mr. Trias stated that the only difference is the bike lane is on the roadway and is part of the asphalt, the bike path is separate from the vehicular roadway. Mr. Kelly stated that facility was used .m indicate both types. Mr..McCurdy asked ~. Kelly ff the unnumbered Policy on page 8, that states "ensure, through Land Development Regul~ions, that biCycle trip destinations provide bicycle parking" means an open slab where someone can park their bike, a lockable facility, a lockable bicycle rack. Mr. Kelly stated that it would.be a bicycle rack that a bicycle could be l__ocked to. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Kelly what is not a bicycle trip destination. You can take a bicycle anywhere. If.we tie ourselves to this, we are going to have. bicycle racks everywhere. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page t2 Ms. Dreyer stated that the word "all" is the offensive word in this policy. She suggested that we ~may want to state major bicycle destinations, i.e: malls and parks, places that would attract larger groups of: people. She does not: believes every little store should have a bicycle rack. Mr. Trias stated that the third unnumbered Policy on 'page 3 states "By Year 2000, the County will require that transPortation enhancement facilities be considered as part of new construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roadways". Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly to explain transportation enhance:ment activities, Mr. Kelly stated that he believes, we are ~speaking of items for which transportation enhancement ._. funds are available. Mr. Trias stated that we may want to. re.write the policy so that it is more obvious. Mr. Kelly stated ~that this policy only requires. that they be considered. It does not require that enhancement be done. Mr. Tri.as stated .that in some ways this gives an oppOrtunity not to do projects, for the County-not to fund projects that maybe funded by someone else and therefore become less of a priority. He is not sure this is-the .way we want to go, it may be more' effective if we say that "the County will actively look at funding those activities". Mr.' 'f - Tri.,ts stated that the second Objective on page 9 roads "Actively support efforts to extend · t ~ passenger rail.service along Florida's east coast with stops in Ft. Pierc~ St. Lu¢ie Coun y. He believes it wou!d .very valuab!¢ to have the word "Ft. Pierce" instead of "St Lu¢i~ '~ un'" t:o -fy . An amazing.amount of persuasion and salesmanship were necessary to convince Amtrak to consider Ft. Pierce. "We will be more successful on this issue the clearer we make it. Chairman Weslosh asked if them were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Ms". Dmyer stated that the second Objective on page 9 should state "St. Lucie County". Amtrak is not the only transpo~ation provider we are speaking of. Major Fielding believes Port St. Lucie would' be the perfect.location for an extension to-Tfi-Rail and there may be other opportunities. Mr. Tfias proposed the language "Ft. Pierce and other places in St. Lucie C unty. He stated that he has had the opportunity to. work in this County for a few years now and the use of the term "St Lucie County" when we mean some other very specific place is sometimes detrimental .down the road. He would not have a problem with including "other places". He feels it is very important to have "Ft. Pie,rce" as ~one of the specific locations. ~ MS. Dreyer asked Mr. Trias his thoughts on "St, Lucie County and it's municipalities".. Chairman Wesloski suggested that we cover this when the Board makes it's motion. Planning & Zoning Commission/ -Local Planning Agency MarCh 18, 1999 Page 13 Ms. Dreyer stated :that .the Unnumbered Policy Under PoliCy 2.3.1.5 should read "Motorized and non- motorized transportation needs: shall be assessed and met for each new development approved. Ms. Dreyer 'asked Mr. Kelly if he ~had any comments regarding the correspondence received by the Board this evening from T. ~A. Wyner. Mr. Kelly stated that~ staff and the Board received a fax from T. A. Wyner on behalf of the Comprehensive Plan Study Group. Ms. Wyner indicated very recently a report was delivered to the Governor from the Transportation .and Land Use Study Committee which was created to review statutes :relating to the coordination of land use and transportation. _ Mr.~ Kelly stated that he does not know what is .in the report. He would like to look at it. He stated that we ihave come upon some issues in the County through the Smart Growth initiatives that are 'going to force us as a community to look at transportation, land use, design, and hOw we develop. He stated that it may be appropriate to provide ~a Policy after reviewing the report. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr, Kelly.if'he could bring this back to the Board with the Airport provisions. Mr. Kelly .stated yes. Mr..Matthes stated that'at.the top of page 2, third line, delete "will be". He suggested on page 2, fourth line change the. wording to read "the County's annual Capital Improvements Program". Mr. Matthes asked Mr, .Kelly 'if the wording in Policy 2.1.1.3 "Transportation Concurrency Exception: Areas, Which will allow for LOS standards lower than .those listed in POlicy 2.2.!.8': means if you are at a :C you. would go.to a D, meaning you are allowing a lesser amount of traffic. Mr. Kelly.stated yes if the County were to establish a Concurrency Exception Area. Mr. MattheS ~asked Mr. Kelly to clarify the fourth unnumbered Policy on page 3. The policy states "transportation engineering smd es- will this'include all traffic impact studies that are done for local development, ~and should they be looking at life-cycle costs for roadway improvements for roadways which .need m be improved in.these studies. Mr. Kelly stated that cegaifly was not the intent when this was written, however it seems to include them. Mr. Matthes stated that he would prefer additional wording be placed in this policy to clarify this .issue. Mr. Matthes aSked Mr.: Kelly if staff has: reviewed the level of.service standards that have been set in Table 2-4 with regard ~o that allowed and/or accepted by FDOT in this area on certain roadways. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Kelly stated yes, Mr. Matthes stated that C is very unrealistic in some instances. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Matthes what would 'he suggest to replace C. Mr. Matthes stated D. Mr. Tdas stated that he shares Mr. Matthes concern. He stated one of the biggest problems they have is trying to keep up with unrealistic levels of service. You end up with very expensive roadways. Mr. Matthes stated that pavdment down. It really do, road, we as opposed to solving the prO end up widening too many roads and placing too many lanes of solve the problems, it really creates more of a problem down the Growth Se~nm, He:stated that it creates more traffic congestion Chairman Weslos~ asked Mr. Kelly if he was Checking to see if the Table had been updated. Mr. Kelly statedyes. The .only change made was mathematical, going from one method of counting to another, rather~'than a fundamental change which woUld speak to the level of service we as a Mr. Kelly stated.that he does not believe what Mr. Matthes and Mr. Tfias are recommending has been done. Mr. Matthes stated .that he would strongly consider that we review this. Ch~an Weslos~ asked ~Mr. Matthes if he is suggesting that the Board not make changes to Table 2-4. To send Table 2-4 back to-staff and request 'they review it to be more realistic, Mr. Kelly stated that the question really becomes can we legitimately try to build our way out.or do we have' to look to Other solUtiOns. As .a part of those solutions recognize that we are going to have congestion in.places and is. that re~ly .a bad thing. This would be a fundamental change and is a part of the sn~art ~rowth 'iSsues v~e are loohng at. ' Mr. Matthes stated that we have to realize the way a level of service is now defined does not.relate the amount of vehicles you can get from one place, to another, it's how long it takes them to get there. We are saying that the longer it takes to get there, the worst the situation is. In certain areas, especially in urban_downtown, he thinks the exact opPosite, why rash somebody through when you don't have too. Tfiere are some fundamental differences in thi~ng fight now. He does not' believe that the levels .of service .criteria 'pply at this time. Mr. Trias asked Mr. KellY ~h0w would you implement the congestion management system to solve Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 15 the problems were are talking.about. Mr.-Kelly stated that the: process Mr. Trias is speaking about would allow alternatives for developments that are proposing to .locate near an over capacity roadway. For example, if the roadway is over capacity rather than build a roadway to fix the problem, have the developer put in transit stops, so we have alternatiVes to more cars. Transit stops and pedestrian walkways to immediate, neighborhoodS' bi:cyCle faCilities and other ways for people to move to the new project are acceptable alternatives rather than huge parking lots, more cars and more road lanes. He stated that he.t>elieVes we will be looking at this over the next year to try. to establish common ground on how to accomplish this. He'. stated that it doesn't work for subdivisions out west.. The intent is to pull development in, in fill where we can, design projects that are attractive that allow residents to move in Closer, use other means of transportation and stop relying on automobiles. Mr. Trias stated that he would like to provide an example. Avenue D, which is a County road, was planned to 'be ~a four lane road,.-and would have cost x .amount of money. Through planning and a further understanding of the real conditions, it was decided to build a two lane road with better sidewalks. In other words, pedestrian capacity was imprOved, vehicle capacity remained.the same, it was less expensive to build than a foUr lane road, which saved money. ~. Tfias stated that the assumptions we are worhng on with the MPO and. the'2020 Plan-are more expensive. The assumptiOn to create the four lane roadway may have a completely misleading underst~mding of.what the needs of' the County are in terms of the investment that needs to be made to have 'a good transportation system, ~e types.of projects are predicated exclusively on this C level of service. By having this as your assumption you think of a huge, very expensive, extremely unpleasant, and probably unsuccessful at the end, transportation system instead of loohng 'at the details. Mr. Kelly stated that he: believes the over~l planning for a number of years has been too driven by roadways and automobile capacity and he agrees with Mr. Trias. As stated when we reviewed the Future Land Use Element, we need to go through and re-establish our priorities. If the Board agrees with the comments, that have been made, we would not be able to set new level of service standards tonight. He believes we need to send a message that we need to conSider what our expectations for our roadways will be in the furore. If we. all expect, free flow travel for ~every person in their c~ by themselves we probably can't build.enough roads. Chairman Wesloski.asked Mr, Matthes if he had any further comments. Mr. Matthes ~stated that on page 10 the POlicy regarding the high speed rail has been deleted. He stated that a month ago he' agreed with this during the Land Use Element discussion because it was --'decided that a better place to have this would be in the Transportation Element.. He stated that it is his opinion that we will be short-sited if we remove..all reference to high speed rail because technologieS change swiftly. Five or ten years from now, something may come up that has a completely .different ramification than the proposal the Governor vetoed. .Planning & Zoning CommisSion/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 16 Chairman Wesloski .asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly- At this time, Chairman WeSloski opened the public hearing on the Transportation Element. Chairman Wesloski asked if 'there was anyone that would like to speak on the Transportation Element. Ms. Betty Lou Wells, of the. St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Study Group, addressed the Board. Ms. Wells stated that she was unable to locate the suggestion by ~the Study Group of bus entrance and exit for new developments in the Transportation Element. Mr. Kelly .stated'that he recalls the discussion to insert in an appropriate place a Policy that would require transit stops of appropriate new developments. He does not recall plaCing it in the Transportation Element. Ms. Wells asked Mr. Kelly if he meant to include it. Mr. Kell[y stated yes, he did not deliberately ignore the request. Chairman Weslos~ asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak on the Transportation Element. Mr. John Arena, Fort'Pieme, addressed the Board. Mr. Arena provided the following comments: Page 1, the second Policy under Objective 2.1.1, the fourth line, the. word use should be "used" Mr. Kelly stated that has been corrected. Page 2, the unnumbered Policy under Policy' 2.1.1.'3, change the second line to read "monitoring and action program to preserve existing transportation facilities in the". Page 2, Policy 2.1 1.1 add the. wording an to make the necessary changes". Ms. Dreyer stated that this change is included in the previous line that reads "including proposed corrective measures and costs". Page 2, Policy 2.1.1.5, delete the word "system" between loop and signal. Mr. Matthes stated that the WOrding is correct in that it is a closed loop system. Page 4, Policy 2.1.2,4, add the word'"County" between Lucie and has. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 17 Page .5., Objective 2.1.3, the third line shoul'd read "Element and the Furore.Land Use Elements of this :plan". Page-6, Goal 2.2, the second line should read "which provides for transit, motorized and non-motorized". Page 9, the Objective regarding Amtrak, he believes it should read "Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie". Chairman Wesloski askedif there was anyone else who would like to speak on the Transportation Element, Hearing no 'further arguments.in ~favor of or in opposition to the Transportation Element, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloskd stated that she would like to provide.a recap. Mr. Kelly would like the Board to review the Transportation Element and m include in.the motion that the Transportation Element will be without the Airport which will be provided at a later date. Mr. Kelly stated that is .correct .and the motion should also inclUde a similar reference m the fax received, from T. A. Wyner. Page 3, landscape policy - suggestions included adding and/or drought-tolerant, percentages, keeping it within the urban areas and aboUt maintenance.. Page 8, unnumbered policy - bicycle parking - suggestions included that the wording be changed so that bicycle racks are not all over the County. Mr. McCurdy.stated that the wording could be changed m pUblicly or county owned facilities, or we could impose this on businesses. Chairman WesloSh stated that at the least the mall. Mr. Grande stated that .someone suggested inserting the term "major destination". Chairman Wesloski stated what do you define as major. Mr. Trias suggested maybe a weaker policy that state "bicycle parking will be encouraged". Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly for his input. Mr. Kell. y stated okay, if that is the will of the Board. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 18 Page 3 -transportation enhancement - add the word "funding" to the first line of the third unnumbered policy. Mr. Trias stated that Mr. Kelly may even clean-up this policy a little more. Page 9- passenger rail service- keep Ft. Pierce. Page 4 - Table 2-4 - instead of trying .to change the table tonight, this Board could include in the motion, that a .directive be sent to the County that this Board feels we should lOwer our expectations of these levels of services. We can remove it and review it again. Mr. Kelly stated that.this Board certainly :can do either one or you could direct staff to go through the Table again before we send it on tothe County Commission. This would p.rovide some evidence of your discussion, Which w°~ldcome through the. minUtes, .which the County-Co~ssion reviews. They would underStand yoU~ c°ncems and ff yOu directed staff to take a 10ok at it before it goes to ther~ they would know ~vhe~e it came frOm ahd staff wOuld be able to respond. Page 10 high speed rail. it was suggested that we re-inseg language regarding the Chairman We'Slosh asked Mr. Matthes if we could state "any new possible transportation' methods" to leave it open. Mr. Matthes stated that any chances of mass transit will be a-rail system. He believes it is important for it to say rail. Mr. Trias stated that high speed rail is a specific project and may have some problems. Mr. Kelly stated that at the bottom of page 9, there is a Objective that states "actively suppo~ efforts to extemt passenger rail service along Florida's east coast". He suggested that we are really'loOking at "supports efforts, throughout Florida". At the present time we do not know what the technology will be. Mr. Matthes stated that 'would alleviate some of his concern if we do not make it specific for-the east coast. Mr. Trias suggested that we have an Objective that is general and several Policies that are more specific. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Trias if the intent would be'to "support.efforts to extend passenger rail service throughout Florida" with a Pplicy that references the east coast issues and other Policy to reference the rest of the State with imerging technologies. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 19 Mr. Matthes stated~ that as long as we link St. Lucie County to the rest of Florida through a rail system. Ms. Wells question about the entrances and exits for transit stops. · Page 2, 'adding the words "and action" between monitoring and program in the second line of the unnumbered Policy below Policy 2.1.1.3. Page 4, Policy 2.1.2,4 adding the word "County" between Lucie and has in the second line. Chairman Wesloski .stated that the Board needs to discuss landscaping,, keeping in :Ft. Pierce, and Table 2-4. Mr..Grande stated that ~he would support deleting the requirement~for native vegetation at this level to allow the planners rouse the type of vegetation that makes sense and restrict it to urban ~areas. . "By Mr. Trias .suggeSted we amend the Policy to state Year 2000:, the County will require that · ecl" .transpogafion rights,of-way in urban areas be landscaped. Native vegetation will be encourag . Chairman Weslos~ asked if we have time to do this. Mr. Matthes asked if this mandates that every County right-of-way in urban areas better than a local roadway be landscaped by the Year 2000. Mr. Trias stated that maybe we could remove the "By Year 2000". Mr. Matthes suggested "By. Year 2000, the County will commence with the requirement". He does not want to put a burden on the Public WorkS Department that should not unduly be-put there. Mr. Trias. stated that the message that he would like to send is that it is a gOod idea to landscape the right-of-'ways in urban areas but .not for it to be an impossible task because of the timing. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Trias if he wOuld like to take the year out. Mr. Tfias stated yes'. Chairman Weslosh stated that .if we do not have some type of a deadline the motivation to accomplish this will not be. evident. Mr. McCurdy stated that as soon as we pass the plan it could be construed to take place at that point, rather than a year out. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 20 Mr. Trias stated that in many cases~when Comp Plan Policies are reviewed the years are removed because the years pass by and nothing :was done. He believes what .is really valuable about the Policies is that th© language is there 'and the planners and the. County Co~ssioners are able to reference it. Ms. Dreyer suggested that we require landscaping in urban areas on 'new major roadways and re- developed roadways. Mr. Kelly stated'that .he believes the direction is to say that "as corridors are re-developed, County transportation rights,of-way,larger than local roads will be landscaped. Native vegetation will be encouraged in urban:.amas". ' Chairman Wesloski .asked abOut drought,tolerant. Mr.. Kelly stated that if we .are only encouraging rather than requiring, he is not sure that drought- tolerant would be necessary, Mr. Lounds Stated that he agrees with Ms. Dreyer on new major roadways and re-developed "e e roadways, He would.encourage the language ~ ncourag s the use of natives", He stated that he was not opposing ~he use of natives, He .questiOned the use of total native, · Chairman WeSloski stated the Board :needs ~to discuss the strike-through of Ft. Pierce on page 9. Mr. Moore stated that he-appreciates Mr. Trias' passion for wanting to keep Ft. Pierce. He believes there is something this Board as well as the rest of the County entities should be cognizant of. ~He 'stated that we still have divisiveness between the cities, living in Port St. Lucie and working in.Port St. Lucie. Mr. Moore stated that having .experience on a governmental board in the city, there are a lot of people that are hyper-sensifive and feel that Port St. Lucie is the red headed step child in the County, especially when you are talking about something that is not particularly unique to the City of Ft. Pierce. Mr. Moore stated~ that as-Ms. Dreyer pointed out there are certainly some preli~nary plans to bring some type of railway system into the City of Port St..Lucie. He stated that he does not want to suggest that he is hyper-sensitive,'but when you consider these issues as a County Board you really must be aware of this. Mr. Trias ~stated that. he thought we resolved this by having the Objective state "St. Lucie-County" with the Policies. addressing the specifics i.e. "state-wide rail system'; and ".support a station_in· Ft.' Pierce and Port St. Lucie". Mr. Kelly stated to make Sure he is clear on the intent. We will have an Objective which states Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 21 "Actively support efforts to extend passenger rail'service in St. Lucie-County". It will have at least three Policies. One will reference the need to support the east coast rail service which may be Amtrak and/or the Tri-RaiI extension. Another will support new technologies linking us to the rest of the State. The final policy will support rail stations in both Ft. Pierce and .Port St. Lucie. Chairman Wesloski stated the only item left is Table 2,4 on page 4. It was suggested to instruct Mr. Kelly to review the Table prior to taking it to the Board of County Commission. Mr, Matthes stated that he would suggest that the Table be brought back with the other two items. Mr. Kelly stated that would be fine. -~ _ Mr. Matthes stated that he would like'to see ~what staff comes up with before' it goes to: the County Commission, He would suggest that staff look at the standards that are used in AADT versus the peak season, etc. Mr. Kelly stated that pe.