Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 13, 2000 St. Lucie County i Planning and Zoning Commission Meet ng Minutes December 13, 2000 Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT'. Chairman. Matthes, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds MEMBERS ABSENT: .Mr. Heam, Mr. Trias, Mr. Grande, Mr. Moore OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Kelly', Ms. Young, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Lewis, Ms. Snay December 13, 2000 page 1 ~CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called the meeting to order at 7:1 lp.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Matthes. ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chairman Matthes stated that the Duke Energy items on the agenda will not be heard until the January 18th meeting, due to lack of a quorum. He stated that there are representatives from Duke Energy in. attendance and anyone who would like to speak with them can do so in the hallway. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Albert Moore has resigned from th~ board, due to his assignment to the St. Lucre County Traffic Magistrate. The board would hke to congratulate Mr. Moore. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Grande, Mr. Heam and Mr. Trias will not be able to attend this meeting with excused absences. Mr. Merritt asked if there is an ordinance on the book about the posting and removing campaign signs. Ms. Young stated that the ordinance states the signs must be removed 7 days after the end of the election. Mr. Merritt asked if there is a way to limit the time the signs are put up at the beginning. Ms. Young stated that currently that is not in the ordinance. She believes that Martin County is currently doing that. Mr. Men'itt stated that the campaign signs have got totally out of hand. He would like to see some limitations on them. Mr. McCurdy replied that limiting the posting might present a freedom of speech problem limiting the posting before the election. He understands the afterwards they need to be taken down. He gave an example of a candidate that wants to start running 2 years before how can that be prevented. Mr. Merritt replied that was a good point but he believes it is enforced in other counties. Mr. Jones suggested the County Attorney could research the legalities of limiting the sign posting before the election. December 13, 2000 page 2- Chairman Matthes explained briefly the protocol that is followed at these meetings. As the items are heard, Staff will give :a very brief presentation on the item itself. Then the applicant will have' an opportunity to give a presentation. After that the Public Hearing pogion will be opened and 'closed and Staff will give the final recommendations. The Board will then do deliberatiOns and then take action. He would like to make it.perfectly cle~ that the actions of this bOard are not final. So if members of the public or the petitioners do not agree With the action their opinion can be heard in front of the Board of County Commission. AGENDA ITEM 1' MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 200~ Mr. Jones motioned for approval of the November 16, 2000 meeting minutes. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimOUsly. AGENDA ITEM 2: FII~E NO..CU 00-010 MBTB, INC Ms. Snay stated that Agenda Item//2 is the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 3, 192 square foot convenience store with 5 gasoline pumps-serving 10 vehiCle December 13, 2000 page 3 Stations and an.automatic car wash to be known as Hess Station - Turnpike Feeder Road in the CN (Commercial NeighbOrhood) Zoning District for property located at the comer of the Turnpike Feeder Road and Miramar Avenue. Mr. Boggs introduced himself as the Director of Thomas Lucido and Associates in Fort Pierce. He stated he is here to gain:approval for this convenience store in Lake Park. There has been an approval from the Lake Park Association. This association reviewed the site plan and voted in approwtl of the site plan. They have a color rendering of the plans which will give a visual of what the facility will look :like. The most significant part of this site plan is the incorporation of the native vegetation. As .ows there are many sites such as this one that does not save any vegetation.: Mr. Boggs' ent came to him and that was part of his program which naturally he supported. Mr. Boggs :micro-sited the station and saved the most significant trees which will also include under storage preservation in the site development plan. The only thing left after that is grass which Will be dry retention, not wet retention. The white area on the plan is circulation and parting. The areas in a green is all the upland preservation. The smaller circles on the plan is what is being pro] for the required landscaping for the hedge, trees: and so forth. Basically staff is supporting particularly since the trees are being preserved. That is one of the main reasons why he ~ted to assist the deVeloPer getting through the apProval process. He will be haPpy to answer any uestions or listen to any concerns at this time. Chairman Matthes asked if there is a legend on the plan that shows the trees that are native to the site being saved as opposed to just the size. Mr. Boggs replied that the ones with the "X" in the caliper those are the trees that will be preserved. These are predominantly Laurel Oak trees. This is a great site with cabbage palm, Laurel Oaks and a few Bays. The only area towards the back on the east side that has exotic and some Brazilian pepper but the front' is covered with native plants. Mr. McCurdy stated that he feels like this is becoming a very nature sensitive site there. He asked what will be done for signage because it appears to be very well screened all the way around, tte asked if the signage would be a large vertical sign. Mr. Boggs replied that there would be a low-level lit monument sign. He stated that he failed to show the architectural work as suggested by staff. This was done l~y an architect that worked with the developer in Miami. There will be wall mounted interior lit cabinet signs, other than that this store will not be heavily signed. Mr. Jones asked if the site grading had been evaluated to see if the existing vegetation can be kept. Mr. Boggs replied in the affirmative stating that the engineer worked closely in order to maintain the grade to make sure that the dry retention in the first floor parking lot would allow the trees showing to be saved. December 13, 2000 page 4 Mr. Lounds asked what was on the north side of the property. Mr. Boggs replied that there was wooded vacant land across the street. Mr. Lounds asked how the Oak Trees woUld be protected in the back of the site from compaction. Mr. Boggs replied that what,: they are trying to do is install the curb barrier with the existing grade. There will most likely be compaction on this side. He feels that the tree will survive. Mr. Lounds stated the County is very sensitive about Oak Trees. Mr. Boggs stated he and his client are very aware of that and that is the reason for saving all of these trees. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. He stated that there was a letter sent in from a property owner and he asked it be read in to record. Ms. Lewis, Secretary read letter from Mr. Carl Cunningham into record (attached). Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated that in reference to the letter on Lot 14, he would like to know if there are houses on that block or on that particular lot. Mr. Kelly replied that there does not appear to be any house on that lot. Mr. Lounds stated he is still a little concerned on how the trees will be '.saved. The saving grace for him is that the company that Mr. Boggs is representing does a wonderful job maintaining this site. He is very concerned onlthe life expectancy on the Laurel Oaks with the Compaction that is going to take place. He would like to know what ~. Boggs feels is the life expectancy of the Laurel Oaks a year from now. Mr. Boggs replied that they have done this before where trees were preserved in small islands and parking lots. He stated that one thing that could be considered is to put in a drain pipe that would go out in to the asphalt drive on that side to alliviate that compaction. He stated that Laurel Oaks are short lived normally up to 50- 60 years. He stated that there was a bamer between the service and the rear in an effort to preserve these trees. It is not a mandate or requirement to save that type of tree. He would like to save those trees and is attempting to save them. Mr. Lounds stated that he does not want to complicate the situation and run expenses up anymore than they already are. He asked Mr. Boggs if he felt he was doing everything that could be done through placements. December 13, 2000 page 5 Mr. Boggs replied in the affirmative. Mr. Kelly stated that everything discussed this evening will be in the minutes and reviewed by the County Commission before the January 9, 2001 meeting. Therefore the same issues will likely be raised at that meeting. He asked if Mr. Boggs could get with Ms. Mott, the Resource Protection Coordinator, to work out the best situations for that. Mr. Lounds stated that he did not want to make an advertisement for Hess Stations or Mr. Boggs, but they both are good stewards of what they do. He stated that Hess does maintain a step above in their quality of landscape and the landscape. He stated that Mr. Boggs comes from a reputable company that does look out for things such as this. He does not want to complicate the thinking of the Board of County Commissioners but it is a question that needs to be addressed. Mr. Kelly stated that there will be an answer by the Board of County Commission meeting. Chairman Matthes asked for the Staff recommendation. Ms. Snay stated that staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as Set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County CommissionerS with a recommendation of approval subject to the following condition: 1.) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic vegetation found on the site shall be removed. Chairman Matthes asked if there were any further questions of staff. Mr. Merritt asked if there would be sewer and water on this site. Mr. Boggs replied that it will be St. Lucie County Utilities for both services. Mr. Jones stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff Comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. LUcie County l~nd Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recOmmend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant apprOval to the application of MBTB, INC. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the December 13, 2000 page 6 construction~of a 3,192 square foot Convenience ~tore with 5 gasoline pumps and an automatic car wash facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood)Zoning District, because he feels it i~ an appropriate u~e of the Mte and the planners have done a very good job preserving vegetation on the ~ite. Mr. Merritt seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motiOn pas~ed unanimously. December 13, 2000 page 7 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency :Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3ra floor ROger Poitras Annex December 13, 2000 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance B. 'Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA. ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES.NOVEMBER !6, 2000 Action Recommended: Approval E~bit #2: Minutes of the November 16, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NO. CU...00-010.MBTB,~!n¢. Petition of MBTB, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit.to allow the construction of a 3,192 square foot convenience .store with 5 gasoline pumps serving I0 vehicles stations and lan automatic car wash, to be known as Hess Station - Turnpike Feeder Road in the CN (Commemial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. Staffcomments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report,'Site Plan and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM.3: F~E NO. ~,00.017 DUKE E~RGY ~Petition of Duke Energy for:a Change in'Zoning from the IH (Industrial Heavy) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District. Staff cOmments by Cyndi Shay. . Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission E~bit #3: Staff Report and Site I~cation Maps AGE~A.ITEM 4: FILE NO. CU-00~01I, DUKE Petition of Duke Energy for a Conditional' Use Pe~t to allow the construction and ~operation of a 56,900 squ~e foot (5,400 square feet - building and 51,.500 square feet -equipment), 640 megawatt, energy generating plant, to beknown as Duke Energy, in the U (Utilities) Zoning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit g4: Staff Rep.on and.Site Location Maps OTHER BUSINESS: Ao Other business at Commission Members' discretion. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on January 18, 2001 in Commission Chambers at the Roger POitras Annex Buildin ADJOURN NOTICE: AH Proceedings before the Planning and Z~ning Commissio~ Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Horida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides m appeal any de~ision made by the' Planning .and Zoning Commission/Iax:al Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a ~record of the Proc~ings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the pryings, individuals testifying during a :h~ng will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at 561/462-1586. St. Lucie County' Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2000 Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Matthes, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Heam, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds MEMBERS ABSENT. Mr. Heam, Mr: Trias, Mr. Grande OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Kelly, Ms. Young, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Lewis, Ms. Snay December 13, 2000 page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called the meeting to order at 7:1 lp.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Matthes. ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chairman Matthes stated that the Duke Energy items on the agenda will not be heard until the January 18th meeting, due to lack of a quorum. He stated that there are representatives from Duke Energy in attendance and anyone who would like to speak with them can do so in the hallway. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Albert Moore has resigned from the board, due to his assignment to the St. Lucie County Traffic Magistrate. The board would like to congratulate Mr. Moore. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn and Mr. Trias will not be able to attend this meeting with excused absences. Mr. Mexritt asked if there is an ordinance on the book about the posting and removing campaign signs. Ms. Young stated that the ordinance states the signs must be removed 7 days after the end of the election. Mr. Merritt asked if there is a way to limit the time the signs are put up at the beginning. Ms. Young stated that currently that is not in the ordinance. She believes that Martin County is currently doing that. Mr. Merritt stated that the campaign signs have got totally out of hand. He would like to see some lirrdtations on them. Mr. McCurdy replied that limiting the posting might present a freedom of speech problem limiting the posting before the election. He understands the afterwards they need to be taken down. He gave an example of a candidate that wants to start running 2 years before how can that be prevented. Mr. Merritt replied that was a good point but he believes it is enforced in other counties. Mr. Jones suggested the County Attorney could research the legalities of limiting the sign posting before the election. December 13, 2000 page 2 Chairman Matthes explained briefly the protocol that is followed at these meetings. As the items are heard, Staff will give a very brief presentation on the item itself. Then the applicant will have an opportunity to give a presentation. After that the Public Hearing portion will be opened and closed and Staff will give the final recommendations. The Board will then do deliberations and then take action. He would like to make it perfectly clear that the actions of this board are not final. So if members of the public or the petitioners do not agree with the action their opinion can be heard in front of the Board of County Commission. ,AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16~ 2000 Mr. Jones motioned for approval of the November 16, 2000 meeting minutes. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. December 13, 2000 page 3 Ms. Snay stated that Agenda Item #2 is the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 3,192 square foot convenience store with 5 gasoline pumps serving 10 vehicle stations and an automatic car Wash to be known as Hess Station - Turnpike Feeder Road in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District for property located at the comer of the Turnpike Feeder Road and Miramar Avenue. Mr. Boggs introduced himself as the Director of Thomas Lucido and Associates in Fort Pierce. He stated he is here to gain approval for this convenience store in Lake Park. There has been an approval from the Lake Park Association. This association reviewed the site plan and voted in approval of the site plan. They have a color rendering of the plans which will give a visual of what the facility will look like. The most significant part of this site plan is the incorporation of the native vegetation. As everyone knows there are many sites such as this one that does not save any vegetation. Mr. Boggs' client came to him and that was part of his program which naturally he suppoged. Mr. Boggs micro-sited the station and saved the most significant trees which will also include under storage preservation in the site development plan. The only thing left after that is grass Which will be dry retention, not wet retention. The white area on the plan is circulation and parking. The areas in a darker green is all the upland preservation. The smaller circles on the plan is what is being proposed for the required landscaping for the hedge, trees and so forth. Basically staff is supporting this, particularly since the trees are being preserved. That is one of the main reasons why he wanted to assist the developer getting through the approval process. He will be happy to answer any questions or listen to any concerns at this time. Chairman Matthes asked if there is a legend on the plan that shows the trees that are native to the site being saved as opposed to just the size. Mr. Boggs replied that the ones with the "X" in the caliper those are the trees that will be preserved. These are predominantly Laurel Oak trees. This is a great site with cabbage palm, Laurel Oaks and a few Bays. The only area towards the back on the east side that has exotic and some Brazilian Pepper but the front is covered with native plants. Mr. McCurdy stated that he feels like this is becoming a very nature sensitive site there. He asked what will be done for signage because it appears to be very well screened all the way around, tie asked if the signage would be a large vertical sign. Mr. Boggs replied that there would be a low-level lit monument sign. He stated that he failed to show the architectural work as suggested by staff. This was done by an architect that worked with the developerlin Miami. There will be wall mounted interior lit .cabinet signs, other than that this store will not ~e heavily signed. Mr. Jones asked if the site grading had been evaluated to see if the existing vegetation can be kept. December 13, 2000 page 4 Mr. Boggs replied in the affirmative stating that the engineer worked closely in order to maintain the grade to make sure that the dry retention in the first floor parking lot would allow the trees showing to be saved. Mr. Lounds asked what was on the north side of the property. Mr. Boggs replied that there was wooded vacant land across the street. Mr. Lounds asked how the Oak Trees would be protected in the back of the site from compaction. Mr. Boggs replied that what they are trying to do is install the curb barrier with the existing grade. There will most likely be compaction on this side. He feels that the tree will survive. Mr. Lounds stated the County is very sensitive about Oak Trees. Mr. Boggs stated he and his client are very aware of that and that is the reason for saving all of these trees. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. He stated that there was a letter sent in from a property owner and he asked it be read in to record. Ms. Lewis, 'Secretary read letter from Mr. Carl Cunningham into record (attached). Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated that in reference to the letter on Lot 14, he would like to know if there are houses on that block or on that particular lot. Mr. Kelly replied that there does not appear to be any house on that lot. Mr. Lounds stated he is still a little concerned on how the trees will be saved. The saving grace for him is that the company that Mr. Boggs is representing does a wonderful job maintaining this site. He is very concerned on the life expectancy on the Laurel Oaks with the compaction that is going to take place. He would like to know what Mr. Boggs feels is the life expectancy of the Laurel Oaks a year from now. Mr. Boggs replied that they have done this before where trees were preserved in small islands and parking lots. He stated that one thing that could be considered is to put in a drain pipe that would go out in to the asphalt drive on that side to alliviate that compaction. He stated that Laurel Oaks are short lived normally up to 50 - 60 years. He stated that there was a barrier between the service and the rear in an effort to preserve these trees. It is not a mandate or requirement to save that type of tree. He would like to save those trees and is attempting to save them. December 13, 2000 page 5 Mr. Lounds stated that he does not want to complicate the situation and mn expenses up anymore than they already are. He asked Mr. Boggs if he felt he was doing everything that could be done through placements. Mr. Boggs replied in the affirmative. Mr. Kelly stated that everything discussed this evening will be in the minutes and reviewed by the County Commission before the January 9, 2001 meeting. Therefore the same issues will likely be raised at that meeting. He asked if Mr. Boggs could get with Ms. Mott, the Resource Protection Coordinator, to work out the best situations for that. Mr. Lounds stated that he did not want to make an advertisement for Hess Stations or Mr. Boggs, but they both are good stewards of what they do. He stated that Hess does maintain a step above in their quality of landscape and the landscape. He stated that Mr. Boggs comes from a reputable company that does look out for things such as this. He does not want to complicate the thinking of the Board of County Commissioners but it is a question that needs to be addressed. Mr. Kelly stated that there will be an answer by the Board of County Commission meeting. Chairman Matthes asked for the Staff recommendation. Ms. Snay stated that staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.1.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following condition: 1.) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic vegetation found on the site shall be removed. Chairman Matthes asked if there were any further questions of staff. Mr. Merritt asked if there would be sewer and water on this site. Mr. Boggs replied that it will be St. Lucie County Utilities for both services. December 13, 2000 page 6 Mr. Jones stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lu¢ie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application ~of MBTB, INC. fora Conditional U~e Permit to allow the construction of a 3, onvenienCe ~tore with 5gasoline pumps and an automatic car Wash (Commercial, NeighbOrhood) Zoning District, because he feels it is an site and the planners have done a very good job Merritt seconded the motion'. Upon a roll call vote the on the site. moaon ~,sly. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Matthes stated the next meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18, 2001. ADJOURNMENT December 13, 2000 page 7 December 13, 2000 Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Matthes, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Heam, Mr. Trias, Mr. Grande, Mr. Moore OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Kelly, Ms. Young, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Lewis, Ms. Snay October 19, 2000 Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Matthes, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Heam, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Grande, Mr. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Me~ritt, Mr. Lounds. September 21, 2000 Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT' Chairmam Matthes, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Heam, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Grande, Mr. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. Lounds. .OTHERS PRESENT. Mr. Flores, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Moler June 15, 2000 Room 101 at 7' .00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT. Mr. Merritt, Mr. Matthes, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Dreyer, Mr. Grande. .,MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Moore, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. McCurdy OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Lancaster, County Attorney; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Dawnelle Lewis, Administrative Secretary March 16, 2000 Room 101 at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. Matthes, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Heam, Ms. Dreyer, Mr. Grande. MEMBERS ABSENT' Mr. Moore, Mr. McCurdy (Mr. Moore was excused prior to the meeting.) ,OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Lancaster, County Attorney; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner 1II; Dawnelle Lewis, Office Assistant III February 17, 2000 Room 101 at7'. 00 p.m. Mr. David Kelly called the meeting to order, because there was neither a Chairman nor a Vice Chairman. Mr. Kelly introduced Carol Moler, the secretary taking over for Dawnelle who has a health problem. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mmritt, Mr. Matthes, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Heam, Ms. Dreyer, Mr. Grande and Mr. Moore. St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3rd floor Roger Poitras Annex December 13, 2000 7:00 P.M. AGENDA A. Pledge.of' Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGE~A ITEM !; iMEETING-MI~ES NOVEMBER 16,2000 Action Recommended: Approval E~bit//2: Minutes of the.November 16, 2000 AGENDA ~TEM.2; FILE NO. CU-00,010. MBTB, !~c. Petition of ~TB, inc, for a ConditiOnal 'Use Permit to allow the construction of a 3,i92 square foot convenience store with 5 gasOline pumps serving ~10 vehicles stations-and an automatic carwash, to be known as Hess Station- Turnpike Feeder Road in the CN (Commerci~. Neighborhood) Zoning District.. Staff comments'by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit//2: Staff Report, Site Plan and~Site Location Maps rr~M 3; ~iFiL: E,~NO,, ~00-0,!7 D,U,~ EN~, ,. RGy Petition of Duke Energy for a Change in Zoning from the IH (Industrial, Heavy) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District. Staff comments by C~:.di Shay. Action.Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County.Commission E ~xhibit#3: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGE~,A ITEM 4:.Frae NO,. cU~00,01!.DUKE ENERGY PetitionofDuke Energy for a-Conditional Use 'Pe~t to allow the construction and operation of a 56,900 square foot (5,400 square feet-building and 51,500 square feet -equipment), 640 megawatt, energy, generating plant, to be known as Duke-Energy, in the U ..(:Utilities) ZOning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Shay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit g4: Staff Report and Site Location Maps OT~R BUS.SS: A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion. Next regular Planning and Zoning Co~ssion meeting will be held on January 18, 2001 in Commission Chambers ~at the Roger Poitras Annex Buildin ADJOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/local Planning Agency of St. Lucie 'County, Horida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the .Planning and Zoning Commissio.n/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will ~need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is ,made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is baSed. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Any questiOnS about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at 5611462-1586. St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 16, 2000 Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. M~MS~S P~S~NT,;, Chairrmm Matthes, Mr. M¢Curdy, Mr. Heam, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Grande Mr. Moore ,OTHERS P~SENT.', Mr. Flores, Ms. MacKenzie-Smith, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Lewis, Ms. Snay November 16, 2000 page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Matthes. ROLL, CALL, ANNOUNCE~NTS: There were no announcements by staff or members of the board. Chairm~m Matthes explained brieflY the protocol that is followed at these meetings. As the items are heard, Staff will give a very brief presentation on the item itself. Then the applicant will have an opportunity to give a presentation. After that the Public Hearing portion will be opened and closed and Staff will give the final recommendations. The Board will then do deliberations and then take action. He would like to make it perfectly clear that the actions of this board are not final. So if members~of the public or the petitioners do not agree with the action their opinion can be heard[ in front of'the Board of County :Commission. AGENDA ITEM .1. ~ETING MINUTES. OCTOBER 19, 2000 Mr. Grande'mo'tioned for approval. Mr-.McCurdy seconded the motion. All members voted in favor and the motion passed' unanimously. November 16, 2000 page 2 AGENDA ' ' ITEM 2: .FILE NO' CU,00-009 MAGI International Development Company Ms, Snay presented the petition for MAGI International Development Company for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 110,450 square foot mini-warehouse and self-storage facility to be known as Guardian Self Storage, in the CG (Commercial:General) Zoning District, for property is located, on the. West of U.S. Highway No. 1, approximately 406 feet South of the Intemection of Port-St. Lucie Boulevard and U.S. ~ghway No, 1. Mr. Hays, Kimley & Home AsSociates, representing the applicant, presented the developer's petition. He explained that the information before the board is the plan for a proposed self- storage facility. ~. Hays and his client have worked with staff on' this plan. He and his client believe it to be in compliance with all the land development code conditions. In fact he believes that they probably even have .done a better job in some areas, than others. It is consistent with the zoning district and comPatible with the neighboring businesses. Chairman Matthes asked if there were any questions from the board to the petitioner. Mr. Grande asked if the access for the facility was a normal configuration. He does not see a deceleration lane. Mr. Hays replied in the affi~ative, He explained that a couple of different options were reviewed with FDOT during the application conference. The options were storage lane/deceleration lane or vehicular storage on the side. The developer chose option 2 to allow for the appropriate vehicular storage on the site. That is why the proposed gate is over 100 feet back from the fight of way line. Mr. Grande questioned the definition of "proper storage" in this scenario. Mr. Hays replied stacking vehicles before they reached the.gate. Mr. Grande asked staff if the entrance is off the normal fight hand lane of U.S. Highway No. 1 and whether a deceleration lane is required. Ms. Snay replied that their gate is over 100 feet away fight of way and the code requires fifty feet. Mr. Grande stated that cars traveling at the standard speed of U.S. Highway No.1 speed limits will be decelerating to make this righ~ turn in a regular traffic lane. Ms. Snay replied in the affirmative and added that FDOT approved this plan. November 16, 2000 page 3 Mr. Hays: stated that he would' like to explain it a little further. This is nOt-the only business on this road that will .not or does not have a deceleration lane. There are requirements and they have all been met. Mr. Grande stated he understands what Mr. Hays is saying and the reason for the gate. 'His concern is the customer that is looking to turn in to the property and is traveling along U.S. Highway 1 at standard speeds will be slowing down to almost zero for a 90-degree turn. Ms. Snay stated the property directly North of this property is the Jiffy Lube does not have a deceleration lane either. Mr. Grande stated he has a 'tough time with the explanations of "the other people did it that way". Chairman Matthes explained that when dealing with multi lane facilities the FDOT will review the amount of traffic vOlume that'is generated by the facility. Then they will put that information in different catego~es. For a major highWay, the outSide traffic lane is generally used for right tums. Only large volume generated establishments' are mandated to put in a fight turn lane. Mr. Grande stated he is fairly fa~liar With this area and if he remembers correctly not far down the road.is where the traffic from Port St' Lucie Boulevard will be making a right turn on to U.S. Highway.No.1. ~He stated'there would be a significant amount of traffic and an ever-increasing .amount of traffic :making that hght turn and then hitting the accelerator. In-front of that car will be this company's customer who will need to slow down in that lane. He asked if it was a lot to ask for a deceleration lane for entry in tOthe property. He realizes it is not mandated. Mr. Hays replied that the request of a deceleration lane is a fair amount to ask. There are a lot of conditions that have:to be considered, including the retention system along the side of the roadway. They feel this is the beSt solution after considering all the conditions. Mr. McCurdy stated he would like the landscape buffer between the facility and U,S. Highway No. 1 detailed for him. He asked if dirt would be mound up and plant's installed so that there, will not be a direct view of the facility. Mr. Hays replied in the affirmative. He stated there would be a couple of different buffers. The first one will be a mounded landscape buffer that will come up approximately 2 feet above what is out there now, further an architectural fence would be installed along a portion of the property boundary. Mr. McCurdy asked if the front of the buildings faCing U.S. Highway No. 1 would have a brick facade. ~ Mr. Hays stated it would be a brick or block faffade with a parapet on top plus a couple of different level changes. November 16, 2000 ~page 4 Mr. McCurdy stated this would not just be a chain-length fence-with a metal-building. Mr. Hays stated that fence would be a steel fence, which is kind of vertical. Chairman Matthes asked what would be the buffer at the rear of the property. Mr. Hays stated there would be a 10-foot landscape buffer on the backside, that has an I (Institutional) zoning. The current .owner is. Bellsouth. They plan on the standard 8-foot fence on the property in'the back. ~ Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Them being no one the Public Hearing was clOsed. Ms. Snay stated that staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of.the St. Lucie County-Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the.Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval Subject to the conditions found on page 7 of the packets, with the addition of the following condition: "the applicant shall connect to central water service and water service upon except for irrigatiOn use until such :time that an alternate water resource for irrigation is available." Mr. Grande stated that he is not making a motion but he is saying that he clearly thinks this property is great for development and this .is an excellent business for this location. He will not be able to vote in favor of this because he thinks that it is a risk to traffic for poor designing on the entrance. Mr. McCurdy stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, inc!uding staff comments and the standards of review as.set forth in Section 11.07.03, .St. Lu¢ie Coun~ ~nd Development Code, he hereby moves that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that that St. Lu¢ie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of MAGI International Development Company, for a ¢ondi~onal use permit to allow the operation of a 110,450 square foot mini-warehouse and self-storage facility in the CG (commercial, general) zoning district, because it is really good use of the site and falls in to the type of development that is neededfor that part of the County. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon a roll call 'vote the motion passed unanimously with a 6-1 vote with Mr. Grande voting against the motion. November 16, 2000 page 5 AGEndA ITEM 2. FILE NO. RZ-00.014 MIAMi LATIN CHURCH OF GOD Mr. Floras introduced the item as a Petition for rezoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre)'Zoning District to I (Institutional) Zoning District on property located at 5905 Oleander Avenue- The purpose of.the rezoning is to allow the applicant to establish a -church facility on the subject property. The surrounding zoning to.the north, south, and west of this subject property is AR-1. There is RS-3 and RS-2 zoning to the east and Institutional Zoning located further to. the .north east. Although the InstitutiOnal Zoning District allows for the establishment of churches it also allows for other uses that might not be appropriate for the area ~of the proposed zoning. The RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District was specifically provided in the Land Development ~Code in order to address the establishment of chUrches without allowing the additiOnal pe~tted and conditional uses in the area. Chairman Matthes asked if them-were any questions of staff. Them being none he asked the applicant to come forward. Reverend. Urefia stated he was with the Miami Latin Church of God. He would like to comment on comn~ents made by staff. Originally the application was submitted to have a zoning change from AR-1 to'Institutional. He agreed With what staff has recommended with RF Zoning instead. He stated that what staff has suggested is what is really needed and that is all the church wants the board to approve. Chairman Matthes asked if this.is an offiCial request of change or is' there paperwork that needs . to be done. Mr. Kelly replied that the districts were reviewed and the RF Zoning is entirely contained within the Institutional Zoning. There.is nothing outside of it. It is tmly a subset, so the request to drop from the broadest to the na~owest defined district really includes the same things that were already advertised. He stated that should the board approve it then to state in the motion it is the RF Zoning District. Chairman Matthes asked if them were any questions of the petitioner. There .being none, he stated for the petitioner to stand by if there were questions from the public. November 16, 2000 page 6 Chairman MattheS opened the Public Hearing, stating if anyone would like to come. forward to speak for or against the petition. Ms. Turner from 81 South River Road in Stuart, Florida appeared before the board. She has a Real Estate License and is here to represent Mr. and Mrs. Balanzategui of 5803 Oleander Avenue and partially Ms."MitChell .of 5804 Oleander Avenue. The Balanzategui family has owned.this property for 44 years andit is the adjoining property to the north of the petitioner. The Mitchell family lives across the street and has been living there for 33 years. The application for this rezoning was .made on September 20, 2000. Unfortunately she would like to back up a little bit and take a look at the methodology in which this notice was made to the other parties concerned. Because of certain circumstances Ms. 