~'season was in the prior plan .and we went to AADT because we felt it was more consistent. Mr. Matthes. stated that he ~oWs from experience that an AADT of C is much harder to obtain than a peak se, ason D. Mr. Kelly stated.that ~AAD'T means Average Annual Daily Traffic. Mr, Matthes stated that AADT is. measured over 365 days as opposed to taking the peak, It is easier to obtain, a D in peak season than it is a C in AADT because we are starting to have AADT wrap around the peak season into the summer months. Mr' Kelly stated that:the i.ssue is :hOw you measure and what ~e the units of measurement along with the level of service. Chairman Weslosh stated that the motion should be the changes that we have just reviewed and that staffwill bring back to the Board the Airport, the Transportation and Land Use Study, and Table 2-4. Ms. Dreyer stated that she does not understand what we are bringing back on the Table. Are we ashng staff to bring :back a reco~endation to change all of the levels of service. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Ms. Dreyer :stated that if staff is going to review ihis, .she believes it might be appropriate t6-1ook at recommendations based on the urbanized areas versus' rural areas because she is not certain that D is an appropriate level of service for the rural areas for instance. Planning & Zoning COmmission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 22 Ms. Dreyer stated-that On .page 2' Policy 2.1.1.3 provides we will look at the transportation network and identify Concurrency Exception Areas and areas that will allow lower level of service standards for infill .and redeVel°pment which she belieVes is appropriate. Ms. Dreyer stated that there might be urbanized areas that the Smart Growth goal might be achieved by having a lower level of service.standards rather than just wholesale changing everything to D throughout the whole County. Mr. Trias~ stated that Ms. Dreyer is correct. He believes the problem is when roads enter the Cities they are analyzed the same way by traffic engineers as if they were outside the City, is a real hndamental problem. He believes a 'great.deal Of.discussion. is necessary. He believes this is in the Comp Plan because of the requirements of the'State. As Mr. Matthes stated there is no real context regarding the method used and the ~consequences. The cons6quences are so significant he believes it deserves a better explanation. Mr. Matthes stated that Ms. Dreyer .and'Mr. nas have raised some very good points. Chairman .Westoski stated that she would entertain a motion. Mr, Matthes made a motion to-approve the Transportation Element with the changes enumerated and ~disCuss-ed in whole and~bri'ng back the tbxee.items discussed (Airport, the TranSportation and Land Use StUdy, and Table 2-4). Mr. Tfias seconded the motion, and upon roll Call the motion was approved '8-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 23 r . PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMP~HENSIVE PLAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board will continue with the~ Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Mr. Kelly stated that .he also met with the Study Group on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. He did ~not provide-anamendedelement for just one change. He would like to read the change into the record.-On-page 1, Objective 10.1,1 add the words "and interested citizen groups who. have notified the County.of their inter6st". Mr. Kelly stated that.the Objective would then read "St. Lucie County shall establish specific means of coordination with adjacent municipalities; with local, state, and federal agencies who have permitting .and .regulatory authority; with quasi-public entities which provide services but lack regulatory authority'in St, LuCie County; and interested citizen groups Who have notified the County of their ~nter st. Chairman Weslosh~ asked if there were any questions .for Mr. Kelly. Chairman Wesloski stated that Policy 10.1.3.2 states "continue to request liaisons regarding proPosed plan ~or rezoning amendments from the St. Lucie County School ~ om:u. Chairman g~ Wesloski:.asked Mr. Kelly if the County has a specific liaison in the County .that works with the School Board County and vice versa. Mr. Kelly stated that .he would like to see closer cooperation with the School Board. He was the School Board Planner for approximately five years and during that .time there was a pretty good informal relationship, Presently there is no one.ina position at the School Board that really looks at overall land use issues and that may be part of the problem. The School Board for some time sent a representatiVe to the MPO 'meetings, he does not believe that is occurring at the moment. Chairman Weslos~ stated w~ talk a lot about traffic and Smart Growth. If you have a family and children, most.likely they will notgo to a neighb°rhood sch~°l, so that causes traffic, you have Little League, Girl Scouts and dance lesSons that you have to drive to. Chairman Wesloski asked'Mr. Kelly where in this element can we encourage better coordination of schools. Mr. Kelly stated that:we have made specific requests to the School Board for liaisons and have not received a response. Planning, & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 24 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly if there is a Policy that states County projects within other municipalities will follow the development approvals of that municipality, for example, the Library. This is presently being done informally and very well. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not believe this Element contains a Policy of this nature. Mr. Trias stated 'that he believes this would be a useful Policy. Mr. Kelly stated that the Policy' would be written to go both ways. Chairm~m Wesloski asked Mr. Trias if he is requesting a formal Policy. Mr. Trias stated yes. Chairman Weslosh asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. At this time, Chai~an We.slosh opened the public hearing on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Chairm~m Wesloski asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on the Inmrgovemmental Coordination Element. Mr. John ~ena, Fort Pieme, addressed the Board. Mr. Arena provided the following comments: Policy 10.1.2.2- add "by 2000" between Forum and to in the first line. Policy 10.1.3,3 - add "other publicgroup s". Policy 10.1,3.4 - add "a bi-monthly basis or quarterly" between on and the in the first line.. Mr. Arena stated that local environmental issues should be brought to the attention of the School Board and posters that illustrate pollution and protecting 'and destroying essential fish habitat should be made available to the School Board. O S~ Policy 10.1.5.1 -- add "other public gr up . Chairman Weslosh asked if ther~ was anyone else who would like to speak On the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 25 Hearing no ,further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the Intergovernmental CoordinatiOn Element,. Chairman Wesloski closed the pUblic portion of the hearing. Chairman Weslosh provided a recap of the changes: Mr. Kelly's change to Objective I0.1.1 Mr. Trias' suggestion for a Policy that states the County will adhere to the Cities development policies and the Cities will follow the .County development pOlicies. POlicY 10.1..2.2 add "the year 2000". Policy 10.1.3.3 add the words "other public .groups". Policy 10.1.3.4 adda time on coordinating with the School Board. Mr. Kelly stated that a comment on coordinating quarterly, annually or any other time with the School Board on future locations of schools. The .School Board puts together a plan that contains fi~mre school cons~ction whch the COunty reviews. They do not quarterly discuss future locations, it's done on an as needed basis. Policy 10.1.5.1 add "other public groups". Ms. Dmyer stated that she ~knows the County and the School Board are cooperating with Joint Use Agreement for example in St. Lucie West. Ms. Dreyer asked if it would be appropriate to add an Objective in this Element that states "continue to enter into Joint Use Agreements with the School Board and possibly other municipalities." Chairman Weslosh stated that she would entertain a motion. Mr. Grande .made a motion to approve the Intergovernmental Coordination Element with the proposed changes. Mr. Moore seconded the mOtion, and upon roll 'call the motion was approved 8-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 26 OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Wesloski asked .Mr. Kelly if the Board would be meeting on April 8, 1999. Mr. Kelly-stated yes. He stated that the Economic Development and Housing Elements will be heard. Chai~an Wesioski asked if there was any other business. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Planning & ZOning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 27 PLANNING ~,D ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL ~PLANNING AGENCY ST' LUCIE COUNTY, FLO~DA FEBRUARY 25~ 1999- REGULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Merritt, Stefan Matthes, Ed Lounds, Carson McCurdy, Ramon Trias, Albert ~Moore, .Charles Grande BO~) .MEMBERS ABSENT: Diana Wesloski, Noreen Dreyer (both .excused) OTHERS PRESENT: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Julia Shewchuk, Interim Community DeVelopment Director; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Hank Flores, Planner III; Diana waite, Planner III; and Jo)mn ~ley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice-Chairman McCurdy APPROVAL :OF PLaNiNG ~D ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 1999 Chairman McCurdy 'asked 'if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. There being no addkions or corrections to the minutes, of the January 21, 1999 meeting, Chairman McC~dY asked for 'a motion~ ~. Lounds'made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Mr. Matthes. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 7-0. P~LIMINARY,DRAFT- 1998 ANNUAL ~PORT Chairman McCurdy asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds~asked staff if they would like to make any comments. Mr. Kell.y .stated that this Board heard 24 petitions during .the 1998 calendar year. In 1997 this Board heard 36 petitions. Mr. Kelty~stated thatin 21 instances, the County Commission agreed with the recommendations of this BOard. He-stated that the remaining 3 petitions were withdrawn prior to the COunty Co~ission meeting, if you' take these 3 petitions out, this Board is~batting at 100%. Mr. Kelly stated.that last year after the report came out staff was criticized for the remarkable record. It was stated that staffmco~ends approval, the Planning and Zoning Commission robber stamps it, and the Co.unty Commission robber stamps it. He stated that when you see a 92% approval rating it is easy to think that. Mr. Kelly Stated that petitions that would not be approved because they violate the Comprehensive PI~, or.whatever the reason.,, end up in our Conference Room. Staff advises 'the petitioner.they may submit thek application along With the fee and have a public hearing, however staff Would .not be able to rcco~end appr~¢al the necessary facts and documentation. He stated that there are'a of petitions that never'get beyond, staff. Mr, Kelly stated.that he believes .petitions that are approvable come before this Board and for that . reason this Board is able'to recommend approval and they are able to go forward to the County Commission. ~He stated, that the specific cases and actions 'taken are attached to the Memorandum. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly how many petitions staff.worked with to reform for approval, how many did not come fomard at all, and should these numbers be in the report in the future. Mr. Kelly stated that without instituting a tracking mechanism that catches every phone call and every off-hand conversation ~tstaffhas, it would be real hard to put a number on it: He stated that although he believes it might take more time than it is worth to try to track them all. Mr. Kelly stated that since there were no .further :comments by the Planning and Zoning Commission members, the final draft of the annual report would be forwarded to the Board of County Commis~ioners.,' PUBLIC' HEARING FATHER MICHAEL SAJDA FILE NO. RZ-99-004 Chairm~m.McCurdy explained the Planning and Zoning Commission heating procedures. Mr. Hank Flores presented .staff' comments. Mr. Flores stated thatlhe was presenting the petition of Father Michael Sajda for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3. (Residential, Single-Family- 3 ~du/acre) Zoning Dis~ct m~ the I (Institutional) Zoning District for '3.67 acres of land .located on the North side of DelaWare Avenue, approximately 500 -feet east .of Hartman Road. Mr. Flores stated that the purpose of the rezoning is to allow the property to be used fOr ballfields for John 'carroll High School. Mr. Flores stated 'that.the surrounding zoning to.the subject property is RS-3 (Residential, Single- Family- 3 du/acre) to the no~h, south, east, and west. CG (Commercial, General) to the nOrtheast. I (Institutional) to 'the east. Mr. Flores stated t~h'at staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it confo~s with the standards of review as set fO~h in the St. Lucie Coumy .Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the 'St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you forward this petition to the Bo-md of County Co~issioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any .questions .for Mr. Flores. Chairman McCurdy asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. At this time, Chai~an~McCurdy opened the public he~ng.: Chairman McCurdy ~ked if there w~ anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Mr. Te~ Cooper, 391.2 Delaware Avenue, FO~ Pierce, addreSsed the Board. Mr. Cooper stated that he owns iLot 3. and that he' will be surrounded .on several sides by ba!lfields. Mr. Cooper stated that in lieu of the fact that noone is here tonight from John Carroll High School, he would request that this heating be continued'until such time that' he can hear what they propose. Mr. Kelly staed tha this )efition would have been heard by the County Commission on March. 16th, however that meeting has been canceled. Tbs petition h~ been rescheduled for the April 6th Board' of County Commission meeting. Mr. Kelly stated that if the .Board would like to continue this hearing to the March 18th Planning and Zoning meeting .it could still be heard by the County Commission in exactly the same time frame. The applicant would not be Penalized in anyway, staff does not know why the applicant is not here - and this may provide.an.oppOrtuniW.for a fairer hearing without penalty to'the applicant since they are already being pushed back. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was anyone else that would .like to speak in favor of or in opposition to'this petition. Ms. Judy Dennison, 195 Hartman Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Dennison asked staff if another zoning district would allow John Carroll High School to have the ballfields. Ms. Dermison .stated'that if the property is rezoned 'to Institutional and the p_roperty {s ever sold, anything could be placed on the property'that falls.within the permitted uses of'institutional. If John Carroll decided not to place ballfields on this property, they could place something .on the property that may be ofbenefit to some but. certainly detrimental, to the.residents. She would prefer that the applicant be held to the placement of the ballfields. Mr. Kelly stated that'there is no other zoning district. The .RF (Religious Facilities) zoning district only allows for the church itself. The school, the ballfields, and the .other uses that John Carroll . ould hke reqmres an I (institutional)~zohng dis~ct, He stated.that Ms. Dennison is correct in that once the property is rezoned,.an~hing on the list of permitted .uses is a permitted use on that parcel. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was anyone else that 'would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no.luther arguments in. favor of orin opposition to the petition, Chairman McCurdy closed the public Portion of'the hearing. Chairman McCurdy asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Me.laS~ made a motion to continue'Father Michael Sajda until March 18th at 7:00 p.m. or .as soon thereafter as possible. Moore seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 7-0. PUBLIC 'HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Chairman McCurdy convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly stated that the Board'has before them tonight three elements of the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land 'Use, Coastal Management and ConServation. Mr. Kelly stated that he has provided sub-sets of the elements that were provided to the Board last month. The sub-sets contain onlY the goals and the objectives. The policies have been-taken out. He believes that.it is important that the focus be on the ~oals and the Objectives, to make sure everyone understands what the goals ~d .the objectives are, and then go~through the policies one by one. -Mr. Kelly stated that Ms.. Betty.Lou Wells is present tonight and would like ~to explain the "S~dy Group". He stated that Betty Lou isthe Chairman of the S udy Group". The "Study Group" has spent a lot of time :Studying the Comp Plan and have been very helpfial to staff. Ms. Bett. y Lou Wells stated.that the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Study Group .is a volunteer gr~oup with no. vested interest inthe plan except that we share a belief that the Plan is crucial to the financial .well-being and quality of life ofevery St. Lucie resident. We are new comers, old timers, young, old, business people, teachers, retirees who began meeting monthly a year ago and more recently twice a month. Our hundreds of hours of study and discussion led to the recommendations in the draft before you. Our group doesn't"contain any qualified planners and a number of our recommendation are not worded-as policies,, objectives, or goals. If you find merit in these recommendations, we ask that you direct staff to meet with us in order to word them in Comp Plan language. To summarize, our recommendations Seek a sound economy with growth that covers 'it costs; preservation of property values and o~ natural environment 'through strict enfomement of thePlan and of the regulations: and codes ~adopted to carry it out. A good community, however, is more than plans and regulations. We believe a good community 'is good peoPle with shared values. We: v included a preamble to the Plan that lists what we thi~ is especially good about St. Lucie County's particular organizations, citizens and natural resourcesl One ofthe good things we listed is the.ffiendliness ~of St. Lucie people. We don't know how to ~write a policy to keep St. Lucie residents ~endly, but perhaps if we all .realize that friendliness is one of' Realizing that yo~time is limited and there is much to cover, h Study Group will haVe only one presenter for each ~ofthe elements before you 'tonight: for Future Land Use there will-be Bill Heam, for Conse~ation there will be Maril.yn Stinnette and for Coastal Management there Will be Kevin Stinnette. Other "Study Group" members may speak for themselves for course. Mr. Kelly .stated that an apology is not necessary for not being qualified planners, this is a public process. Mr. KellY:stated that.the Fut~e Lane Use Element contains 1 Goal and 19 Objectives. He stated that the packet contains ~o Goal: i. 1. The goal in the block type is in the existing plan, the goal in the italicized type is a goal that.was provided by the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Study Group. 'Mr. Kelly stated that the t~ee ~unn~ mbei:ed objectives he believes are policies and need an objective.' Th objective may stme "req,mre that land use changes and variances ge'carefully considered" with the un~umbered ~)bjectives iisted ~as policies. Mr. Tfias asked Mr. Kelly if the italiciZed 'text has been proposed by the "Study Group". Mr. Kelly stated that'the italicized been proposed by a citizen group, someone outside of the ' County. ~. Trias asked ~. Ke!ly. if staff-h~'.revie:vied the proposal of the "Study Group" and supports such. ~Mr. Staffco~i~ed to the "Study Group" that theirrproposed language would be~ He wanted the Board to see exactlY what was s .ubmitted. He was afraid ." he would change.meamng if he tried to change words. Mr. Kelly briefly reviewed each of the Objectives in the Future Land Use Element. Mr. Grande asked ~.-Ke!ly if he could work with the "Study Group" to incorporate both Objectives in '1.1'.8. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Tfias asked Mr. Kelly if'the goals of urban design could be incorporated in the Future Land Use Element. Comp Plan. Mr. Merritt stated that he has a problem with admi~stratiVe waivers shall be limited to a maximum of no more than 10% of the cbde requirements.. Mr, Matthes aske.d .Mr, Kelly.when is a super majority typically required by the Board of County Co~issioners. Mr. Kelly stated that a super majority is required on a .conditional use in which more than 5'0% of the affe(:ted area objects~in writing. It is a very time consuming calculation. Mr. Matthes stated that he is:~concemed we are grouping a land use change into a category that is extremely specific. He stated that he disagrees with requiting approval of a super majority vote from the Bom:d of County Commissioners for any change in land use designation. Mr. LoundS asked ~ -Mr.. KellY why staff wOuld allOw an extension on a PUD approval .after two years. . Mr. Kelly stated that:occasionally after tw~o years of working diligently applicants have mn into problems With financing or maybe a permit fi'om the Water Management District. Under these circumstances .staffcan request an extension from the Board of. County Commissioners. ~. Merfitt asked Mr. Kelly if he had an overlay of the proposed downsizing density in multi-family . acreageS.along Ote~der and iSunrise. Mr, Kellystated that the ,S~dy Group" did not indicate how far down the density would go and this is an area where:Sma~ Gro~h might apply. This may drive density the other way. Mr. Merri~ Stated that he would not want to ~11 the scope of the ~te .City project as a TND, by downsizing :density in .mUlti-family acreages, along Oleander and Sunrise. Mr. Kelly .st~ed':that the rationale given was based upon impacts on roadways. 'Sm-art-Growth will allow us to look for .other ways'to :work with our roadways so they can serve an increased density. Mr. Tritu5 stated that you cannot lOok at density and roadways in isolation. It is a fimdamental flaw of the process. He'would encourage the Board to look at design issues and the way things connect as soon as we. can,. because that is the solution. ~Mr, ~Kellly stated' that he. believes this should be looked at and a policy should be set aside. Chairman McCurdy stated, that the Oleander and S~se area will. eventually be a typical in-fill area, which would have .a higher ~density rather than a lower density. - · Cha'lrmma McCurdy-asked if there-were any further questions for staff regarding the Objectives of the Future Land Use Element. Mr. Kelly bri~fly.reviewed each of the Policies in the Future Land Use Element and provided the following comments: Policy 1.1.5,4 - the December, 1991 date will be changed. Staff is presently working on the master plan. Policy 1.1.7.~1 -~was stricken. It should have been left in with language that states "To support and encourage innovative land use development patterns, by including adequate provision in the Countfs Land Development Regulations including Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and Mixed Use Developments (MXDs). Policy 1.1.8,4 is a policy that allows for limited development of commercial/non- areas that can serve neighborhoods. All commercial areas-do not need to be out on U,S. 1 ~ignation. This policy provides standards so that we .are able ~ CO or CN Without amending the land use plan. The commercial use is intended-.~t° .provide accessible convenience-type uses to immediately sUrrounding residences; itis .on an medal or majOr collector; it does ~not promote strip development; it is compatible with surrounding lan~ uses; does not haVe direct driCeWay a~ceSS onto local or minor collector streets; and is less than 10 acres. Item //7 refe~ence~ Preferred Residential which has been stricken because it is a contradmt~on 0fState Law. The whole County was Preferred Residential, ~t did not break out from in place Policy 1.i.I 0.3 .... Mr. Kelly stated that an altemate policy has been provided by the cmzens :of South HutchinSon Island on a separate sheet. On this sheet the policy is .shown, then ~ italics it is recommended that staff delete Policy 1.1.10.3 so that conditional, uses for hotel in .residential zones on Hutchinson Island are treated just as any other U~e with the H!RD .district. The appropriate d nslty would be found by going tothe L?and Use.Tables. Mr. Kelly stat which is hote mainland. He HI~ reside~ then comes dc the L~an.d Deve South Hutchir ~d that the land use plan has a policy that states "transient densities" /motels, the density on the Island is 18 per-acre. It is 36 on the :rated that there is wording within the Land Development Code in the :ial district which, refers to hotel/motel .densities being the ~same Island. Designations, the Comp Plan should say so.. If it should be 18, the Comp Plan should say no. He does .not.recommend deleting,' the policy document should-specify our policy. POlicy 1.1.11.2, Item #6, the words "Preferred Residential" should be deleted. Policy 1.1.11.3, Item #4, the words "Preferred Residential" ~should be deleted. ,, Policy 1.1.-15.3 speaks about the Airport's 65 Ldn line. A policy shoUld be included to update the 65 Ldn line. Chairm~m McCurdy asked if there were any questions fOr Mr. Kelly. Mr. Grande aSked .~ Kelly if the Board were to approve the "Altemate Policy i. 1.1 0.3"' the policy would eXist in the 'Comprehensive Plan and it would specifically default to the Future Land Use Desi~ations. Mr. Kelly stated yes. It would point you to the maps whiCh specifies the various levels of residential, which are 5, 9 and l 5 on the Island. Mr. Trias: asked Mr. Kelly why 18 ~its per acres. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff established 36 units per acres on the mainland, staff recognized Hutchinson Island was a special place and it should be less, so it was cut in half. Chairman :McC~dy asked i~there were any further.questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Lounds .stated that he has a .problem visualizing density and asked Mr. Kelly to select a condominium project on the island and state the density. Mr. Kelly 'stated that condorniniums on .the Island range from approximately 36 per net acre to approximately 5 per acre. ~Tfie marketing strategy for the. newer condominiums on' the Island is to provide vew large .units, for example a 12 story building with 2 units per floor, for a substantial price, therefore the density is vew Iow. Mr. Kelly .stated that in the early 1980's the marketing strategy was to absolutely maximize the n ~umber of units. In many ca,es, all of the units that were available on an entire site, both east and west of A1A, were moved to the east'side Of AiA, and the largest structure with the most ~ts were built. The land on the west side of AIA was then transferred to the' County and it became a mosquito control impoundment. Mr. Kelly stated that the Radisson was developed at a time when densities were greater than 18, he is sure it approaches 36. The Hampton Inn at the Turnpike Plaza is at 36 hotel units per acre. The condomlnium projects in the County range ~om 5 to 36 depending on when it was built and 'the specifics. Mr. Lounds .asked Mr. Kelly if the height resffictions on North HutchinsOn Island are consistent. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Grande stated that height restrictions on South Hutchinson Island are consistent. He stated there are two height restrictions, 35 and 125, they do ~appear in groups, and th.ey are not interspersed. The .area where the high rises are located have a 125 foot height restriction. The area of relatively the late 1980%. Mr. Kelly stated that he would agree with Mr. Grande's comments on height restrictions: He would need to verify the density figures. Chairma:n McCurdy asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Kelly if the August 1990 date was a typo in Policy 1.1.8.3. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Chairman. McCurdy asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. At this time, Chai~an McCUrdy opened the. public heating on the Future Land Use Element. Mr. Bill tteam, who resides in hdrio, addressed the Bom:& Mr. Heam stated that' tonight we have a vew rare ~d exciting oppo~ty to look at what we are going to do with'our County in the future.. He is very enthused and he.looks forward to-an exchange of ideas and coming to a mutual agreement on most, if not all .of the is.sue~. He stated that he wanted to thank Betty Lou Wells for her untiring efforts the Past year and a half and also for the many members of the public who attended .these meetings and provided input, Mr. Heam stated that the' "Study Group" asked, themselves a lot of questions: Can St. Lucie County do better? We think.they can. We have a good Comp Plan, which can' .be~ ~mpmved, and will allow us to move forward into the next 20 years with re-newed enthusiasm that will put St. Lucie County if not the most desirable place, one of the most desirable places to live and work in the State of Florida. Can property values and the tax base be enhanced? Yes, we think it can be. How do investors look at St. Lucie County? We do not think investors do not look at St. Lucie Co ~un .ty as favorably as they could if we had nm a little tighter ship in the past and mn a tighter ship in the future in regards to predictability. 10 Is predictability important to investors? Yes, predictability is very important when you invest in a piece of land. Does our .Comp Plan. have too much flexibility? Yes, it has too much flexibility, Does this flexibility hurt our reputation as a good place to invest? Yes. Why is our reputation not as good as our neighbors to the north and south? Some people would argue that it is as good. With our natural amenities in the community we shoUld be better than our co--unities to the north and south as far as land valUes, tax base, and a desirable place to invest. How can we best address these concerns? The Comp Plan'"'tu'~.cty '-'~Jroup" put together a lot of ideas they'feel will put predictability into our community which-we feel is very .important. Mr. Heam stated that a member of the .public came to a few Comp Plan Study Group meetings . and suggested that we not try to. micro manage the Comp Plan. This advise was taken to heart. The "Study Group" attempted to m~e broad general statements and recommendations that could be · worked into the Comp Plan, ~. H ,am stated that ~fthis Board agre~,s w~th the concepts.of the Study Group that you will d~rect staff to Work with the "Study Group': to get the language in place that we can all look at and understand.. As Ms, Well.s pointed out tonight, we are not planners, .and we are not people who are used to' writing language that is acceptable. .. Mr. Heam-stated that the "Study Gro " . .~ .~.. up expanded the present Goal. They felt the most important words added were "the desireS of the local .residents and how they want their community developed" be included in the Goal. They believe the County should-be developed as the citizens of the comm~W want it.developed. If the Goal is approved desires a special place and should be the first page of the Comp Plan so that it Will ~set the tone for the rest of the Comp Plan. 'of life. T]he. "Study Group" fee. Is this should be fight after the Goal as an Objective, They are not sure if that is where it belongs, they are open for suggestions. Mr. Heam stated that st,a, ffhas taken the "Study Group" policies and labeled them as Objectives. The-Objective on page 1 Require approval of a super majority of a Board of County Commissioners for any change in l~d use designation" is an attempt to promote predictability in the County and stability regarding the way land is used in our community. He stated that if a change in land use designation is a ~desirable change you Will get a 5-0, not just a super majOrity, and this will help in the predictability of people investing in the community. . 11 Mr. Heam stated that if this BOard ~supports the concept of code enforcement be mandated to be proaCtive, the "Study Group" will need the help of staff to put this into Policies. Mr. Heam asked Mr. Kelly to clarify his earlier statement that the .entire County is Preferred Residential. Mr. Kelly stated the emire County, this side of the Urban Service Boundary. It does not include the agricultural areas. Mr. Heam stated that Prefe~ed Residential in the Urban Service area is a desirable area and a desirable classification to haCe for the Urban Service area. He is not sure why staff Would want to remove the language in Polic~~, 1.1.8.4, Item #7, page 15. He does not see the purpose, it seems like it is geared toWard one partiCUlar case that came up about six months ago. Mr. Heam stated that Policy 1.1.9.5, page 17, needs 'language added as to how .we are going to enforce the premmure Clearing of land and the concurrent destruction .of native 'habitats. It is presently too vague. - Mr. Heam stated that Policy !'1.10.3, page .20, there is a major difference between densities in residential.areas and densities in commerCial areas, when they are side by side, they can create hUge problems. Mr. Heam stated that the Ob~eC'tive and Policies regarding the Airport and the inappropriate uses - around' the Airp°~. should ha~e ~a date Certain as to when they will ~e implemented. Mr. Heam stated that a member of the public handed him a note.that stated an ecotourism goal or objective is needed .in the Fut lure Land Use Element similar to the one in the Coastal Element.. He stated-that he agrees. Mr. Hearn stated that to sum~ job with their natural amenit: .which will increase.the amoun the County Commission woul, really work hind developing la we attrack .' the type of quality does. not believe that.we will Mr. Grande asked Mr. Hea~ unnumbered Objective on pa Oleader mad Stmrise south~of] access roads" based on the co: aarize, the "Study Group" believes St. Lucie County can do a better ~.s. We can increase land values and therefore increase the tax base, t oft .axes we have to work with every year. He stated that he believes t'agree that would be a lofty goal to achieve. He believes we should ~guage that will protect people's investment in' °t~ community so .that investments that our neighboring counties attract. He stated that he ,v~.r have to take a-back seat to them ever again if this is done. if he would have an objection to removing the language from the. ge 2 that states "'downsize density in multi-family acreages along idwards Where multi-family density would overcrowd those limited nments that have been stated thus far. Mr. Hearn stated that. he does:~ot have a problem with the removal. He was not present the night this particul~ suggestion w~ r~ade. He sees-room for discussion, especially with the Smart Growth concept being developed. If we can keep the traffic off Oleander and StmriSe and into an area where 12 Smart 5rowth wall bnng more foot and bicycle traffic he sees no .reason why it could not be removed. Mr. Heam stated that he would like to touch on the administrative waivers of 1'0%. Mr. Kelly was absolutely correct in that our telecommunication code allows a 50% administrative~ variance. The "Study Group" thinks this is.totally preposterous, anything over 10% should be .dealt with by the appropriate board. Chairman McCurdy stated that the Bo~d has-a tremendous amount of material to cover and asked the public to please limit their comments to five minutes. Chairman McCurdy asked i~there was .anyone else who would like to speak on the Future Land Use Element. Mr. Hugo Puglisi, of.Seawinds Condominium on Hutchinson Island, addressed the Board. Mr. Puglisi stated that he would like to address Policy I.'1. i0.3. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Heam on: A super majority should approve land use changes. In Goal 1,1., the County should listen to the desires of the local residents and hoTM they want their community to 'develop. Mr. Puglisi stated that there is yew little property left on .the ocean, on South HutChinson Island to be developed. He stated that'there is only one .2 ½ acre parcel left on South Hutchinson Island. He does not see why !8 units per acre density is-for one particular lot, because if affects very little of the Island. He stated that he would like to eliminate Policy 1.1.10.3 completely and let .it be 9 per acre as o:dginally decided. Mr. Roy Carlson, a resident of Seawinds Condominium on South Hutchinson Island, addressed the Board. Mr-. Carlson stated what works well d' ' ~ an .~s not broken, doesnt really need to be fixed. The growth on ~the island today is at 9 units per acre and there are beautiful residential condominiums. 'He stated that he is concerned that if We increase density requirements per acre on the Island, we on t want.to w~nd :up w~:th-a, small Parcels, that a motel could come in and put in a 36 or 40 room motel. He stated .they want tO keep the Island as St. Lucie has projected "unspoiled". He stated let's leave Hutchinson Island alone and unspoiled, don't Change the densiW. Mr. Mel Potash, a resident of Miramar Royal Condominium on' Hutchinson-Island, addressed the Board. Mr. Potash .stated that he believes that it is wrong' to advocate the responsibility in the COmp Plan by simply deleting Policy 1.1.10,3. He stated that he agrees the Comp Plan should be proactive and it 'should state poliCy. H~ stated that in addition to the one parcel on the east Side of A1A there are still several on the west slde, the issue should be addressed. Mr. Potash stated that the only proposals that totally clears up the .confusion between the Comp Plan and the Land Development COde, which was the basis for the recent Court decision, is the "Alternate 13 ohcy. He stated that he believes we shoUld take the number 18 out of Policy 1.1.10.3 and leave it to the Land Development Code. He stated that the Land Development Code should not be changed, it served well in the past and will' serve well in the future. Mr. Edward McKay, 9950 SOuth Ocean Drive, South-Hutchinson Island, addressed the Board. Mr. McKay stated that.Mr. Kelly started this evening with 1 Goal and 19 Objectives..Mr. McKay stated that the 1 'Goal is. o ~ensure the highest quality living environment possible, through a mixture of land uses re, fleeting the needs and de.sims of the local residents and. how they want their community to deVelop' i He stated that the lOcal-resident are hear speaking to this Board on how they want our co--unity, the whole :County,. developed. Mr. McKay stated they were here about 1 ½ - 2 years ago, and they are back again on the same issue, hopefully they will not be. back in Court again on the same issue, wasting taxpayers, money. He stated.that the goal is the highest'quality environment for the people of St. Lucie County. Mr. McKay stated that requiring a super majOrity would help eliminate questionable builders and plan:that Would come before the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that you would have quality people com~g m. this Co. ~un~ty with their plans if they know that a sUPer majority.is required. Mr. Don Villnave, 10044 South Ocean Drive, addressed the Board. Mr. Villnave stated that he has provided, coPies ora memorandums fi'om Co~ssioners Coward, Barnes and B~. Mr. Villnave read the following into the record: ME M.O RAND U.M TO: Ray Wazny, Comm~unity Development Director FROM: Doug Coward, County Commissioner, District 2 DATE: SUBJECT: January 25, 11999 Comprehensive Plan Review - Policy 1 1.10.3. This is in regard to.the "Comprehensive~ . ~ . Plan Review" document dated January 21, 1999, and more specifically, Futt~e Land USe Policy 1. I. 10.3. While I have not completed my review of the entire document, I wish to make a reco~endation on this specific policy. I would reco end St, Luci'e County allow hotel/motel densities up to l 8 units per acre in the Commercial General (CG)zoni'ng district. However, I do not believe that these very high densities are appropriate in residential areas. In contrast, I would recommend ~hotel/motel uses be allowed in the Hutchinson Island Residential Dis~ct (H~)as aconditioaal use with densities-not exceeding the maximum residential densities set forth through the Future Land Use designations. 