'Mitchell 'had to call Mr. Balanzategui, because he was not receiving his mail for some mason. She 'stated that if the application was made on September 20th and 24 people were notified by mai! and yet no one that she has contacted has been aware of a notice. These residents have invested 33 to 44 years in their propeay and community and to come' to them with a request for rezoning to be taken so liberally and kind of unfairly. The way this. nOtice was sent out should be protested in her opinion. She Stated no one received a list of other parties that were notified and no one had to sign for the notice. There is no one else attending this meeting that was notified. ~. Balanzategui wOuld-not have known had it not been for Ms. Mitchell calling him about it, because of a prOblem with his mail. She did not have time to prepare an[y.material ~for this meeting because the invalid notice is. reason enough to go back and st~ over, Chairmma Matthes asked to interject to" ask Mr. Kelly ~what the notification process is and was it followed properly. Mr. Kelly stated that the notice .procedure is 3-fold, There is a mailed notice sent to each person with property within 500 feet of the boundary in question. There is a sign placed on the property and an ad in the. paper ran 10 days ahead of the meeting. The letters are mailed on the same day the ads run in the paper. .Chairman Matthes asked to confirm that all legal requirements were met on this application. Mr. Kelly replied in the affirmative. Ms. Turner stated that people who have lived in that area for 33 to 44 years did not see a sign anywhere. She asked why residents did not receive letters, and why the residents that received a letter did not get a list of other residents with in 500 feet. Chairman Matthes stated that according to the representation that was just given, the required legal procedure was followed for this notification. He suggested to Ms. Turner to let the board know the opinion of the application and why, and to move on from the notification procedure. November 16, 2000 page 7 Ms. Tumer stated that she wants W make it very clear that Mr. Balanzategui has owned the 17 adjoining acres for 44 years and 'he did not receive a letter. He was contacted by Ms. Mitchell 2 days ago by phone, These residents that she represents are opposed to this application and because of no appropriate notice given. Chairman Matthes aSked if they were opposed to the requested change or because of bad notification. Ms. Turner stated that Mr. Balanzategui has a great possibility of having a historic home there and contemplating in the preliminary stages of different type of development for this neighborhood, which could enhance the area even more than this proposed church. Mr. Grande stated that he does not see Mr. Balanzategui on the list to be notified, he sees Ms. Balanzategui though. Ms. Turner explained that she. is 87 years old and is his mother. He has 'lived there with her for last 44 years. The fact remains that neither one.of them received a letter.. She stated that 'there is proof at the Post Office becaUse of his particular circumstance the mail was held by request. Ms. Mitchell called them out of good faith and.good will With concern of this issue. Chairman Mattes asked if the mailing address 5803 Oleander Avenue accurate for this family. Ms. Turner replied in the affirmative. Mr. Balanzategui stated that his mother was too elderly to come to the.meeting herself. He stated he has-lived at the address for 44 years. He is opposed to a church being on that property. He stated no one has any idea what. is going to be put them. He stated that without a thorough understanding of what is going to be there he cannot approve of it. Especially when this area is being looked at to be nice residential area in the future. Chairman Matthes stated that the request has been changed from the Institutional Zoning which is a very broad category to the Religious Facility Zoning. which is more cloSely defined just for religious facilities. He explained that some of the element of the unknown has been removed by the change of request. Other than that this is a rezoning and there can not be limits or conditions on a rezoning map. Mr. Balanzategui asked if this was a yes or no matter. Chairman Matthes stated that the board will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as to whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. He explained to Mr. Balanzategui that he has the fight to speak to this board and the Board of County Commissioners and share his thoughts and concerns on the application. November 16, 2000 page 8 Mr. Balanzategui stated that some of his concerns with were what.the church schedule would be and the~noise levelS., He.has no idea what the actual structure will look like. Chairman Matthes 'stated that .at this point in the process the zoning for the land is the only thing in question. He does not see a problem with the applicant answering any questions the residents might .have at this time. Mr. Balanzategui asked how many churches of this denomination are there in existence. Chairman Matthes asked if that answered the questions of the concerned residents. Mr. Balanzategui replied that .some were answered ~but he would still like to know what the structure is going to consiSt .of. Chairman Matthes Stated if the applicant can answer that question that is fine. He would like to remind everyone that this is just a hearing on a zoning change. Reverened Urefia replied that the structure would like to build a physical church building. The only thing that will be done there are chUrch services 2 or 3 times a week from about 7:30 to 9:00. Chairman Matthes asked what size of a building was anticipated, being built. Reverened Urefia.replied that currently it is a small group, and the building would be for about 150 to 200 peoPle. Chairmma Matthes asked how big the actual building would be for that size congregation. Reverend Urefia.stated less than 3,000 feet. Chairman Matthes asked if Mr. Balanzategui had any more questions at this time. Mr. Balanzategui stated he is still opposed to the application.' Ms. Turner asked if she could approach the podium again. Chairman Matthes stated that typically the public is only allowed to speak once per heating. But he will allow it this time. November 16, 2000 page 9 Ms. Turner stated that the ~discussion at hand is 44 years of the area residents' investments. She would like to-bring up again that there was not appropriate notification to the property owners surrounding the property in question. She stated that 'if this church fails, this board has allowed approximately 200 people in to: this residential area. She would like to know why this :board is so quick Her question is why this bOard is so quick to make a judgement like this in .a be~ That will lower property value. Chairman Matthes reiterated that no decision has been made at this point in the hearing. At this moment of.the hearing the board is looking for facts to base their decision on. He stated that a petition has come forward that has met the requirements and roles, so therefore it is being heard. Ms. Turner asked what will happen if the church fails. Chairman Matthes replied that her concern is not a consideration of a rezoning application application. He explained that this board must stick to .the confines of what is suppose to be discussed. Ms. Turner stated that this application has. questionable security, obtrusive lighting, unforeseen schedules, and other things ~that are going to effect the property ownem that have lived there for 44 .years. This just seems unreal in her opinion that these residents are not given proper notice and not given proper consideration. Chairman Matthes thanked Ms. Turner for her time. He stated that staff has instructed that proper notice was given, .He stated the board has noted her comments and asked if any board members had any direct questions for Ms. Turner. Mr. Merritt asked if the RF zoning would allow church schools. Mr. Flores replied that educational services would be a conditional use under the RF zoning. Thus meaning it would need a separate hearing. Chairman. Matthes stated that the public hearing is still in process. He also reiterated that this board does not have final decision empowerment, this board is an advisory board only. Mr. Grande stated that telling the concerned residents that a rezoning for this property 'does not . mean that anything can be built on the property. The applicant will have to meet and conform to the site plan requirements of St. Lucie County, The County will definitely support and protect the area under those circumstances. Chairman Matthes asked if any facility would require a site plan approval. Mr. Kelly replied that any facility under 6,000 square feet would not require the formal site plah process. However, as it goes to the Building Permitting office the same kinds of. reviewing is taken place on the site plan. November 16, 2000 page 10 Mr. Grande asked if everything is still looked at in that process as compared to the formal process. Mr. Kelly replied that.landsCaping, signage, lighting, parking spaces, set backs, etc. will still be reviewed. Chairman Matthes stated if anybody in the public would like to speak to come forward at this time. Ms. Turner stated she would like to speak again. Chairman Matthes replied that this is not 'real'ly normal procedure, to allow her to speak.again but would allow it one last time. Ms. Turner stated she was in the Property Appraiser's office yesterday she spoke with a gentleman who told her that Institutional Zoning Was any building less'than 6,000 square feet. She stated that the application proposes a building 5,000 feet and now this board is going to grant RF instead of Institutional. Chairman Matthes explained that .this board has not taken any action. He stated that the applicant has requested the proposed zoning be RF instead of the Institutional. Ms. Turner stated that either way this is a real fine line. She stated that this entire procedure is not fight that property owners were not given proper notice. Chairman Matthes thanked Ms. Turner. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Flores stated staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that it generally conforms with the standards of review as set forth in Land Development Code and does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval to the RF zoning district because RF zoning is more appropriate for than area and 'would allow the applicant to accomplish its stated goals while better protecting the area than the Institutional Zoning. Mr. Heam asked how the landscaping along the road perimeter across the street from residential zoning will be treated. Mr. Kelly replied that the areas which are between a vehicular use area will require the .typical hedge and one tree every thirty feet. He stated areas that are screened by the building the requirements are some what less, but they are still looked to landscape those areas while reviewing the >lans. November 16, 2000 page 11 Mr. Meffitt stated ~he is against this petition, because it is opening the doOrs, for educational facilities. He stated that has been residential area since the 1900' s. In good faith he can not change the. zoning, He does'not have a problem with the Church, but his problem is opening the door to educational facilities .in that area. Chairman Matthes reiterated that'educational facilities would need another hearing for a conditional use. Mr. Kelly replied in :the affirmative and explained that the RF zoning only allows churches, synagogues, temples 'and similar uses, which is the actual structure for the worship. Any other use including educational and daycare would have to come back to this board for a conditiOnal' use. Mr. Hernia stated that .along the lines of what Mr. Merritt is referring to, he knows that an accessory use, playground or athletic fields, which would not require any further hearings for that to take place in that area. He has some concern about that also. Mr. Grande aSked if accessory uses would require existing similar uses to be allowed without approval. Mr. Kelly replied an~hing in the accessory use which is parking lots, playground, and closed storage structure that are likely. These cannot be there without the primary structure being there first. If the chumh structure were constructed than any of the accessory Uses can be put in without additional permitting. Chairman Matthes asked for a motion. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hean'ng, including staff ¢omments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County ~nd Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Miami Latin Church of God, for a change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agriculture,.Residential- ldu/acre) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facili~s) Zoning District, because.it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Trias seconded the mo~on. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed 4-3, with Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Jones voted against it. Mr. Lounds abstained due to being tardy to the meeting and missing the majority of the presentation of the petition. Mr. Kelly stated that since the notification was questioned he would like to make the announce~nent that this petition will go before the Board of County Commission on December 5, 2000. He explained there will be one more letter sent out also. The Board of County Commissibn will make the final decision. November 16, 2000 page 12 Chairman Matthes reiterated that the Planning and Zoning Board is just an advisory board. Mr,. Grande asked if there is anyway to have the staff check to make sure the sign is present on the property. Mr. Kelly replied it will be checked. OTHER BUSINESS 'Mr, Heam stated that he shares concern of the property owners that spoke on this last issue. In regard to the time they had to prepare for the hearing. The mail sometimes gets delayed and it comes 2 or ~3 days of the he~ng. He knows from personal experience on other issues that happened in his neighborhood in the past. It is extremely difficult to retain an attorney and get prepared on short notice. He. ~Ows the Code requirements are being met, but by the same token the time schedule might Want to be.reviewed to allow residents more of a notice. Mr. Hearn stated 'he would'also like to express to the board his concern about getting the packets on the Monday before the meeting. He would like to at least have the packets the weekend before the meeting. It is very difficult to read through everything in a few days and prepare for the meeting. Mr. Kelly replied that it would be taken care of. Mr. Grande stated he realized the legal requirement of mail notification is being met. He asked if legal req~irements would still be kept if the letters were sent out at the time of scheduling the petition. Mr. Kelly stated he would review that because of state and local requirements. Mr. McCurdy asked if certified mail could be sent out for ~notification. ' Mr..Kelly stated he would review for that, but he did not know what that would do to the postage budget. He explained that staff received a lot of return mail brought back and sometimes the mail is~not returned until after the meeting. Chairman Matthes stated the next meeting will be held December 13, 2000 on Wednesday. ADJOURNMENT November 16, 2000 page 13 REVISED MAY 22, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA C DELIVERIES TO: ~rOREEN~EYER//' //145 N}y~ntra1 Par/k/Plaza, Suite 200 (~~~'~34986:'~ .. ; ~'~'A'RLES GRANDE 9950 S. Ocean Drive ~705 Jensen Beach, FL 34957 EDWARD LOUNDS 1491 S. BrockSmith Road FortPierce, FL 34945 STEFAN MATTHES, CHAIRMAN 2980 S. 25th Street Pier°e, CARSON MCCURD¥, VICE-CHAIRMAN 509 S. Indian River Drive 11 ~ t '~;~(Y''~ '~[ Lt Fort Pierce, FL 34950 ED MERRITT 4822 S. 'U. S. #i Fort Pierce, FL 34982 ALBER'r MOORE BRUHN & MOORE 302 S. 2nd Street Fort. Pierce, FL 34950 RAMON TRIAS 703 Florida Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34950 Culpepper & Terpening 2980 S. 25th Street 2oo Fort Pierce, FL 34946 Deputy George E. Williams (absence of Mr. Williams PHONE NUMBERS' 340-7781 (,W) 340-0804 FAX 229-9878 (H) 229-8178 (FAX) 464-7675 (H) 595-2525 (M) 464-3537 (W) 464-94'97 FAX 466-7600 (H) 971-0060 (M) 465-7922 FAX 464-9728 (W) 464-9733 FAX 595-1044 (W) 398-1550 (W) 879-7132 (H) 460-2186 FAX 460-2200 (W) 461-7526 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 16, 2000 Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS pRESENT: Chairman Matthes,; Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Heam, Mr. Tfias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Grande ,MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. MOore Mr. Floras, Ms. MacKenzie-Smith, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Lewis, Ms. Snay November 16, 2000 page 1 Chairman Matthes called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was .led by Chairman Matthes. ROLL CALL ANNO[rNCEMENTS: There we, re-' no announcements by staff or members of the board. Chairman Matthes expl~ne.d briefly the protocol that is. followed at these meetings. As the 'items are heard, Staff wil! give a very brief presentation on the item itself. Then the applicant will have an oppo~unity to give a presentation. After that the Public Hearing portion will be opened and closed and Staff will give thefina! recommendations. The Board will then do deliberations and . then take action. He would like to make it perfectly Clear that the actions of this board are not final. So.if members of the pUblic or the petitioners do not agree with the action their opinion can. be heard in front of the Board of County Co~ssion. ...AG NDA ITEM 1, ~ETiNG MINUTES OCTOBER 19,..2000 Mr. Grande .motioned for approval. Mr, MccUrdy seconded.the motion. All members voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. November 16, 2000 page 2 . GENDA ITEM 2, FILE NO. CU-00-009 MAGI International Development Company Ms. Snay presented the petition for MAGI International Development Company for :a Conditional USe Permit to allow a 110,450 square foot mini-warehouse and self-storage facility to be known as Guardian Self Storage, in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District, for property .is located on the West'of U.S. Highway No. 1, approximately 406 feet south of the '~ Intersection of Port St. Lucie Boulevard and U.S, 'Highway No. 1. ~. Hays, Kimley & Home Associates, representing the applicant, presented the developer's petition, He expl~ned that the information before the board is .the plan for a proposed self- storage .facility. 