14 If this reco~endation is. supported by.the majority of the Board, I would further recommend that pending changes to the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan be revised accordingly prior to any Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission or :the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. VillnaVe stated that the memorandums from Commissioner Barnes.and Commissioner Bmhn agree with Commissioner COward's position.. He stated .that these memorandums should help the Board consider what they am doing and to work with the people of the community. Mr. Bill McFadden, 10044 South Ocean Drive, Seawinds, addressed the Board. Mr. McFadden stated that he would like.to.speak against changing the maximum transient density fi'om 9 to 18. He and by the County Commissioners. Mr. McFadden stated that for all-too long the residents of Hutchinson Island have considered themselves as a relatively silent cash cow. He stated that Hutchinson Island provides a lOt in tax dollars to St,. Lucie C°un~.' He Stated that ~their ~demands for.County Semites likeWise are relatively part-time and use no County services whatsoever. Mr. McFadden stated that you.can milk a cash cow to death, without a little tender love and care, nouris~,ent and attenti°nl ~e.stated that all ~they are asking for tonight is the attention they feel hey dese~e..He .stated that. they would like to have the attention of this Board, and their considerations taken under cdnSide'ration by this Board. That's all they can ask. Mr. John ~ena, Fort 'Pierce~i addressed the Board. Mr.. Arena stated that there should be less flexibility and ~more Predictability, and the transfOrmation of our COunty should be community driven. Hie stated that he has a lot of questions to resolve and that he would like to meet with staff for a couple of hours. Mr. Arena provided the following co ~mments: · Goal 1.1' It should be located' on the back side of the front cover with the word "native'" added before wildlife.. Objective 1.1.10: He would like the last line ~to read "beach access and- recreational facilities for the residents and visitors of the County". Policy 1.1.2.5: He has a problem with this policy. Five or six years ago in California a study was done and they found pesticides being sprayed on the ground were found to drift some 16 miles. Policy 1.1.3.1 .b: He would like the first sentence to read "Regulate the use of land, air and water consistent with all". Policy 1.1.8,8: He stated that if we concentrate on tourists adjoining the interState highway system we would have many tourists, Mr. Arena stated that the yellow sheet put together by the "Study Group" is very important and he would like to see it adopted .... · Mr. ~Matthew W~e, of W~ynne:Building Corporation, ~/ddressed the Board., Mr. Wynne stated that they area family omed business and have been in Stl Lucie Cotmty since 1970. He stated that they would like ~to state for .the record.they own a vacant piece of property on South Hutchinson Island and they are Piing to develop a.102 room hotel. He stated.that the current Comprehensive Plan allows hotels as a conditional-use and the permitted density is 18 units per acre. Mr. W~ynne stated'that ocean fi'ont hotel have been developed in Florida since the 1920's, that's forty years before the term condominium was established in the State. HotelS have been considered to be very compatible on.beach front property.. Eighteen rots per acre is a moderate density for hotel use. The condomiffi.ums,to the north and south of their property are both built to 18 units per acm, they are both 112 stories tall. He .stated the hotel they are proposing is only 6 stories tall, Mr. Wynne stated 'that they believe the intent of the existing Comprehensive Plan is proper. To deny .ocean front hotels would' be inconsistent with long term development of entire County. Chairman'McCurdy asked if there was anyone else who. would like to speak on the Future Land-Use Element. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to 'the Future Land Use Element, Chairman McCUrdy closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman McCurdy called a break at 8:54 p.m. due to the length of the meeting. The Local Planning Agency reconvened' at 9:03 p.m. Chairman McCurdy asked if'there were any specific questions regarding the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the-Future Land Use Element. Mr. Lounds provided the following comments:~ He has mixed emotions .about the super majority. It is limited to certain specifics and needs to-stay that way. 16 He supports .administrative' waivers shall be limited to a.maximum of no more than 10% of the code requirements. He overwhe~ing agrees that Code Enforcement be proactive and supported by the · County' Commissioners, it has been very lax. He does not agree with downsizing density along Oleander and Sunrise Boulevard for the oPpo~unity to deVelop cluster type areas that would provide quality :developments, Mr, Matthes provided the following comments: .. He a~ees with Goal 1.1 being placed in the front of the Comprehensive Plan. He does not agree with requiting a super majority for any change in land use designation. He ,does not agree .administrative waivers shall be limited to a maximum of no more than '1'0°,4 of the Code requirements, He does not agree.with downsizing :density along Oleander and Sunrise Boulevard. He suppo~s adding "and visitors" ~ to Objective 1.1.10. He supports the remaining proposals of staff and the "Study Group". Chairmm~ McCurdy .asked if there were any further comments ~om the Board. Chairmm~ McCurdy provided the following comments: He believes the recommendations of staff and the "Study Group" are very 'worthy. He does not agree with the super majority for any. change in land use designation, He suppo~s Code Enforcement being proactive. In the "Study Group" rec°~endation.it states "self sustaining",, if:they are proactive, they will 'work themselves out of a job and they will not be self sustaining. · He do:es not .support downsizing density on Oleander and Sunrise Boulevard. . . Chairman McCurdy asked~ifthere was any discussion from the Boai'~ on Policy 1.1.10.3. Mr, Grande stated that he supports "Altemate Policy 1.1.1 .3 He stated .leaving :the policy in the Comprehensive Plan and pointing to the Future' Land Use Designations solves all of the problems. It leaves-us with a single set of numbers and eliminates any possibility for litigation in the future. 17 Chairman McCurdy asked if there: were any other comments. Mr. Merritt stated that he would feel more comfortable if the Board could hear from residents of Nettles Island or other areas before we make any other changes to this Policy. He stated that it seemS this Board is hearing comments from residents who live in condominiums on either side of the project.in question. He Stated that he is not sure the Board is-hearing from all of South Hutchinson Island-and therefore haS a problem making a change to the Land Development Code to accommodate One party. Mr. Grm~de.stated that-he believes the residents of Nettles Island and areas west of A1A are not here tonight becauSe.this is not an area.of concern to them, one way or the other. He stated that he does not mean to imply they'are SUpporting the changes. He stated-that he. does mean to imply this is not something that affbcts themi they are not close to the area affected, and as a~ group they 'have not taken a s, tand one way or. the other. Mr. Grande stated that Mr. McKay, the Vice President of'the Presidents Council, spoke tonight for 26 oUt of the 35 condominiums in. the area. He stated that he believes this Board has .received a broad presentation without running up hundreds of people to the podium. This does not have an impact ~on the residents of Neitles island or the residents on the w~St side of A1A. Mr. Lounds stated that.there is no difference between a transient resident (who goes north during the stmuner) and a transient.visitor. He stated that he. does not have a problem with a density of.i 8 and he would[ vote for that. Mr. Grande stated that the residents of North and South Hutchinson Island are not against hotels. The residents of North and South Hutchnson Island would like to develop smart. They would like to look at destination hotels where a group'could come in for a week, their meals and meeting spaces would be provided on-site, and they would be self-contained. Mr. Grande stated that. the residents are against a 102 ~t hotel on a 2 ½ acre site using land across .the street as parking and just ficat~on for the density, He stated that you wind up with a hotel that does not have.the amenities to serve the custOmers of'the hotel. You do not have a restaurant, you do not have anythng that. will keep the visitors in'the hotel for the bulk of their stay. Then you have problems wi~ ink--tincture and traffic. You'~have People in and:out for everything that they need to do,-yOu will nOt Succeed fii~anciany because you will not' get people to stay more than a day or two in a hotel that doesn't have the facilities required to Support that hotel population. He believes . Mr. Moore stated that he has a technical pOint to make. He stated that it is not his job to give legal advice to-the Board, however, he Would be remiss if he did not state that he belieVes there will be a problem if we .leave 18 units in and do hot change the Land Development Code. He stated that he is not prepared to leave 18 units in at this time., and change the Code later. The Board is presently 18 working on the Comprehensive Plan. He 'believes a change has to be made. The change needs to be deleted it or do the amendments that refer.back to the Land Use Designations that are in the Land Development Code. He stated that this Board must~be cognizant of the fact that there are legal ramifications, and What might happen in the future. Mr. Grande stated that Mr. Moore.is right and for everyones perspective. He stated that if we leave the Policy in the ComprehenSive Plan and point to the Land Development Code for the specifics, now or later as a Board choose to make it 18, 36 or any other number in the tables, it will conflict with notl.~ g. He stated by implementing the "Altemative Policy" it will give the Board the ability to Set these numbers .in one place and never again create a conflict. __ Mr. Kelly stated that the "Alternative Policy" does not point to the tables, it points to the Future I.;and Use Maps which are 'a part of the COmprehensive Plan. The maps will drive the numbers. He stated that Mr.. Moore is exactly fight, we need for the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development :Code to'be consistent with each other. for~vard for the Land Development Code 'to implement the new items placed in the Comprehensive Plan. It Tbs Board and the County Commission may direct staff to put which will not have an implementation mechanism. It will then be .the job of bring back the implementation mechanism within the Land DevelOptnent s~e that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moo:m :stated that it would be. impossible to justify the current language in Policy 1.1.10.3 on a legal basis. We have to be committed to changing the Land Development Code at a later point. Mr. Kelly stated that if directed by this Board and the County Commission, staff is committed. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was any ~her discussion. Chairman McCurdy stated that he would entertain a motion. Mr. ,Grande made.a motion to approve the Fut,, ~e Land Use ,E, lement w,,ith the modificatio,~ proposed by the St. Lucie COunty ComP sire plan '~Study Group and the Altemative PoliCy provided by the citizens group of South Hutchinson Island (keeping the Policy in the Plan) with instructions to staffto work with the St.· Lucie County Comprehensive Plan "Study Group" to ~bnng' the language to .a level consistent with the Plan as a whole with the following exceptions- To include both Objectives in 1.1.8 'Eliminating the Objective requiting a super majority of the Board of County Commissioners' fOr any change, in land. use designation. Eliminating the Objective downsizing in multi-family acreages along Oleander and 19 Sunhse south of Edwards where multi-family density would overcrowd those limited access, road. Add the words'"and visitors" to Objective 1.1.10. Strike the date in Policy 1,1.5.4. Re-instate Policy 1.1.7.1. Mr. Matthes seconded the motion for discussion Purposes. Mr. Matthes asked Mr.'Grande if his. motion would also include the striking of the requirement of a.super majority of.the Board of Adjustment under the 10% code requirement policy. Mr. Grande stated yes. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Grande if he is leaving in Policy 1.1.10.3. Mr.~. Gran~e stated that his motion regarding Policy 1.1.10,3 is to accept the "Alternate Policy" which keeps the P°licy statement in the COmprehensive Plan and keeps the tables ~n a s~ngle place. Mr. Kelly asked Mr, Grande i£he could ch~ge the wOrd "transient~"t0 "hotel/motel" .for clarity. Mr. Grande stated absolutely. Chairman MeCurdy asked if there was any ~her discussion. Mr. Trias stated that he is in support of this motion. He believes this element is incomplete. If we do not deal with :the issues of Urban Design and Smart Growth, we will have'these meetings over and over again. He would recommend making these changes as soon as possible. Mr.' Keliy stated that there were three items that were recommended that are not controversial" an eco-toudsm goal. Mr. Heam requested dates certain regarding the Airport.. · The issue of the Preferred Residemial overlay. Mr. Grande stated that he Wou~d agree to add all three items to his moti°n. He asked Mr. Kelly if he-would work-~vith the "Stud~ Group" to develop an Eco-tourism Goal that would~be included in the package when it goes forward to the County COmmission. Mi. Kelly stated yes. 20 Mr. MattheS seconded adding the three items to the motion. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was any further discussion. Chairman McCurdy asked the Recording Secretary to call the roll. Upon roll call the motion was approved 5-2 with Mr..Me~tt and Mr. Lounds voting in opposition. Chairman' McCurdy stated that the Board will continue with the Coastal Management Element. Chairman McC~dy stated that the Board will adjourn at approximately 10:00 p.m. Mr. Kelly briefly reviewed each of the Goals, Objectives and Policies in the Coastal Management Element. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly if he would agree with PoliCy 7.1.4,10(d) if reworded to "the County shall enco~age the.completiOn of construction of no less than two'water attenuation facilities in the west county". Mr. Kelly stated that he would'agree with "shall encourage the completion of construction". He would not place a number or.attenuation facilities, in the Policy. Mr. Lounds :aSk ~, Kelly ~to explain the Wording "The County shall act as sponsor if necessary. Mitigation.must be in kind, acre for acre or greater" in Policy 7.1..5.3. Mr. Kelly :stated that the County has to take an active role when sponsoring a project for example applying for a grant. He stated ~tigation :of beach renourishment will need to be addressed by the "Study Group". Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Kelly if ~ .~chaeological ~survey will be required as part of the 'development review in policy 7.1.6.8.(b) for a ~own site, or will this be required for everything that is submitted. Mr. Kelly stated that we may need to reword Policy 7.1.6.8.(b). He does not see requiting a survey unless there is some-reason to believe' that there is something on the site. Mr. Matthes asked-what would be the impetus for that reason, is a map available that contains known sites at he, County level. t~ Ms. Waite stated that the State has a map. Matth,s asked if the map would be made available to the general public or would they have to --go to the State to obtain the map. Mr. Kelly ~gtated that if the County is going to make it a part of the Code, he believes it is incumbent. upon the County to have the map available locally. 21 Mr. Matthes 'asked Mr. Kelly if the intent is only those 'sites that are on the existing'map filed with the State. Mr. Kelly stated yes for the survey. Mr. Trias asked 'Mr. Kelly who will determine the historical or archaeological value in Policy 7.1.6.:8.(c) and how will it be done. ~Mr. Kelly stated the-contractor. He would be open to a better recommendation. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly if the County has a historical preservation ordinance. Mr. Kelly stated no, Mr. Grande :asked Mr. Kelly if the present language in Policy 7.1.2.7 states that the. County will collect impact fees for new developments in high hazard areas, and not provide infrastructure improvements. Mr. Kelly stated that the proposed Policy 7.'1.2.7 does not add or subtract very much from the present l~°licy. The decision~ We make. a~ a 'cOUnty are to be consiStent with th; Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trias~ asked Mr. Kelly ifthe developer is responsible for these improvements. ~. Kelly stated that is one reading of it, because it would provide for infrastructure expansion or improvements'without the use of public funds. Mr. Grande stated that with the impact fee structure, we collect funds and they become public funds that are waiting expenditure at the time the improvements need to be done, aren't we at that time spending public h~nds as opposed to developer funds, or did he misinterpret the Policy. Mr. Kelly stated that he dOes not believe there is a misinterpretation. Mr.. Grande stated that~he agrees with ~. Kelly in that the italicized Policy 7.2.1.7 is not very specific. He stated that he is not sure-we want the original wording either because-it creates a totally Mr. Kelly stated that he would like to work on Policy 7.2.1.7 and bring it back to the Board. Chairman McCurdy asked if there were any further comments or questions for Mr. Kelly. At thi's time, Chainuan McCurdy opened the public heating on the Coastal Management Element. Mr. Kevin Stinnette, 10303 South Indian River Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Stinnette stated that ~he represents the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan "Study Group". He 22 stated that it is important that the Goals, .Objectives and Policies have some component that is measurable. Mr. Stinnette provided the following comments: ohcy 7.1,3.8 - the Study Group" and staff can work together on determining an appropriate..date depending on how long it takes to receive a federal designation of the offshore reefs. Policy 7.1.4.8(d) - he understands if we commit the County into construction of the reser~'°irs we ~'re cOmmitting toan unrealistic commitment of dollars. Support of western reserUoirs is not measurable and it does not reflect the degree of' committment.t0ward improving water quality in the Indian RiVer Lagoon. Policy 7.1.'5.3 - the "Study Group" would like to see tree mitigation if the'County is going'to loose a preciOus resource. Policy 7.2.1.7 expenditure of[ ~at inffastruc more specific. that out as a cdt not 'going to fun nd 7.3.1.1 - the provision of recreational needs as a reason for the ublic funds .for coastal high h~ard area infrastructure is not specific. ~re would the County not fund under this provision and how is that h Study Group did not want to add ~add~t~onal criteria but to take ~na. The State and Federal Governments haVe stated that they are infrastructure in high risk areas. ' Policy 7,3.1.6 - the'"'t~uay' Gr. oup" would like to see ' conditions. Since the Fort Pierce Inlet Managerment. Plan is a more malleable document than our Comprehensive Plan, he would rather adhere to the Comprehensive Plan. If the County .is going to cooperate with other agencies it should be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, rather than cooperating with an°ther plan. 'Policy 7.4.1.3 - stating that the County will cooperate with State and Federal guidelines fOr all 'beach renourishment projects is just cart blanche to external gove~ental agencies. We need to.hold other agencies to our standards. Objective 7.1.7- he is personally very concemed about,,the lack of sp,e, cificity and the vague and unmeasurable policies. He stated that the Study Group did not object to the °ld policies ~and heis not Sure why they Were changed. Policy 7.1.~.2 - he would like to suggest that that "off-set or mitigate impacts" be Changed to ~'°ff-set and mitigate" because it will allow for less abuse. Policy 7.1.7.6 - he .believes some degree of measurability would be nice. POlicy '7.1.7.7- he believes this policy reads as beaches and other recreational facilities are transportation systems. 23 POlicy 7.2.3.4 - $6 million dollars has been spent on these studies between the ~Palmer Expressway and the Walton Road Bridge and they have determined that it is not eCon°micaily feasible and he believes there is no place in the Comprehensive Plan for this policy. ohcy 7.4,1.3 - he beheves we need to establish a criteria and hold the various agencies to. this important criteria. When the County identifies coastal areas, they need to provide that some are habitat for threatened_~ ~. _~ or endangered, species, such as the Capron Shoal, which should be listed .and pmtectea in order not to loose organisms that are found no where else on the plant and could have medicinal value in the future. Mr..Stim~ette stated that he would like to speak to the question about archaeological sites. He has attended conferences where State employees have advised they do not publish-the maps but they know where the .sites are. If they publish the maps people will be digging up everything. The maps are not a matter of public recqrd. Someone coUld probably challenge that in court and probably get access to them, bUt it would.be in a very overt and public way. To Put the map up and to challenge developnlent based on archaeOlogical 'sites would not be a very Practical thing to do. Mr. Grande .stated that he agrees with Mr. Stinnette on Policy 7.4.1.3. Mr. Grande stated that Polic,, 7 3 1 6 st~*~ .u~....~__ ,, ........... ~ ' ,r [.~. ,~ mat ui~ ~ottrlty srlall coorainate w-'"-" ~tn . He believes this really doesn't imply that the County will blindly follow c;r be ead, he Sees a great distinction and aske~l Mr. Stinnett~ if he feell diffe~-ently. Mr. Stinnette stated that Policy 7 1 5 3 ren,~,-*,, "**. .... : .... ,--,, - · -,, - . '~i ..... ,~.~,~.~ m. p~uj~ct snan,,oe supported . The Comprehensive. Plan does not state what the cdnditions are. The "Study Gr°up had reCommended that be stricken and those plans be held to the chteria established, by the. Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grande stated that if Policy 7.1,5.3. relating to the Fort Pierce Inlet Management Plan was controlled by Policy 7.3.1.6 v~liich seems to give the County eqUal footing and certainly puts the County in a coordinator role a~ Opposed to a follower role. Mr. Stinnette stated ~that he can, t speak for the "Study Group". He stated that it makes sense to him. Mr. Edward McKay, 9950 McKay asked'Mr. Kelly if the mean support, 'it should not be Express Authority. Ocean Drive, South Hutchinson Island, addressed the Board. Mr. "support" in Policy 7.2.3.4 could include financial. If-it could He stated there is no County obligation to the St. Lucie Cotmty~ Mr. Kelly stated that the intent ~was not to be financial support. Mr. McKay stated that Mr. Mc~yre has stated that the County has no connection with the St, Lucie 24 County Expressway Authority and asked Mr. Kelly to confirm such. Mr. Kelly stated that is correct. Mr. McKay stated that he'has a problem with the word "support" and if it can mean financial it must be stricken because there-is no connection between St. Lucie County and The St. Lucie County Expressway AUthority. Mr. Kelly stated that he Will work on rewording that Policy. Mr. Bill Heam, who resides in Indrio, addressed the Board. Mr. Heam asked Mr.. Kelly if the County is dealing with people living On boats in Other than'designat_ed marinas in St. Lucie County. Mr. Kelly stated that the CoUnty has an Ordinance that covers live aboard. He is not sure there is a reference in the~'COmprehensive Plan. Mr. Hearn asked Mr~ .Kelly what the Ordinance states.. Ms. Yomag stated that the Ordinance has been in place for 7-8 years. It establishes length of stay, the type of equipment required,' it attempts to put all boats in marinas with sufficient ~pump-out facilities. She stated'that she believes .it has a 48-72 hour stay for people sailing by. Chairman McCurdy aSked if them was anyone else who would like to speak on the ~Coastal Management Element. Mr. John .Arena, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Arena provided the following comments: · · Policy 7.1.2.2 - remove the word "the" in the second line. Policy 7.1.2.2 - top. of page 4, the word "owever," should be "However,". Policy 7.1.2.3 - the date should be changed. Policy 7.1.2.4 -'delete the first "shall" in the third line of the Policy. Policy 7.1.2.5 - delete the words "unless waived by the Board of County Commissioners". Policy 7..1.3.:6 - add the words "stationary marine life in the inlet and harbor" should also be mapped~ Policy 7.1,4.5 - delete the words "by all appropriate Federal and State agenmes' ". Policy 7.1,4,9 -third line, change animal to "native animals". ~ 25 ° Policy 7.1.6.1 - add the following wording "unless the site is of great significance". Chairman McCurdy asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on the Coastal Management Element. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or .in opposition to the Coastal Management Element, Chairman McCurdy closed, the public portion of the hearing. Chairman McCurdy stated that the .Board .has had several recommendations brought forward. Chairman :McCurdy' asked Mr. Kelly if the Board should continue with the discussion portion now, or should the Board. continue this .discussion ~at the next meeting- of the Local Planning Agency to be held on March 11, 1999. " Mr. Kelly stated that he. has written down all comments reCeived from the public. He stated that he has not had time to react or ~determine what is good or bad. He stated that although the public heating has been closed, we probably need to bring this element back and have another opportunity for another exchange ~which might involved re-opening the.pUblic portion. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was any further discussion from the Board. Mr. Grande stated that he would suggest adding a step. A tremendous amount of work has been done by staff,.Ms.. Wells ~and the St. ~Lucie County Comprehensive "S~-- ~' ' ' · tuay Group". If Mr. Kelly or a designated, staff member could spend some time with the "Study~.~.ro'up" to review the staff requested phraseology and the ":Study Group" phraseology and where there is agreement it could simply be stated in the beginning. Mr, Grande stated the only areas that should .come before ~the Board are those areas where a decision needs to be made. He stated that if there is a consensus of the BOard and staff a lot of what the Board has gone through tonight could be ~avoided and the future sections cOuld be gone through a lot quicker. ' ' Chairman McCurdy asked Mr. Kelly for his thOughts. Mr. Kelly stated that getting t~ough quicker sounds good. He stated that he believes that it is important for the Local Pl~ng Agency. to tmderstand the issues and the process. He does not want to simply agree with the "Study Group" and take away from the Local Planning Agency the fi~ll underst~ding of what has.been done. He stated that he appreciates the vote of confidence that has been given to staff and the "Study Gro" - Ollp~ o Mr. Kelly stated that staff and the "Study Group" will have to be prepared to respond to the Local Planning Agency jointly regarding their process. He stated that his other concern ~-Ould be shutting out the public at large, He stated that he is not sure that the Pt~blic at large was present tonight to hear the full discussion..He stated that he is certainly willing to give ~this suggestion a t~. Chairman McCurdy stated that to see the recommendations of staff and the recommendations of the 26 S~dy Group is very helpful. He stated that if staff and the "Study Group" both have a position, the position could be'merged, and it would contribute to the understanding when it is brought to the board. Chairman McCurdy stated that it was the consensus of the Board for staff to meet with the "Study Group" prior to the next Local Planning Agency meeting to further discuss the Coastal Management Element and the Conservation Element. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairmm~ McCurdy asked if there was,any other business. There :being no ~rther business, the meeting adjourned at 10:24 p.m. 27 PLANNING ,AND ZONING COMMISSION~OC~ PLANNING AGENCY ST' LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA' JANUARY 21, 1999 - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Stefan Matthes, Ramon Trias,~ Ed Merritt, Ed Lounds, Carson McCurdy, Diana Wesloski, Noreen Dreyer, Albert Moore, Charles Grande OTHERS PRESENT:' James Lancaster, Assistant County Attorney; Ray Wazny, Community D~velopment Director; Julia Shewchuk, Economic Development/FTZ Manager; Dennis Murphy, Land Development Coordinator; David Kelly, Planning Manager; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ~LEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was 'led by Chairman .Wesloski ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Kelly stated that the petition of Adron and Pamela Chambers, for a- Change in Zoning 'i~om the RS.3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning'District to the CN (Co~ereial' Neighborhood) ZOning Dis~ct :located at U.S. 1 and Easy Street has been pulled ~om omght s agenda .as one of the. applicants is in the hospital. Mr. Kelly stated that ~an editorial appeared.in 'today's paper ~ging residents to attend and he did not want anyone in the au.dience waiting for the petition to be heard. DISCLOSU~S: Mr.. Matthes stated that his employer, Cu!pepper & Te .rpening represe: applicant:, Phil Drawdy, Agenda Item #3, therefore he will recuse himself from this item. Mr. Merritt-stated that he. has represented the:owner, of the property in the past and will th~ recuse himself from Agenda item #3. ats the ~refore ELECTION iOF CH~RMAN: Chairman'Wesloski stated that she would take nominations for Chairman. Mr. Merritt nomi/~ated Ms. WeSloski for Chairwoman, with Mr. Matthes seconding the motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other nominations. With no 'other nominations, :the floor was closed to nominations, and upon roll call, Ms. Wesloski was elected Chairman by a unanimous vote. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN: Chairman Wesloski stated that she Would open the nominations for Vice-Chairman. Mr. McCurdy nominated'~Mr. Me~tt fOr Vice-Chairman. Mr. Meffitt stated that ~he will have to decline the nomination. He sometimes has to recuse himself due to the natUre of his bUsihess. Mr. MenS:tt nominated Mr..McCurdy for Vice-Chairman, with Mr. Lounds seconding the :motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if[there were any Other nominations. With no other nominations, the floor was.closed to nominations, and upon roll call, Mr. McCurdy Was elected ~Vice,Chai~a~ t0y a un~imous vote APPR.OV~ OF PLANING ~D ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - ~GUL~ MEETING OF. DECEMBER 16, 1998 Chai~an Wesloski ~asked if there were. any additions or corrections to the minutes. There being no further additions or corrections to the minutes of the December 16, 1998 meeting, Chairman Wesloski asked for a motion. Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Mr.-Grande. .. Upon roll call, the mOtion was approved 7-0, with Mr. Moore :and Mr. McCurdy abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING PHIL DRAWDY FILE NO. RZ-99-003 Chairm~m Wesloski explained the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing procedures. Mr. Hank Flores presented staff comments. Mr. ~Flores stated that he was ~Presenting the petition-of Phil Drawdy for a Change in Zoning from the' AR..1 (A~cultural, ReSidemial - 1 du/acre)'Zoning District to the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. Mr. Flores stated that subsequent t° the application, Mr. Drawdy requested .that his request b~ :amended to the CO (COmmercial, OffiCe) Zoning DistriCt. ~ Mr. Flores stated that the .subject property is located on the South side of West Midway Road, approximately. 1,320 feet west .th .. of South 25 Street. ,Mr. Flores stmed that :the su~ounding zoning to the subject property is AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential'- 1 du/aCre)to the north, south, east, and west. RS'4 (Residential, Single-Family- 4 du/acre) to the east 'and west~ I (institutional) to-the northwest. CG (Commercial, General) to the northeast. CO (Co~erCial, Office) t° the north and northwest. Mr. Flores stated ~that .Mr. Drawdy originallY applied for.a change in zoning to CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. ~en it was determined that the proposed use would not be Chairman Wesloski asked if there 'were any questions for Mr. Flores. Ms. Dreyer .asked . staff if the policies of 1.1.8.4 have been reviewed, as .recited, to ensure they could be met by the petitioner for construction of the office facility. Mr. Flores stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Flores. Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Richard Ladyko, Project Manager With Culpepper & Terpening, 2980 South 25th Street, Fort Pierce, addressed the .Board and stated that they represent'.Mr. Phil-Drawdy. Mr. Ladyko stated that he is pleased staff is-recommending the petition for approval and he would be happy to answer any questions. 'Mr, McCurdy .asked Mr. Ladyko where will the office be located on the parcel. Mr. Ladyko stated that a preliminary site plan has been developed for the property. Mr. Ladyko stated tl~tt the. applicant ~ProPoses to develop a small office park containing fiVe buildings, each averaging 6'000.square feet with associated parking, with access centered on the ~property off Midway Road, and a retention area located in the rear of the property. Mr, : cCurdy asked Mr. Ladyko if the site was to be designed for a single contractor's building. Mr. Ladyko stated that it is not proposed to be a single contractor's building, the preliminary site plan is based on.five individUal buildings. Mr. McCurdy asked staffif this Will go through the site plan approval process. Mr. Flores stated yes. Mr. Ladyko.provided ~the preliminary site plan to the Board for their review. Chairman Wesloski stated that She did not see a decel (deceleration) lane on the drawing~ Chairman ' Wesloski asked Mr. Ladyko if a dece! lane will be required. Mr. Ladyko .stated-that they have not confirmed with staff if a decel lane will be required, the preliminary drawing is just a foot print that suits his client's needs. .~. Lo~ds asked staff to show on the overhead where South 25~ Street is located in relation to this property. Chairman Wesloski stated that in the information provided to the Board it states "to develop a building ' ' ·" comractor s office not offices.. Mr. Ladylko stated that since the .application was originally submitted, the applicant changed his mind, he would be more than happy to allow the applicant to discuss this with the Board. Chairman Wesloski stated that five buildings will generate more trip traffic than one office. 'Mr. Ladyko stated that the amount of.building coverage proposed in the preliminary site plan is approximately 14-15% of the total site, which is well under what the zoning Would allow. He stated that typically the range is 30-35%, .and this site as proposed is ~considerably less intense than what the code allows. Chairman Wesloski stated if the zoning were approved. Mr. Ladyko stated yes. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Ladyko if the parking area will be for automobiles or trucks and heavy equipment. Mr. Ladyko stated strictly automobiles that are consistent with an office use. Mr. Lounds asked staff if there will be any impact on entering and existing this site near Midway and 25th Street Where the roadway narrows.. Mr. Kelly stated that staflhas' not looked at t~s. impact. He stated that this Board needs to determine if this is an 'appropriate site, for Commemial, Office'use. He stated that the details of the site will be process when staff will review access to the property, the- layout and the type of the type of trees, etc. Mr. Trias asked Mr, Kelly what is the fi~ture of zoning 'of this area. Mr. Kelly ,stated that West Midway Road has Commercial, Office and Institutional uses that rrm fi'om this intersection to the Post Office. He stated that we have a changing use in. this area, staff has never fi~lly defined what it will be, staff does not believe it should be strict commercial. Mr. T~aSMr,S-tatedTriasthataskedthe staff~_ :rep°rt indicates that this's" ~ ' ~ an orderly and logmal development l~elly h°w this rezoning fits into the orderly and logical develoPment pattern. Mr, pattern. Mr. Kelly stated that it would be very difficult to argue that Commercial, Office is-not orderly or consistent att~s location when in the past :years, this Board has approved three other Commercial, Office zonings in this area. Chairman WeslOski asked if there were any hrther questions of Mr. Ladyko. At ,this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing. Chairman WeSloski :asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of this petition. Chairman Wesloski asked if. there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this petition. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Ladyko. Hearing no further arguments in,favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion' of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After co:nsidering 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 Cotmty Land Development Code, Mr. McCurdy moved that: the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County CommissiOners grant approval-to the application of Phil Drawdy for a Change in'Zoning-from the~-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning .District to the CO (Commerc,al, Office)Zomng D,strict because the condor and the land in question appear to be- moVing tOward a co~ercial use, Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and upon roll call the ~motion was approved 7-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of 'County Commissioners with a recommendation.of approval. PUBLIC HEA~N'G ORDINANCE 99-002 FILE NO. ORD-99-002 Chairman WeslOski convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency. Mr.-Dennis Murphy presented staff comments. Mr. Murphy referenced Draft Ordinance ~99-002 (a spin-off from Draft 'Ordinance 99-001 reviewed by this Board several months ago, which was a re-numbering of Draft Ordinance 98-016). .. Mr. Murphy stated that the-~specific amendments contained in .Draft Ordinance 99-002 deal.with three areas, tw-~o related to each other and one U~elated. The two related areas deal with-access for commercial and zo~ng dis~ct bound~es and the other area deals with telecommunications towers. Mr. Murphy-stated that he wOuld go through each section briefly and then allow the Chairman to open the hearing for public comment. Mr. MuChy stated that ~Staffis proposing a change to Section 7.05.05, that did not make the final production drafts, andprovided copies to each of the Board members. Section 7.05.05(A) should read as-follows, the underline text is for ..addition: No residemially.classified street or zoned property, excluding ~artefial orm~or.collector roadways, shall be.used for driveway, walkway, or any other access p~ose m any non- residentially zoned land, or to any land used for a purpose not permitted in a residentially zoned disthct ~exce.m.as provided for .in Para~aph B below_; Mr. Mushy asked the.Bo~d if they had any questions regarding Section 7.05.05.' Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Mushy to clarify Section 7.05.05(B)(2). Mr. Mushy stated that the iment of Section '7..05.05(B)(2) is that the. applicant has satisfied the standards of review as established .by the County Commission in that the dominant use of the prope~y within.the area of the.proposed driveway, connection, to the proposed.or existing use is vacant or.othe~ise occuPied:by non,residential uses. FOr example, when you look at the area surrounding the proposed ~veway connection, it is either (1)vacant.or (2)the dominant uses in the area are non-residential in nature. Ms. Dreyer asked' Mr. Murphy if he is speaking of the area surrounding the proposed driveway location access connection point. ' Mr. Murphy stated yes to the area surrounding the proposed driveway location access connection point, but not the use itself, the concern is not what's happening on the property. The North Hutchinson Island Mini,Storage site plan that has caused so much concern in the past, is administratively dead because of the failure to proceed on the part of the applicant. Mr. Mmphy stated that if.someone chose to apply for a warehouse operation on that property fight now, they would have to go back to ground zero and start all over again. They would have to comply with all current county standards, including access, which would not be off Marina Drive, Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy if We have existing properties that are zoned non-residemial that are not' accessible other than.through residemially zoned areas, if We consider streets as part of the areas prior to this change, are we looking for some relief for the OWners or builders of those non- ~esidemially prope~ies So that they can have access, or are we not. going.to assume that the zonings are erroneous or incorrect. Mr. Murphy stated that .at this time staffis not going to assume that the zonings are erroneous or . incorrect. Mr. ~Grande st.ated that-if the .Board approves the changes as proposed by staff, we are guaranteeing the property fights of the properties that may have been zoned inco~eCtly or may be sitting with an old zoning that 'has .not been UPdated and shoUld have been. Mr. M~hY stated that we are guaranteeing the fights o.f the property owner to at least make their best pitch, should it be necessary to do so.. The exception p.rovisions if approved are very strict, wherein you have :to demonstrate .you have no .other way to-access your property and that it was through no fault of your own, Mr. Grande asked ~, :Mmphy how-many properties are located, in' the county, Other than the North Hutc~nson Isled property, that would caUse the cowry to take this corrective action, which really ~ants Prope~y fights Which may be've~ dangerOus, ' Mr. Murphy stated .that the county has enough existing uses that are potentially being placed in precafiom~ poSitiOns should .the cominued interPretation as rendered be that roads are considered to 'be zoned residential, you cannot use them for access, because of the way the existing.. zoning lines arein the various, arts of the county. He does not foresee a great flood of uses coming in fight now and he does. not of intense development .in the middle of areas like Lakewood Park Mr~ Grande statedthat :if the county has.the ability to look at parks and churches on a case. by case 8 basis'using the variance or conditional use as the solUtion, by incorporating these changes into the code, the county be giving property owners with improperly zoned parcels property fights that they shouldn't have. This 'would put the coUnty in a position where they will not 'be able to stop the property owners in the futUre from using access they shouldn't be able to use, only because the property was poorly zoned to.start with. Mr. Murphy stated that the method to address that specific.issue would be to review the entire zoning structure of the County. He stated that denying this change would not: cure the problem' it would only delay the issueuntil a property owner is denied and brings it fo~ard in a court of law. Mr. Grande stated that it would come up case by case Mr. Mmphy stated that it would come iap case by case and in a very ~painful and expensive manner. He stated that if you Want to evaluate the zoning applications across the board, .there is an opporturfity to some :degree to dO that relative to the comprehensive plan updates. He would caution the Board that' there are prOPerty fight components that We must be co~izant of, there should be compelling reasons to chan~e from One ~Use to another is Very Complicated. Mr. Moore stated that hew resident.s' 'present tonight. suggestion with ~. not adopted. to make a point for the' edification of the Board and for the last time this Board visited this issue, he adopted Mr. Killday's When he saw that it hadn't been done, he. spoke for the Board and the audience to hear why that was Mr. Moore stated that ~. ~llday.offered proposed language that may have worked better than the language provided'by staffed it. seemed l~e 'a good compromise for the ~people that were concerned about the North Hutchinson ISland Mini-Storage and for the instances staff raised that.'night. He stated that Mr. MurPhy told him· the reason the propos.ed language was not adopted into tomght' 's was because there were other instances that weren't ust draft '~ ,' '. :', · :..' :~'~ ..'