1Vk, Hays-and his client have worked With staff on this plan. He and his ,client believe it to be in compliance with all the land development code conditions. In fact he .believes that'they prObably even have done a better job in some areas, than others. It is consistent with the' zoning district and compatible with the neighboring businesses, Chai~an Matthes asked if there were any questions from the board to the petitioner. ~. Grande. asked if the access for the facility was a normal configuration. He does not see a deceleration lane. Mr. HaYs replied in the affirmative. He explained that a couple of different options were reviewed with FDOT during the application conferenc~.~The options were storage - lane/deceleration lane or vehicular stOrage on the si~~i~ dex~eloper chose option 2 to allow for the appropriate vehicular storage on the site. That is .why the proposed gate is. over 100 feet.back from the right of way. line.. Mr. Grande questioned the definition of "proper storage" in this scenario. Mr. Hays replied stacking vehicles before they reached the gate. Mr. Grande asked staff if the. entrance is off the normal right hand lane of U.S. Highway No.1 and whether a deceleration lane is required. Ms. Snay replied that their gate is over 100 feet away fight of way and the code requires fifty feet. Mr. Grande stated that cars traveling at the standard speed of U.S. Highway No.1 speed limits will be decelerating to make this fight turn in a regular traffic lane. Ms. Snay replied in the affirmative and added that FDOT approved this plan. November 16, 2000 page 3 Mr, Hays'stated that he ~would like to explain it~a little further, This is not' the only-business on .this road that will notor does.not, have a deceleration lane. There are requirements and they have all been met. Mr. Grande stated he undemtands what Mr. Hays is saying and the reason for the gate. His concern ~s the customer that is loohng to turn in to the property and is traveling along U,S. · .Highway I at standard speeds will be ,slowing down to almost zero for a 90-degree turn, Ms. Snay stated,the property.di~:ectly North of this property is the Jiffy Lube does not have a deceleration lane either, Mr, Grande stated he has a tough time with the-explanations.of "the other people did it that way". Chairman Matthes explained that when dealing with multi lane facilities the FDOT will .review the amount of traffic volume that is generated by'the facilitY, Then they will put that information in different~categofies. For a major highway, the outSide'traffic lane is generally used for fight tums, Only large volume generated establishments, are mandated to.put in a fight turn lane. Mr, Grande stated ~he.is fairly familiar with this area and if he' remembers-correctly not far down the road is where, the traffic from Po~ St, Lucie BoUlevard will be making a fight turn on to U.S, Highway No, l. He,stated them would be a significant amount of traffic.and .an ever-increasing mount of traffic making that fight turn and. then hitting the accelerator. In front of that car will- be ~this company's Customer who will need to slow down in that lane. He asked if it was a lot to ask for a deceleration lane for entry in to .the property. He-realizes it is not mandated. Mr. :Hays replied that the request of a deceleration lane is a fair amount to ask, There are a lot of conditions that have to. be : considered, ' including the retention system along the side of the roadway. They feel this is the best solution after considering all the conditions. Mr. McCurdy stated he would like the landscape buffer between the facility and U.S. Highway No. 1 detailed for him, .He asked if dirt ~would be mound up and plants installed so that there will not be a direct view of the facility. Mr. H~i'ys replied in the affirmative. He stated the£e would be a couple of different buffers. The first one will be a mounded landscape buffer that will come up approximately 2 feet above what is out there now, further.an architectural fence would be installed along a portion of the property boundary. Mr. McCurdy asked if the front of the buildings facing U.S. Highway No. 1 would have a brick faqade. ,~ Mr. Hays stated it wo-uld be a brick or block fa~ade with a parapet on top plus a couple of different level changes. November 16, 2000 page 4 Mr. McCurdy stated this would not just be a chain'length fence with a metal building. Mr. Hays stated that fence would be a steel 'fence, which is kind of vertical. Chairman Matthes asked what would be the buffer at the rear of the property. Mr. Hays stated them would be.a 10-foot landscape buffer on the backside, that has an I (institutional) zoning, The current owner'is Bellsouth. They plan on the standard 8-foot fence on the property in the back. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Them being no one the Public Hearing was closed. Ms. Snay stated that staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth-in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development C°de and is not in conflict with 'the goals, objectives, and policies of the .St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition, to the Board :of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to 'the conditions found on page 7 of the packets, with the addition of the. following condition: the apphcant shall connect to central water service and water service'upon the installation of these'lines along the. East side of U.S. ~ghway No. 1' adjacent to the applicant's property. The use of these private well and septic systems, shall be discontinued except for iffigation :use until such time that'an alternate water resource for irrigation is available." Mr. Grande.stated that he is notmak~_Sng a motion but he is saying that he clearly thinks this property/ts great for development and this is an excellent business for this location. He will not be able to vote in favor of this because he thinks that it is a risk to traffic-for poor designing on the entrance. Mr. McCurdy stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County l~nd Development Code, he.hereby moves that the Planning and Zoning. Commission recommend that that St. Lu¢ie County Board of County Commissioners grant appr6vaI to the application of MAG1 InternationaI Development ComPany, for a .conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 110,450 square foOt mini-warehouse and self-storage facility in the CG (commercial, general) zoning district, because it is really good use of the site and falls in to the type of development that is needed for that part of the County. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously with a 6-1 vote with Mr. Grande voKng against: the motion. November 16, 2000 page 5 AGE~A ITEM 2. FILE. NO: RZ-00.014 _M!~ AMI LATIN CHURCH OF GOD Mr. Flores introduced the item as a petition for rezoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre)Zoning District to I (Institutional) Zoning District on property located at 5905 Oleander Avenue. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow the applicant to establish a church facility on the~ sUbject property..The surrounding zoning to the north, south, and west of this subject proPerty is AR, 1. There is RS-3 and RS-2 zoning to the east and Institutional Zoning located further to the north least. Although the Institutional Zoning District allows for the establishment of churches it also allows for othei: uses that might not be appropriate for the area of the propOsed, zoning. ~The.~ (Religious Facility) Zoning District was specifically provided in the Land Development Code in Order to address the establishment of churches without allowing the additional pe~tted and conditional uses in the area. Chairman Matthes ,asked if them were any questions of staff. There being none he .asked the applicant to come forward. Reverend Urefia stated he was with the Miami Latin Church of God. He would like to comment on. comm :nts made by staff. Originally the application was submitted to have a zoning change from AR-1 to .Institutional, He agreed with what staff has recommended with RF ~ning instead. He stated that 'what staff has suggested is What is .really needed and that is all the church wants the board.to approve. Chairman Matthes .asked if this is an official request of change or is there paperwork that needs to be done. Mr. Kelly replied that the.districts were reviewed and the RF Zoning is entirely contained within the Institutional Zoning. There is nothing, outside of it, It is truly a subset, so the request to drop from the broadest to the narrowest defined district really includes the same things that were already'adveaised, He stated that should the board approve it then to state in 'the motion it is the RF Zoning District. Chairman Matthes asked if there were any questions of the petitioner. There 'being none, he stated for the petitioner to stand by if there were questions from the public. November 16, 2000 page 6 Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing, stating if anyone would like to come .. forward to speak for or against :the petition. Ms. Turner from 81 SoUth River Road in Stuart, Florida appeared before the board. She has a Real Estate License and is here to represent Mr. and Mrs. Balanzategui of 5803 Oleander Avenue and partially Ms. Mitchell-of 5804~ Oleander Avenue. The Balanzategui family has owned this property for 44 ye~s and it is the adjoining property to the north of the petitioner. The Mitchell family liveS across the street and has been living-there for 33 years. The appliCation for 'this rezoning was made on September 20, 2000. Unfortunately she would like to back up a little bit and take a look at the methodology in which this notice was made to the. other parties conceme, d. Because of certain circumstances