.: ~ ..... ,. ~: ~,:. ~. i! ~ ~': ~,.,~ ~. : ,.. j potential for negative litigation, but there are parcels -of land preSent today that-are not impmt~efly zoned and i~ c;mmerciaI areas and there is n° way for'the property oWners 'to use that lar~d given Mr. Killday s PropOsed language. Mr. Murphy stated that there connection to that roadway. be-situations where the' configuration of the parcel, the condition collector roadway would preclude or otherwise prevent a driveway ,u then have a parcel that cannot have access to it. Mr. Murphy stated that an example of this could be Ridge Haven Road and NOrth U.S. 1. where you have commemial zoning froming omo U.S. 1 and the lots carry all the ~ay back through to Ridge Haven Road. Ridge Haven for ail practical purposes is a residential street. It may not be possible to have a ,~iveway connection at the cOmer lots due to the access management criteria with DOT. Today th{.re are connections, but the moment you go to ~mprove the property you must meet all current DOT standards and that will have a negative impact. Mr. Murphy stated that in this-situations you at least want to have the opportunity to explore a safer design that would.alloW some encroachment'back onto the street. The standards outlined in these change staffbelieves ~e in this vein. The burden of proof and responsibility remains~on the property owner, 'it is not the ounty.s respons~bd~ty to prove that the property owner cannot get to their property. Mr. Murphy stated that Other examples could include Beach Club Colony, where a string of old duplexes:were converted into businesses years ago. They are doUble'frontage lots and the businesses have constantly' wanted.to 'use the back door approaches to get in. Legally they can't do it, It's a constant war to come in and prevent it. In some instances, in general' there may be no alternative. Mr. Trias stated~that he is not familiar with the background 'of the North Hutchinson Island Mini- Storage iproject. He can understand in. some cases there is a real problem with access to property. He is a l~ttle concerned about applying this concept generally throughout the county as proposed in the draR -ordinance. cons~cfion..~at is'the affect 'ofhaving:a residential street that ac~ally takes you to a commercial area. How would this apply in. the county~ Mr. M~hy stated that ifyouare coming from'the residential area into the commercial areas, with- commercial onboth sides, there is no-affeCt. Mr. Trias asked.Mr. Mushy what if you have a commercial establishment in the middle of your .residential area. Mr. Murphy stated it l~ills it. Mr. Trias asked Mr. M~hy why would that be a good thing. Mr. M~hy stated that the way the Code is written and interpreted fight now, it would kill it. This mechanism ~ assuming you have the CO~emial zoning and the other criteria, would at least.allow for it to be considered. With the recent interpretation that has been c~ed forward, it would mn counter to ~the concepts of new and traditional and integrated land use, straight-up, you can't.do it. He stated that the Board needs to .decide if this is good or bad. To not be able to integrate your uses in an urb~m enviroment such. as Fo~ Pieme. Mr. Trias stated that in his oPinion, there may be a better tool to address some of the issues and specific concerns that app~ently brought this about, than changing the overall definition of streets in the courity. - ~ Ms. Dreyer asked if this could possibly lead to the tail wagging the dog if 'you have a small commercial parcel with no other access ih-an through a residential street located in an.undeveloped area. Would that not then be an impetus for the neighboring properties to request commercial zoning 10 since you now have a commercial constructed uSe and a road leading to it. Mr. Murphy stated that no more than it would if you had the frontage off of the arterial or the collector. Ms. Dreyer stated this is where we would typically place commercial. Mr. Murphy stated-that this would really only apply in a comer lot situation. He cannot see the County 5ommission sanctioning the introduction of a commercial use, distinguishing commercial specifically, into an established residential area knowing that it 'would result in a domino effect of applications forconve~ed uses for that activity. Chai~an Weslosh stated that her.understanding is that a request for a change in zoning would not be able m move forward becaUse roads cUrrently having zoning. This'dra~ ordinance will allow the request ftr a change in zo~nggo forward through the process, providing it meets all of the criteria, including the Public heating prOceSs. ' Chairm~t Weslos-h asked ~.. Murphy if the warehouse on the beach were. to come .forward, would theY be under the new regulations. Mr. M~hy .stated that'they would be ~under the new regulations and would require a conditional use approval. Chairman Weslosh.asked Mr. M~hy if during aprior meeting he used the example of a property on Old Dixie Highway.. , Mr. Murphy stated that was the zoning petiti°n of the Baptist Church. Chairman Wesloski .asked'Mr. MUrphy if that road is zoned residemial. Mr. Murphy 'stated yes it is zoned residemial. Chairman 'Wesloski stated that i~e majority of the properties in that .area are commercial. Mr, Murphy stated that non-residemial land use designations are Highway ,was class{fied for residential uses. in that area, but OM Dixie 11 Chairman Wesloski stated that we all 'know what goes up and.down that road. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. 'Murphy if trucks Can travel on :a residential road. Mr. Mmphy stated yes. He stated that he believes the amendments outlined in this draft address that point. Chairman Wesloski stated that Old Dixie Highway would no longer be considered residential. Mr. Murphy stated that it would be an arterial collector roadway so the provisions of access comained herein.woUld not.apply in that particular instance. He stated this draft ordinance could be apprOved inthe most rigid form possible that might state "we cannot access commercial or industrial · ' t ~ ~ property ~om.anything bu an a~enal, collector roadway and there could possibly'be that one flukey · situation, where this would still not fit. ~. Mut~phy stated that we ~have to choose our words carefully because we have situations where we have a commemial local street, For example, Fo.rt Pierce Business Park, off of Selvitz Road, technically 'the s~eet entering this park is a local street. We are in no way stating that you cannot access that local.street because ~there is industrial on both sides and all around it. He stated that residentially zoned lOcal streets are~thoSe with the predominant use on both sides are residential in nature. Chairman WeSloski .asked if there ~e any more questions for-Mr. Murphy. · Mr, Meffitt asked Mr. MuChyif'the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage prope~y was zoned when the land use desi~ations were put into affect. Mr, stated that pa~icular parcel has had a commercial classification as far back as the late 1960% ea~r!y.1970's. It has had different degrees of commemial and different classifications, but it has had anon-residential use. Non-residential is a broad heading, it covem churches, schools, parks, low intensity eo~ercial, .mOderate imensity, high intensity, industrial and landfills. .. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if them are a lot of other properties that carry the zoning through, before the land use program was adopted in 1984. Mr. Mmphy stated that is correct, He stated that there were uses in 1984 and again in 1990 (when changes were made to. the code) that were subject to new zo~ng categories.. The use that may have been pemd~ed in ~the.previous category no longer worked and had to go to the nearest compatible, and churches are a good example. Mr. Merritt, stated that if we do not provide some method of relief, we are opening up the county for lawsuit-S:. Mr. Murphy stated 'that' he is not an attorney. He believes the county is opening themselves up to a potential problem in. the way of access: and damages regarding the denied use of property and/or restricted use ofprope~y. 12 Mr. Murphy outlined the Changes being made to Section 2.00.00 and Section 7.10.23. He stated that in Section 7.10.23(A) the underlined language should have been eliminated and the struck through portion should have'been left in. He stated that he believes the remaining changes are minor in nature. He stated that the landscaping and aesthetics requirements have .been strengthened around telecommunications towers. Mr. Murphy. stated that a problem has recently come up on permitted use towers. He referred the Board m Section 7. i0.23(E)(3). He stated-that a few tower providers have come into areas that are zoned industrial or agricultural, which are a permitted use of right. One specifically was surrounded by. five or six tim mounds and two out in the middle of groves. He stated that landscaping is required .. ~ound the tower base. The towers in these particular instances are not anywhere close too or visible.~om a roadWay, at base level. In the case of the industrial location, it do~s not make sense to go into.the :middle ora tire Chip dump and put in trees that will not live. Mr. Murphy stated that in 'the case of the groves, ornamental landscaping in the middle of a productive a~cult~al enviroment will do nasty things to citrus trees, so you.would not want to put landscaping there, you akeady have., grove trees that-will shield the base. Mr. Murphy stated the'intention 'of Section 7.10.23(E)(3) is to provide some ability for the Community Development Director ona case-by-case basis to review the development plans and provide for' some relief in those instances. Mr. Murphy stated that the county encourages co-location of'services .providers and requires a $15,000 removal bond. He stated that the Security Fund, Section 7.10.23(F), does not distinguish between co,located providers. He.stated that the county had a problem (which we are attempting to address, here) w. here a provider wanted to co-locate onto an existing tower. The provider was told $15,000 (in addition to the $ I ~5,000 that the county was already holding for the tower) they raised the question why. This is 'a'legitimate qUestion. Mr, Murphy stated that .staff is proposing if you are co-locating onto an existing tower the fee will be $3,000 w~ch should be sufficient to remove the antenna. He stated that based on economics, he believes t]his will encourage cO-locating rather than bUilding from scratch. ~ Mr. Murphy asked the BOard if they had any questions. Mr. Merritt stated that to charge $3,000 for co-location seems to punish a co-location instead of encouraging. Mr. Merdtt ~ked Mr. Murphy if the security fund of $15,000 is not enough on the original tower. He stated that he h~ seen leases on tower's that have had up.to 12 co-locations. He :stated thai: he dOes not have a problem with the $3,000' but he feels the co-locator, may have a problem with it: Mr. Me~tt asked Mr. Murphy what it costs to take down a tower and why are we 13 discouraging the co-location ~with a $3,000 fee. Mr. Murphy stated that he dOes not believe .we are discouraging the co-location, he believes we are encouraging the co-location. If the applicant does not co-locate they would have to write a check for $15,000, fight nOw they only have to write a check for $3,000, A year and a half ago, the County Commission determined that it was appropriate to require a bond to ensure that the tower would be taken c~ie of and/or removed shoUld it:be necessary. Consistent with that, the recommendation was made thqt $3'000 was reasonable for a Co_located antenna or antenna array. ' Mr. Menfitt asked Mr. Murphy what would be the cost to take a tower down. Mr, Murphy stated that he cannot give a precise amount. Mr. Merritt stated that we do not even know if the $15,000 would cover the cost of taking it down. Mr. Murphy stated that it would depend on ~the type of tower. A monopole or guyed tower would be cheaper to t'~e do~ than a self-supporting tower, due to the amount of time involved in removing the tower. It would, also depend on the Complexity of where it' is located, and how you Mr. Merdtt stated that he has a problem with the cost of $'3,000 for removing a co-located antenna, he would .like to see that changed 'and encourage to,location. Chairm~ Wesloski asked if there were any. more questions fOr Mr. Murphy. Mr. Lounds asked ~. Mmphy how many applications per year are received for co-location, and are they increasing. .. Mr. Murphy. stated ~that he does not have an. exact number. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if'the county would rather see them co-locate then to apply for separate towers. Mr. M~ihy stated absolutely. Mr. Lounds asked~Mr. Murphy if the $3,000 would cover the cost of hiring someone to take that specific antenna and co-axial cable off of that particular tower. .Mr. Murphy stated yes if it were necessary. Mr. Lounds askedMr. Murphy why this is not left up to the tower owner. Mr. Murphy .stated that it could be. The county could put the burden of res~ponsibility on the owner of the toW~,.r. The-present 'structure of the code is that, if you want to co-locate a facility, in addition to .the $15:,000 Paid bY the original. tower owner, the co-locator would have to pay $1'5,000. This 14 Change is an attempt to change what staff felt was .a contradictory action on the part of the county. For instance, on one hand we want you to co-locate and on the ~ther hand we are going to charge you $15,000 to :place the co-locate. ~ Mr. Lounds stated that he understands and agrees with the intent. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Merritt Wherein the county would rather have people co-exist on a tower than build more towers. He stated that $3,000 for a radio station may not be a lot of money, if it were a small business that_ needed that antenna, height and .location $3,000 may make a deciSion for them. Chairman Wesloski .stated the Board will have a public heating on each section and vote on each section, during this time we can get into the specifics. Mr. Murphy stated that staff rec.o ~mrnendS approval of Draft Ordinance 99-002 as amended with Section 7105'05(A) as presented tonight. Chairman WeSloski stated that the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage is no longer a viable project. Chairman WeSlOs~' asked the Board if there were any specific questions of staff regarding Section 1,06.02 and 7.05.05. At this time, Chai~an 'Wesl0ski opened.the public he~ng on Sections '1.06.02 and 7.05.05. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone WhO would like to speak on Sections.l.06.02 and 7.05.05. Chai~an Wesloski r ~..quested that Mr. ~llday's hand-out be made a part of the record. Mr. Brian. Killday, 923 Jackson Way, Fo~ Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Killday stated that he is speaking tonight On behalf of the Conse~ation Alliance of St. Lucie County. Mr. ~llday read into the record as follows: De:ar Cormnissioners: I hereby.submit to' the record the position of the .St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance with.respect to Draft Ordinance 99-002. We have concerns with ce~ain pr..ovisions of this proposed ordinance as stated below: 1.06.02 7.05.05 DIST.,CT BO~ARIES .USE OF ~SIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS The proposed amendments to these sections, as written, clearly violate the intent of the Land Development Code .and are inconsistent with the County COmprehensive Plan. Section 1'06,02 (page 3) clearly states that, where indicated on the zoning map, the zoning district bound~es are: the center lines or.the streets ~d roads. If the ~ntention had been to exclude the-streets ~om the 15 zoning regulations, the zoning atlas boundaries woUld have been drawn .as such. He stated that if streets were intended-to be excluded it would have been drawn along .the property lines. It is very clear that in the situations were it was intended to be excluded it would not be drawn along the center of the stre'ets. These amendments, as written, directly violate Policy 1.'1.8.4 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Development Code must be in conformity with Objective 1.1.8 which states: The protection of the single family neighborhood.as a defined residential area from the encroachment of commemial and/or other inappropriate land uses will be provided for through the Land Development Regulations. He stated .that Policy 1.1.8.~4' requires that any commercial/non-residential use in residential areas must meet the following standards: 2) ..i The.property for which the commercial designation is sought is located on an arterial or major collector; and s) The site does.not have direct driveway access onto any local or minor collector street. Policy 1.1.8.4.does not allow for exemptions of this role. Mr. Killday stated that their suggestions for remedying the problems brought .fo~h, churches 'and .co~ercial uses in. the middle, most of' these are on major:collector Or arterial streets. Mr. Killday stated that-there is no needed to amend the definition of Section 1.06.02, it is very clearly' ~tten as it was intended to be. Matin County has the same provisions as. St. Lucie County as ~t s presently written. If we change the code to read 'no residentially zoned property excluding arterial-or major collector Street or road:fights-of, way, Shall be used for'driveway, walkway, or any- other access ~p~ose to any other non,residential!y zoned land, or to any-land used.for~a purpose not permitted, in a r ' .es~dent~ally zoned dmtnct then it will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The .way :it is 'written:is not. Mr..Killday stated that we have a beautiful-county with well-written Comprehensive Plan and Land Development.Code provisions that allow, for reasonable development. The proposed amendments cited would only se~e to degrade our property values and quality of life. In-addition, these amendments are inconsistent with the St'.' Lucie County 'Comprehensive Plan and in violation of Section 163, Florida Statutes, and can be appealed to the Department of Community Affaim pursuant to this statute. Mr. Killday stated that the Land Development Code as presently written has a legally defensible position against takings lawsuits. It is written in the Land Development Code that if someone had a problern they could have come out when the Land Development Code was being written arid challenged it t~ough the Department .of Community Affairs. He stated that now there would certainly be an argument that they are being .estoppel from arguing. If Draft Ordinance 99-002 is adopted ~and the prOperty owner can prove they do not have access to a major collector street,'the county no longer has a Choice, the county must allow access through the neighborhood to their 16 property. The County COmmission would then be forced to approve the 'access because it is written in the Land Development Code and the property owner can sue on a takings clause if Y°u do not allow it. Mr. Killday stated that Section 11.06.01 oUtlines the purpose of this section is to provide for a means for amending the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Code or the Official Zoning Atlas. Section 11.06.03, Standards of Review, in reviewing the application of a proposed amendment to the text of the Land Development Code, the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning .Commission shall consider: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. These. amendments clearly violate the spirit, the intent and clearly the letter of the Comp Plan. - ~¢~ether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would'adversely affected the .prope~y value in the area. We have the same amenities as .Martin and Indian River .Counties yet pmpe~y values here in St. Lucie .County are much lower for equivalent houses, ~y move to St, Lucie County and buy a $250,000 water, front home, when all at once the Land Development COde can.be changed and you have tracks 'accessing a storage warehouse or whatever may come forward, perhaps a surro~ding counties. Whether the proposed amendment.would be in conflict with the public interest, and is-in harmony with. the purpose and interest of this Code. The citizens here are 'opposed to these amendments. ~ere are those who are in favor of this.. Who ask the County planners to Changes these Codes and why are they not here stating their pUblic interest. ~ere are the potential litigants. Mr. ~llday stated that he urges someone to m~e a motion to reject this and to listen to the people. Chairman WeSioski requested that 'Ms. Spalding's hand-out be made a part of the record. Ms. Nancy ~Spalding, 211 M~na Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Spalding stated that the warehouse proposed for North Hutchinson Island withdrew their application because the Land Development Code does not permit it, As soon as the new code is implemented, she believes they will be back in to re-apply, Ms. Spalding-stated that in 1958 the land in question was to have been developed asa yacht club and this is Why it was made commercial. Ms. Spalding stated that Section 1.06.00 as ~written, specifically permits warehouses. She stated that 17 Section 7.05,05 is completely contradictory. She stated that'the change made.by Mr. Murphy tonight regarding SectiOn 7.05.05(A)incorporates the changes she is suggesting in her hand-out as Section 7.05.05(C) and asked Mr. Murphy if this is correct. Mr. Murphy stated that it is 'a redundant sentence and it doesn't' undermine .anything, in his opinion. Ms. Spalding stated that if Section 7.05,05(B) stands as is, definitely the warehouse as it was proposed: could go in there because it states, that "the dominant use of property within the area of the proposed driveWay", if they put the driveway on Flotilla Terrace inStead of Marina Drive, the property just east of Flotilla TerraCe is commercial and 'that would be permitted. The residents would 'still be left with a warehouse in a residential area. Ms. Spalding 'stated that she just can't understand, July was the first time the code changes were proposed, and since then conversations have been held with staff, including a public meeting where it was explained what the residents want, but they don't seem to get it, they .seem to want a warehouse on this property. Chairman Weslosh. stated that Draft Ordinance 99-002 is not for the warehouse, it is for the whole county, ,. Ms. Spalding stated that no .matter what staff.proposes always permits the warehouse-to go on that Chaiman Wesloski stated that she would not say that it would permit it, it .might give it the opportunity to request to be permitted, but that does not mean it would be permitted. Ms. Spalding stated that she belieVes.it would, be impossible, given this wording, for the Coumy Commission to turn it down. She :stated that staff if very concerned about the 'hardship for the property owner but not about the hardship for the residents. Mr. Mushy stated.that it is important to remember the ~third word in Section 7.05.05(B): Except as may be .specifically authorized. This is not a mandatory action, it is a permissive or subjective type action. The Board of County COmmissioners has the abiliW through the review process to turn it down. Mr. M~hy stated that-staff is co~izant of what happens to each individual property as well as the impacts on the su~ounding area. Chairman Wesloski stated that each property owner has the ability to ask. Mr. Murphy stated that'.this simply provides a mechanism, It is not a guarantee, you have to meet the standards. It does not guarantee, approval. Chairman Weslosh asked ~Mr. 'Murphy-if the applicant dOes not meet .the standards would ~hey still go forward[ t~ough the heating process. 18 Mr. Murphy stated yes, staff does not have the ability to administratively deny. Chairman Wesloski stated that a property owner in the County would have the ability to have a forum to bring forth their request. Mr. Murphy stated yes. Mr. Grande stated:that if this Board does not make any changes at all, property owners ~who are affected have the fight to come forward to ask for relief at the Count Commission level. The coUnty would nly be exposing themselves ~f the property owners are unsatisfied with the relief at the County Commission level, if this Board makes these co~ections we are reversing, the ~process and.in :affect giving the property owners the fights to eXpect relief. _ Mr. Grande stated that they may hope to exercise.a fight and put the County on the defensive. -Mr. Murphy.state.d that~he does not see it that way. .. Chairmm~ Wesloski requested-that Mr. Doran's hand-out be made a part of the record.. ~. Jo~ Doran, 3300 North A1A, Fo~ Pieme, addressed the Bo~d. Mr. Doran stated that he serves hopefi~lly, adjust the proposed language.. The "workshop" was held, hoWever, our AsSociation felt we were not listened to. In November of 1998 the proposed changes were again before this Commission..Again, this Commission sent the proposal back to the Planning Department and suggested a re-write. Our Association even suggested acceptable language for Section 7.05.05. Again, we feel, we have been i~ored by the Planning Depa~ment. We ask that Ordinance 99-002 be rejected in totality. Please loOk at page ~o of my presentation. This is the.. language of 7.05.05 as: it is today. You will note that it was adopted in August of 1990. It was reviewed and passed Without revision in August of 1996. One sentence, two lines. Now, please look .at .page .t~ee of my presentation which is 7.0.5.,05 as revised by the Planning .Department 'after the "workshop" in August 1998. It now has a.tc/tal of thirteen lines. This was rejected by this Commission in November of 1998 and sent back to the. Planning Department for a I9 re-write. Now, let's look at page four which is the proposal that is before .you tonight; without the revision provided by Mr. Murphy tonight. It is now thirty three lines long. Mr. Doran stated that do you, as an advisory board wonder why we citizens at times question our governmental u~ts. South Beach has been driven to their current pursuit only because the County Planning Department overstepped its authority. Likewise, North Beach has spent over $17,000 in legal, fees opposing'the v~.ances the Planning Department provided in an area called "Barts Bay". That is still before :the Courts. Mr, Doran stated please Ii:sten to us, look.closely at mY presentation. Look at page two. Look what happened after the workshop~ ,.the language expansion. Look what happened.after this Commission sent it ~back for a .conSideration .of a small re-write. Now you have a full page, thirty three lines of this proposed ordinance. We strongly urge this Commission to reject this entire proposal. Mr, Dick Spalding, 2.1-1 Marina DriVe, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Spalding stated that he just: w~mts to poim out ~at the beach is .our ~eatest asset. Presently the beach is a very high taxed' area, conlpared to the rest. of the County. The atmosphere'and the, ambiance· are present and he would like to keep it~that way. To build a warehouse on .the beach does not seem like a very inteiligen:t thing to. do t.o choiCe~pmpe~ to'keep the pace of taxes that support the whole County. It does not make economic sense to the Count:y, to allow a warehouse on the beach. .. Chairman. Weslosh asked ifthere~w~ anyone else who would like to speak on Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. L .sh~, Sawno, 3207.South L~eview Cimle, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Savino stated that his property faces the street where the warehouse supposedly was going to be constructed. He stated that: he has owned his property for fot~ years, and PurchaSed this property because he thought North Hutchinson Island was the most beautiful area he had seen in Florida. Mr. Savino stated that he can understand the ~Commission evaluating this area where residential streets are slowly.being conve~ed into Co~'ercial streets. Commercialism over-powers residential areas, people move out, co~erCial properties move in, and it becomes a residential street. Mr. Savino stated that ~on North Hutchinson Island the reverse is true, this is a residential area and there is no co~ercialism that could possibly find its way onto the Island unless we allow the areas that e have. today akeady.zoned commercml to be developed as commercial properties. He stated that ~' ~ ' ~ ' · he beheves th~s property Was mis-zoned originally. It is not a commercial area. Mr. Savino stated that he compliments members of the Co~unission who questioned this Change. These changes .are not applicable to everyone, only in some areas of the County, not North Hutchinson island. He beli~veg the County ~hould leave it as is. Look at it on a case b~ CaSe basis, leave the street zoning,, and let each'-property o(Vner fight for their position. 20 Mr. Bill Heam, who resides in Indrio, addressed the Board. Mr. Heam stated that he concurs with the. residents who have proceeded him tonight. He must point out, if the owner of this commercially zoned property, in the middle ~of a residential neighborhood, wanted to obtain the most value for his property', he could have' the Zoning changed to.residential to conform with the other uses. He stated that in most ~cases, 'in a residential area like North Beach, the values .for the residential property would equal the commercial property. Mr. Heam stated that he would like to .suggest-that the Board delete the following from Section 7.05.05(A) .xcludmg public or private street or road rights-of-way". Mr. M~phy stated that tanguage has been~deleted and referred Mr. Heam to the language shown on the oyerhead prOjector. Mr. Heam stated-that he would like to suggest the following changes to Section 7.05.05(A): change the last.line.in SectiOn 7,05,05(A) to read "district, however. · include the ~o para~aph in Section 7.05.05(B) as part 'of paragraph Section after paragraph number I add the-word "and". after p~-agraph number 2 add the word "and". Section 7.05,05(C) would then become Section 7.05.05(B). Mr. Heam stated that tbs is. the.only Possible Compromise. He stated that he would encourage the- Board to leave the wording as is. 'Chairman Weslosh. asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05,05. Hearing no further arguments in favor .of or in oppOSriti0n to Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05, Chairman Wes!oski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board, Mr. Grande stated that he cannot vote on these two sections. He does not feel staff has corrected the problem. He dOes not see .any risk to the County by leaving these sections as they are. If a potential risk to the 'County were present, he would like to see that risk defined by the County Attorney at a level the !Board could understand. He--Cannot see any reason whatsoever to make the requested changes. Mr. Matthes stated that h~ disagrees with Mr. Grande. 'The Land Development Code is only a working document. ~en it was put together, it was not cast in stone. The Board was giving the 21 ability to make changes to the Code as situations arise:. He does not believe a warehouse or some commercial applications would .be proper at the end of Marina Drive. Mr. Matthes believes: that the Planning Department has come upon a legitimate concern, wherein some type of litigation could possibly happen if'we do not allow for some type of a relief mechanism, for a different situation, to mn its due course. He believes staff is trying to point out these situations and protect ~the County from litigation. Mr. Trias stated that he agrees With Mr. Killday's proposal because it seems to address the hndamentaI issues .of what a street is and what a lot is. Mr. Tfias made.a motiOn to reject the changes drafted by .staff. Mr. Grande secOnded the motion. Chai~an Wesloski asked if there was any discussion. Mr. Lom~ds ~stated that he woUld like for Mr. Trias to explain whether or not he is asking for Mr. :~ llday.s language.be substituted for what staffpresented: Mr, Tfias stated that 'his' motion .is to reject .the changes 'drafted by staff. Chairman Wesloski asked if.there was any further discussion. Chai~an Wesloski. asked the Recording Secretary to call the roll. Upon roll call the motion was denied 6-3. Chairman .Wesloski stated that she would ente~ain another motion. Mr. LoundS ~ked ~. Mm~ ~hy what differs from Mr..Kiilday's interpretation of Section 7.05.05(A) 'and the language proposed by staff. Mr. M~ihy stated that there is .no difference other.than staffhas added an exception clause which refers you to p~agraph B. The only difference in the lead-in language provided, by Mr. ~llday, excluding :~efi-aI or majOr collector street or road fights-of-way, from that Provided by staff, is the word "street" versus"r, oadways". Mr. Lounds asked Mr.. Murphy if the exception clause is to cover the County ~om a legal perspective, Mr. Murphy stated yes, in his opinion. Mr. Moor~ stated that the pmblem he has with the proposed changes are staff has informed him there are instances in the comm~ty right now that are not on Hutchinson Island and are not on the Beach, 2¸2 where owners:of commercial property cannot use their property. The example given by Mr. Heam is a great argument because if you are on the Beach, and you have a commercial piece of property, you are not going to 'lose any money because you can use the property in a residential manner. Mr. Moore stated that if we have instances that are not on the beach and the area has been zoned commercial for as long as the surrounding areas have been zoned residential, and the owner bought that piece of prope~y, has :been assessed and paid taxes .on that piece of property at a commercial rate (which is higher than a residemial rate), you have basically cut the o ~Wner off by saying that they cannot use their property. Mr. Moore stated that he disagrees :. with Mr. Killday's asse~ion that. if a property owner has not challenged the language .at this .point, they are stopped from doing so. He does not believe this to be tree. He stated ~aside from a legal challenge he believes there is an inherent unfairness. For example ifa property owner states they are going to deVelop a commercial piece of property and the commercial property has existed as long as the residential, to say sorry you-can't develop, .that's what.he sees as the problem. This is why he :now tends to favor what staff has recommended as opposed .to Mr. ~llday's suggestion. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with. Mr. Moore. He feels the plea of the residents. He stated to Ms. Spalding, ~. ~llday and Mr. DOran.that he understands their feeling.. He stated that he does not ~owwhat the' ramifications ~e that the residents have to do in 'order to continue to protect their property, their prope~y fightSand their feelings. Mr. Lounds stated .that. eve~.piece of property with similar, circumstances has the same rights of protection and development as Ms. Spalding, Mr. ~llday and Mr. Doran are trying to ~protect for their own.. He stated itis ve~ admirable the residents have broUght these idea~ fgrward and as a group-are here to .fight for it:. He wished there were more public interest in the other areas the Board looks at. He does not. ~ow how you protect a glitch other than get out and fight for it. Mr. LoUnds stated that the Dra~ Ordinance presented by staff is a clear example of working With some .of the original ideas brought fOrth months ago..He.believes this is an attempt.to correct the wrong in unclafified rulings years ago, and in the future there will probably be more that will have to be done, ~Whatever this. Board decides-on we will all have to live with, .Mr. Grande stated that he would like .to hear from the County Attomey's Office exactly what this will protect the: Co~ty from. Mr. Lancaster stated that if the County denies property owners the fight to develop their property itcould cause' ' litigation. He stated that Mr. Murphy is not attempting to state that it would be successful_ litigation, He stated that this is recognizing a problem and attempting to deal with it'head on. He stat.ed that this is an attempt by staff to make a compromise between the concerns of the residents present tonight, that there be no access, and the person who may have a unique situatiOn, that .has to ~be dealt with. Mr. Grande aSked .Mr. Lancaster if this is approved can the specific case .of the North Hutchinson 23 Island Mini-Storage be brought back as it was originally proposed. Mr. Lancaster stated that the North HutChinson Island Mini-Storage Could come before the Board of County Commissioners and asked for an exception. He stated that Mr. Murphy has other issues · that would also bear on that. Mr. M~hy stated that for the record the North Hutchinson Island' Mini-Storage is dead. He stated the zoning on the property still remains. In the discussions earlier tonight, all have been centered. around :what could happen on the property. This could get approved tonight, and someone could come in tomorrow and propose to do another commercial use on .that property. This could get denied to~ght and someone could come.in tomorrow and propose another commercial use on that property. He stated[ that if the driveway connections are mn through the shopping center at the front .end, there is not a thing in the world the County can do to stop it. This has not .addressed the fimdamental concerns of the neighborhood. You could have a restaurant or an expansion of the shopping center out them tomorrow and there is not a thing the ~access matters are going to do about it. They could still come through the proper~~ from A1A down through the shopping center and into that area, all they.haw, to do is secure the' access fi:ghts through 'that property. He stated, that if the ~ndmental concern on the North HutchinSon Island Mini-StOrage Case is that the zoning is wrong, then access is not the tool to control that. To stop it, you change the zoning. Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board is not here tO discuss that case. · . Mr. MuShy. stated that is correct but :in this one instance, it is not an access question, it is a fundamental zoning designation on 'the property. Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with Mr. Murphy. The.issue is access not zoning. He stated that 7.05.05(B) and 7.'05.05(C) are unclear. 7.05.05(A) seems to deal with the fundamental issue of the confi~sion of, what is.a lot.and what a street is. He believes to complicate the issue as proposed is not necessary at this point. Ms. Dreyer stated that' she apPl'auds staff for bringing this problem to the Board and would like staff to continue to do so. She stated that she does not agree with this particular correction. It is not in violation of the Policies of.the Comprehensive Plan that were cited. This is not a clear violation and this is a big stick m bring at a small Problem for lawsuits that may or may not happen, and She would not be in ihvor of this particular amendment. Chairman Wesloski stated-that the exception Would give property owners the fight to come forward and present their issues at a forum and she believes everyone should be allowed to do this. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would entertain a motion. 24 Mr. Merdtt made a motion to. approve SeCtions 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion, and upon roll'-call the motion was approved 6-3 with Mr. Trias, Ms. Dreyer and Mr. Grande voting in opposition. Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board will continue with Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Murphy on SeCtions 2.00.00 and 7.10.23. Mr. Grande. stated that 'he has a Philosophical problem with the language contained in Section 7.10.23(E)(3) "the Conununity 'Development Director may consider" and in 7..10.23(L)(1)(c) "the Community Development Director may approve '' " ~ ~vanances . He believes variances should be approved bythe elected officials, If these variances are pe~itted, he would feel more comfortable if they were at the discretion of the County 'Commission. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr..Murphy if:he Would like to comment on this. Mr. Murphy stated that the Land Development Code has two levels of variances. There are a series ofadministrative.vari~ces, which are minor in nature. The remaining variance provisions, typically, with very few .exceptiOnS, go to the Board of Adjustment. These are considered major, they require a public hearing.and are dimensional with fundamental impacts on an area. Mr. Murphy stated that the ~County Commission in prior years determined they did not want the burden of' a variance request for routine items. If the recommendation of this Board is that all variances be muted t~oUgh to the appropriate Board (and in most cases it will be the Board of Adjustment) that's fine. He. believes this will have a negative effect on development and permitting properties. Staff has requested .a number.of times from a number of entities to liberalize.the variance provisions to approve items :at the staff level as opposed to going through the Board process. In prior years the Boards have been very receptive to minimizing time, constraints and other impacts on the use of property. ThiS is really a philosophical position. Mr. 'Grande stated that.he did not mean this in a negative.sense. His concern is that if we allow the . a~inistrative variance proced~e, we would preclude the hearing process, wherein interested parties may want to have input. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if staffhas been instructed to handle the minor adjustments at the administrative level. Mr. Murphy stated yes and you are precluding being heard at the time the order is written. There is an appeal procedure for administrative variances and typically they go to either the County A~i~strator or the County Commission to ~arbitrate and make a determination. Variances issued by he Board of Adjus~ent are appealed t~ough the Circuit Court. Board of Coumy Commission variances are also appealed t~ough the Cimuit Court. 25 Chairman Wesloski asked if'there were any other questions for Mr. Murphy. Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with 'Mr. Murphy's proposal, and he would move for approval. Chairman Wesloski stated 'to Mr. Trias that she had not opened the public .heating so she will not be able to consider his.motion at this time. Chairman Wesloski ~asked if'there were any other questiOns for Mr. Murphy before she opens the public heating. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy who would a land owner go to for arbitration regarding Section 7,10,.23(E) if the Community Development Director said no. Mr.. Murphy stated that the appeal route for administrative variances would be the County Administrator and then to the Board of County Commissioners. In this-particular instance, it would be County Administrator and then Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Lounds'stated that several years ago the Fire DisMct consmcted a building on Shinn Road and the landscaping cost several thous ~and dollars more because the plants were required to come from a ceaified nematode free n~sery. There were no provisions at that time for this and this would have eliminated theneed for that. He stated that he believes this is a good provision. Chairman Wesloski.asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Murphy. · Mr. M. Curdy ~asked Mr. MuChy if a co-located ~tenna is simply an antenna and cable on an existing tower. Mr. Murphy stated that it cOuld be. It could be an array or dish. Mr. McC~dystated that the $3,0001 figure is prohibitive. He stated that $1,000 seems to be a more reasonable figure in his opinion. Mr. Murphy stated that the Board may change the $3,000 figure. At this time,-Chai~an Wesloski.opened the public heating on Sections 2.00.00 :and 7.10.'23. ~. He~t, who resides in ln~O, addressed the Board. He asked ~. Mmphy if there ~e any towers that were approved for construction prior to September 19, 1997 that have not been built. Mr. Murphy stated'none that he is aware of. Mr. Heam stated that he has some suggested wording changes that would clarify the intent of the definition and the code and they are as fOllows: on page 4, P~-EXISTiNG TOWERS AND PRE-EXISTING ~TENNAS' he 26¸ would :like this paragraph to read "Any, permitted, existing tower or antenna constructed prior to September 19, 1997 (the effective date of Ordinance 97-023), that it would qualify for a replacement for a larger tower that could hold a communications' antenna. on page 6, P~OSE: he would like this paragraph to read "The purpose of this section is to establish regulations and requirements for siting of wireless telecommunications .towers. All new towers or .antennas in the CoUnty shall be subject to these regulations". on page 7, GENE~~: he would like the third line of paragraph 1 'to read- eqmrements of Section 7.10.23. Telecommunications towers may be located as a conditional". on page '7, G~~: he. would like the fourth line of paragraph 1 to read "use, subject to'the.req~rements of Section 7.1.0.23 and Section 11.07.00, in all remaLning zoning". on page 9, he Would like'· the~ third line of paragraph, b to read' "w'~ay, pubhc' park.or playground, public or private school (K through 12), any habitable residential structure orany area", Mr..Heam stated that.on page 10, 'Table 7-40, the :CN, CO, CG, IX and I, have been added to'make it easier to erect toWers in areas other than where they are now permitted. Mr. Heam stated that he would like to comment on Section 7.10.23(L)(1)(c) wherein the Commtmity Development'Director may approve variances, At some later date he would like to see the wording in " ' · ' paragraph c read The Co--mW Development Director may approve variances up to 10% from the ~ "~ ~. ,~ " separation reqmrements ..... , He would like to see this change because of what happened last summer. The Community Development Director issued a variance down to 300 feet, when the requirement is 750. feet. He believes~this is a major variance and should have been handled by the Board of Adjustment. on page. 11, the first sentence at the top, he would like to read "to habitable residential Smc ~ ~.es ofless than 300 feet provided the applicant meets all conditions of Section 7.10.23(L)(c). on page 11', paragraph P, he would like the first sentence to ~read "Any permitted existing telecommunications tower erected before September 19, 1997 ( ate.. de ,~$ Mr. Heam stated that. he hopes this Board will give carefi~l consideration to these suggested changes. He has had cI0seand pemonal relations~ps with problems thru have occurred without this I~guage. He believes this. will clarify the ordinance and make it a little more difficult to place towers in areas 27 that they' are not permitted in. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Heam if he was .suggesting that CN, CO, CG,-IX.and I be removed now from Table 7-40 or'was he just making a comment. Mr. Hearn stated that he is-suggesting that they be removed now because these are not permitted areas. Mr. Grande' stated to ~, Heam in paragraph c on page 10 he recommended that staff add "up to 10" in the future.. ~. Grande asked Mr. Heam if there was some reason ~why he was not recommending that this change be.made tonight. Mr. Hem.'n :stated that he does not have the ability to recommend '.this change tonight based on advertising constraints. Mr. Merdtt asked Mr: Heam why he wants to exclude IX. Mr. Heam stated that IX isa temporary zoning classification. When the extraction is finished the property is rezoned to:. another zoning classification. A tower is not necessarily a temporary structure, Mr..Merritt stated that the property would have.to go t~ough a rezoning. If you have a property zoned IL or. IH with a.tower.on it, you. can still rezone it. . . ~. Hearn.stated.that he does not feel a temporary zo~ng classification 'is the right place .for a tower. He stated a good example would be 'the Stuart Sand Mind property. It would make a fantastic residential homesite for eight or ten beautifi~i homes on the lake. Ifa tower is present, not too many people will want to build up scale hOmes. Chai~an Wesloski asked if there was anyone.else who would like to speak °n Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in oppositiOn to Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23, Chairman Wesloski clOsed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Mushy if he has any objections to Mr. Heam's suggested changes. Mr. Murphy stated he has concern regarding the suggested changes :on: page 9, paragraph b, adding the words "any habitable residential structure". To the extent that this does not conflict with the items of Table 7.-40 nor conflict With an_ agricultural enviroment, he does not believe this' to be a problem. His'major concern is really in the agricultural/grove areas. In this type of environment, domestic ommentals, you are creating a problem for the agricuimral operation itself~ which has a negative impact. By trying to mi~ize the impacts of one use you wind 28 up hurting the 'primary industry in the County. page 10, Table 7,40, CN, CO, CG, IX and I are not.permitted uses of right, they have to ~be accessow to an existing commercial use on .the property. They are subordinate to the commercial use. on the property. It was felt the owner should not be .penalized for placing.a tower on their property. They know what they are getting into. If you have a house on the property, that is not an accessory security residence, meeting the criteria you~ ~ an t.take advantage of this exception, you have to meet the.applicable standards 'for that particular use. Mr. Mmp. hy.stated that his recommendation would be to leave Table 7-40 as is. With a little work between now and the County Commission we can work on the apPropriate language for page 9, paragraph b. - Mr. Grande-asked Mr. Murphy if he feels the proposed language for page 9, paragraph 'b, is a simple redtmdancy that may be a potential conflict with something that he does not recognize at this point. Mr. Mml>hy stated yes. Mr. MuShY stated 'that regarding the proposed language on page 4, PRE-EXIST~G TO~RS ~ PRE~E~STING A/': ~T S, he is ~not aware of their being any towers that were preViously approved prior.to this date that have not been built. He will check. If there are none with lawful approval, no harm. If this are some with lawhi approval, staff will need 'to. address this. Chairman Weslosh stated that if someone would.choose in their .motion to .pickup. that wording, the Board would nee. d to clahfy that staff would need to check that. :M~. M~hy stated-the .comments are. on record. As long as we are not creating an undue hardship on anyone,', no problem, if~ undue hardship exists, he will 'have to express that concern as it is this Board's ultimate .reco~endation as ~to Which way to go. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if the ~existing antennas or miniature towers that are on the condominiums on the beach, are considered .towers. Murphy stated .yes.. .Mr. Merritl asked Mr. M~hy hOw .are we going to differentiate those from the habitable structures. Mr. Murphy stated that you can put up a tower right next ~to a'house if you want to, if you obtain the proper .variances. Mr. Merritt stated that these-are approved pre-existing towers. Mr. Murphy stated that someone Could install an antenna right next to his house, prbvided the proper variance is obtained.. The exclusionary language in this .Draft Ordinance is for accessory security 29 units only and fOr the particular zoning districts without.having to go through the formal Board of Adjustment variance. Mr. Murphy stated that Section 7.10.23(L)(1)(d) on pages 1.0 'and 11 is: the variance provision that the Board of Adjustment will allow the tower to go up tomorrow. That would inclUde, potentially, the construction or the erection of.an antenna array and or communication system on top of a condominium. Mr, 'Grande asked Mr. Murphy if these towers would fall within the height overlay zones on the Island. Mr. Murphy stated yes. He fi~her stated [hat thereis no prohibition of having a multi-story building on the mainland. If you can meet separation standards and meet the reqUirements of the Land Developtnent ,Code, you could put up a tower in the middle: of Reserve. Chairmm~ Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Heam if he wanted to change anything in Table 7-40. Mr. Heam stated that CN, CiO, CG, IX and I zoning districts are not districts where tOwers, are permitted.Uses. 'The additions of these zoning ~ classifiCations to the exempted habitable residential it easier to put towers where they are not permitted. For example, ifyouom a piece ol~property that is~zoned CG with a habitable residential structure, that happens to be. a security resid~mces, and the person living in that structure works for you, they are not going to object. Mr. Moore stated to Mr. Heam'that he.also has a problem on-page 10 with the discretion that the Community Development Director would have. Mr. Hearn stated that is something we can't deal with. tonight. Mr. Moon~ stated that .he 'understands we can't deal with this tonight. He asked Mr. Heam. if this is - something that he does not agree with. Mr. Heam stated that when you take-the required 750 foot distance and one person who may or may not live in our co--unity, reduces it to 300 feet, that's a major variance, Mr. Moore stated that he agrees and there is not a problem with re-publishing. Mr Heam stated that ~n the future a 10% variance would "'. ': ~ . "~' ~' ' · be reasonable for one person to make, and when it exceeds 10% the Board df Adjustment should make that decision. ~ Mr. Lounds asked Mr. 'Murphy if he would.re-consider the amount of the security fund on page 9. Mr. ~Murphy asked.Mr. Lounds which portion. 30 Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if he would lower the co-located telecommunication providers antenna or ~antenna array fee. Mr. Murphy stated that $3,000 is only an estimate. The Board can recommended another amount if they so desire. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to recommend that the 'co-location amount of $3,.000 be lowered to $1,000 and would suggest the $15,000 for each tower be lowered to $7,500. Chairma~a Weslosk3 :stated-that she would be opposed to lowering the $15,000 figure because some of these towers are large and it would prObably cost. more than that to remove them. Mr. Lounds asked ~Mr. Mushy if'the idea of $15,000 is to cover remOval of the original base and tower. Mr. Murphy.stated yes. Mr. Lounds Stated strike his request for lower the $15,000 amount. He would like to recommend co-location'be reduce ~to $1,000 to enhance co-locating. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would like to entertain a motion. Mr. Grande made a.motion to approve Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23, with the changes outlined by Mr. Heam in totality and the reduction from $3,000 to $1,000. Mr. Lounds seconded the ~motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-1 with Chairman WesloSki voting in opposition. 31 OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Kelly stated that he has an item not on the agenda tonight. He stated that he would like to take this opportuniW to distribute draft Comprehensive Plan information and to discuss scheduling only. Mr. ~Kelly stated that he wished Mr. Killday were still present because he is going to quote him. Mr. Killday stated that~the County has a good Comprehensive Plan and Mr. Kelly agreed. Mr. Kelly distributed to each Board Member the first of~a series, of drafts for amendments of that plan.- Mr. Kelly stated that you will find GOPs, which is planner language for, Goals, Objectives and Policies .for a number of elements. Mr. Kelly stated that' amendments noted in the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) had been made. New policies have been added where they seemed necess~ for items like management of Enviromnentally Sensitive Lands. Recommendations from members of:the public (primarily from the Study. group) are indicated by italics, staff continues to check for consistency with-State requirements. Mr. Kelly ' stated that the ~nmbering system is a mess. He felt that it should.be left it as close to the old plan ~: possible. We will renmber everything ibefore we submit it. There are a few 'elements that'have not -been inelUded.~h yo~ package ~ they are not complete.' The data and analysis is'.still being worked on. ._ Mr. Kelly stated that he Would propose the Board begin to think about heating dates. He provided Chaiman Wes!oski With the. calendar for Room 101 and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is apparently the Only Board that meets in Room 101 at night. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly what are the requirements. Mr. Kelly.stated that staffwill have to advertise each heating date. He stated that he'would like to propose that'since staffhas only one rezoning petition scheduled for February, that this Board at their regular Febmaw.meefing begin reviewing these elements. This will allow the Board a month to begin .to digest the: info~atiOn provided tonight. The ~smdy ~oup. as-ked for another "workshop". This will allow some ~time 'to roll all of these things together. Mr. Kelly ~ked the Board if Thursday nights are a reasonable night that we could schedule one or two additional meetings. We could start with the February P&Z and then schedule a few Thursday nights after that. He Stated that he did not feel comfOrtable picking dates for the Board. He stated that there is a lot of work :that needs to be done. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the Board should breakdown the information .into sections and work on a few sections_at each meeting. Mr. Kelly stated:that certainly can be done if that's the desire of the Board. 32 Chairman Wesloski stated that the public .and the Board seem to stay on track when broken into sections, Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly how soon does this need to be completed. Mr. Kelly stated July 1 ~t. Mr. Lounds stated that he woUld prefer the Board break these into smaller sections even if it requires 'having more meetings. Chairman Wesloski stated that.there are nine sections, Mr. Kelly stated that there-are two more to come, Capital Improvements and Infrastructure. He stated.that ~the Data ~d Analysis, which is a lot of text and support for this, will be pertinent 'data, but not somethng -that staff will reco~end the Board adopt. He stated Data and Analysis-was not adopted'the last time, we only adopted GOPs. Staff will recommend the same thing again this time. Chai~an WeslOski asked Mr,: Kelly i.f the Bo.ard heard two a month would there be enough time. Mr..Kelly staed probably not because they will still have ,to go before ithe County Commission. Chai~m.~. Weslosh asked.~. Kelly if the County Commission wants all of the elements'together. Mr. Kelly stated yes, he believes,they would like a recommendation'from the Local Pl~ng Agency as a package. Mr. Grande asked Mr, Kelly if staff has suggested to the County Commission the phased approach and that they.,alSo .approve it on a section by section basis. Mr. Kelly stated that staffhas not and that we can poll the members of the County Commission. He stated that 'his-experience :.has been that it is easier to keep the whole thing open, because you continually have changes on items that may have gone forward. Chai~art Wesloski .asked Mr, Kelly to poll the County Commission and stated that the Local Planning Agency will 'hear-three elements next month. Mr. Kelly stated that he felt this would be a ve~ reasonable approach. He stated that the Board will then need 'to think about when the additional meetings will take place. Mr, Grande asked Mr. Kelly if the EConomic Development element is a new section of the Comprehensive Plan arid if this should be heard alone. Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board has decided three elements will be heard at the regular meeting iff'February, although we have not decided which three. The Board needs to decide if the. first Thursday is suitable for everyone for an additional meeting, Chairman Wesloski asked if there 33 were any: objectiOns. Mr. Lounds stated that he ~would not be able to attend on the first Thursday. Chairman Wesloski stated that March .4th would be the first Thursday. Mr. Merritt suggested the second ThursdaY. Chairman Wesloski .asked the Board members if the second Th~sday would be better for ~everyone. Mr.. Matthes istated that any Thursday is good. 'Chairman Weslosh stated that the Board will meet on the second Thursday of the following month. The Board will hear three elements in February. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if.there are any ~three ~that· need priority. Mr. Kelly stated 'that Mr. Grande has requested Economic Development. Mr. Grande stated that Economic:Development is not.a priority, however because it is a new element it may take more time.and perhaps it should be heard alone. .Mr. Kelly stated that Ms..Shewchuk, the Economic Development Director, wrote the Economic Development element, and she does not seem to think that it would require to be heard alone. Chai~an Wesloski stated that-the Board will hear' Future Land Use, Coastal Management and Conse~ation at .the regular.February meeting. Ms. Dreyer asked Chai~an Weslosh if the Board will then try to hear another two or three elements .the follOwing week. Chairman Wesloski stated that the next meeting Will be March 1.1th .and March 18th. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would .like to hear at least one at the.March 18th meeting. Mr. Kelly stated that he would like to do more than one, we need to move this along. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would recommend that the Board hear the next three elements at the March 11th meeting, Mr. Kelly stated that .Future Land Use, Coastal Management and Conservation are the three toughest elem_ents. Some of the other elements like Recreation they don't take as long and therefore we may be ~ble to group them up and go a little faster. Chairman Wesloski stated that for now the Board will not assign additional elements to any specific meeting date. 34 Chairman :Wesloski asked staff about the annual report. Mr. Kelly stated that it will be available next month. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any other business. Mr. Trias stated that'he would like to announce that Thursday, February 18th, the City of Fort Pierce, the:-City of P°~ St. Lucie and the County are organizing a Smart Growth ConferenCe to be held at the Port St. LUcie Community .Center .with very notable speakers, He would like to encourage everyone to attend. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. 'Trias what time. ~. TriaS stated 8:00 a.m. to 5:00.p.m. and he will mail an agenda to all Board Members. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:39 p.m. The .Board agreed on the following schedule: Febmaw 18, 1'999: Regular Planning and Zoning Co~issio~ocal P1 .anning Agency 'Meeting ~. March.11, 1999: Special Meeting~ of the Local Planning Agency to hear Comprehensive Plan Amendments March 18, 1999: Regular Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting. Subsequem the meeting of t~ February 18 was moved to February 25th. 35