Ms. Mitchell had to call Mr. Balanzategui, because he was not receiving his mail for some reason. She stated that if the application was made on September 20t~ and 24 people were notified by mail and yet no one that she has contacted has been aware of a nOtice, These residents ~have invested 33 to 44 years in their property and community and to .come .to them with a request for rezoning to be taken so liberally and kind of unfairly. The way this notice was sent out Should be protested' in her opinion. She stated no one received a list of:other parties that were notified and no one had to sign for the notice. There is no one else attending this' meeting that was notified. Mr. Balanzategui would not. have ~own had it 'not been for. Ms. Mitchell calling him about it, because of a problem with his m~l. She did not have time to prepare any material for this meeting because the invalid notice is reason enough 'to go back and start over. Chairman Matthes asked to interject to ask Mr. Kelly what the notification process-is and was it followed properly. Mr. Kelly stated that the notice procedure is 3-fold. There is a mailed notice sent to each person with property within 500 feet of the bound~y in question. There is a sign Placed on ~the property and an ad. in the paper ran 10 days ahead of the meeting. The letters are mailed on the same day the ads mn in the paper. Chairman Matthes asked to confirm that all legal requirements were met on this application. .Mr. Kelly replied in the .affirmative. Ms. Turner stated that people who have lived in that area for 33 to 44 years did not see a sign anywhere. She asked why residents did not receive letters, and why the residents that received a letter did not get a list of other residents with in 500 feet. Chairman Matthes stated ~that according to the representation that was just given, the required legal procedure was followed for this notification. He suggested to .Ms. Turner to let the board know the opinion of the application and why, and to.move on from .the notification procedure. November 16, 2000 page 7 Ms... Turner stated that she wants to make it very clear that Mr. BalanZategui has owned the 17 adjoining acres for 44:~years and he did not receive a letter. He was contacted by Ms. Mitchell 2 days ago by Phone. These residents that she represents are opposed to this application and because of no approPriate .notice given. Chairman Matthes asked if they were opposed to the requested change or because of bad notification. Ms. Turner stated that Mr. Balanzategui has a great possibility of having a historic home there and contemplating in the preliminary stages of different type of development for this neighborhood, which could enhance the area even more than this proposed church. Mr. Grande stated that he does not see Mr. Balanzategui on the list to be notified, he sees. Ms. Balanzategui though. Ms. Turner expl~ned that she is '87 years old and is his mother. He has lived there With her.for last 44 years. The fact remains that neither one of them received a letter. She stated that them is proof at the Post Office because ofhis particular cimumstance the mail was held by request. Ms. ~tchell called them out of good. faith and good-Will with concern of this issue. Chairman. Mattes asked if.the m~ling address 5803 Oleander Avenue accurate for this .family. Ms. Turner replied in the affirmative. Mr. Balanzategui stated that his .mother was too elderly ~to come to the meeting herself. He stated he has lived at the address for 44 years. He is opposed to a church, being on that property. He. stated no one has anyidea what is going to be put them. He stated that without a thorough understanding of what is going to be there he cannot approve of it. Especially when this area is being looked at'to be nice residential area in the future. Chairman Matthes stated that the request has been changed from the Institutional Zoning which is a very broad category to the Religious Facility Zoning which is more closely defined just for religious facilities. He explained that some of the element of the unknown has been removed by the h · c ang~, of ~request. Other than that this is a rezoning and there can not be limits or conditions on a rezoning map. Mr. Balanzategui asked if this was a yes or no matter. Chairman Matthes stated that the board will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as to whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. He explained to Mr. Balanzategui.:that he has the fight to speak to 'this board and the Board of County Commissioners and share his thoughts and concerns on the application. November 16, 2000 page 8 Mr, Balanzategui stated that some of his concerns with were what the church schedule would be and the noise .levels, He has no idea what the actual structure Will look like, Chairman Matthes stated that 'at this point in the process the zoning for the land is the only thing in question, He does not see a problem with the applicant answering any questions the residents might .have at this time. Mr, Balanzategui asked how many churches of this denomination are there in existence, Chairman Matthe~~' asked if that answered the questions of the concerned residents. Mr. Balanzategui replied that some were answered ~but he would still like to know what the structure is going to consist of, Chairman Matthes stated if the applicant can answer that question that is fine. He would like to remind everyone that this is just a:hearing on a zoning change, Reverened Urefia replied that the structure would like to build a physical church building. The only thing that ~will be done them are church services 2 or 3 times a week'from about 7:30 to 9:00. Chairman Matthes asked what size of.a building was anticipated being built. Reverened Urefia replied that currently it is a small group and the building would be for about 150 to 200 peOple. Chairman Matthes asked how big the actual building would be for that size congregation. Reverend Urefia stated less than 3,000 feet. Chairman Matthes asked if Mr. Balanzategui had any more questions at this time. ~. Balanzategui stated ~he is..sfill opposed to the application, Ms. Tffmer asked if she could appr6ach the podium again. Chairman Matthes stated that typically the public is-only .allowed to speak once per hearing. But he will allow it this time. November 16, 2000 page 9 .o Ms. Turner stated that the discussion at: hand is 44 years of the area residents' investments. She would like to bring up again that there was not appropriate notification to the property owners surrounding the propeay in question. She stated that if this church fails, this board has allowed approximatelY 200 people in to this residential area. She would like to know why this. board is so quick to change~zoning. Her question is why this board is so quick to make a judgement like this in a beautiful residential area. That will lower property value. Chairman Matthes reiterated that no decision has been made at this point in the hearing. At this" moment of the heating the board is .looking for facts to base their decision on. He stated that a petition has come forward that has met the requirements and roles, so therefore it is being heard. Ms. Turner asked what will happen if the church fails. Chairman Matthes replied that'.her concern is not~a consideration of a rezoning application application. He exPlained that this board must stick to the confines of What is suppose to be discussed. Ms. Turner stated that thiS. application has questionable security, obtrusive lighting, unforeseen schedules, and ~other things that are going.to effect the property owners that have lived them for 44 ye~s. This just seems 'unreal in her opinion that these residents are not given proper notice and not given proper consideration. Chairman Matthes thanked Ms. Turner for her time. He stated that staff has instructed.that proper notice was given. He stated the board h~ noted-her comments and asked if any board members had any direct questions forMs. 'Turner. Mr. Merritt-asked if the RF zoning would ~allow church schools. Mr. Floras replied that educational se~ices would be a conditional use under the RF zoning. Thus meaning it would need a separate hearing. Chairman Matthes stated that the public he~ng is still in process. He also reiterated ~that this board does not have final-decision empowerment,, this board is an advisory board only.' Mr. Grande stated that :telling the concerned residents that a rezoning for this property does not ~ mean that anYthing can be built on the property. The applicant will have to meet and conform to the site plan requirements of St. Lucie County. The County will definitely support and protect the area under those circumstances. Chairman Matthes asked if any facility would require a site plan approval. Mr. Kelly replied that any facility under 6,000 square feet would not require the formal site. pla~i process. However, as it goes to the Building Permitting-office the same kinds of reviewing is taken place on the site plan. November 16, 2000 page 10 Mr.-Grande asked if everything is still looked at in that process as compared to the formal process. Mr. Kelly replied.that landscaping., signage, lighting, parking spaces, set backs, ~etc. will still be reviewed. Chairman Matthes stated if.anybody in the pUblic would like to speak to Come forward at this time. Ms. Turner .stated she would like to. speak again. Chairman Matthes replied that this' is not really normal procedure to allow her to speak again but would allow it one last 'time. Ms~ Turner stated~she was in the Property Appraiser's office yesterday she spoke with a gentleman who told~her.that Institutional Zoning was any building less than 6,000.square feet, She stared that the application proposes a building 5,000 feet and now this board is going to grant RF instead of Institutional. Chairman Matthes.expl~ned that this board..has not taken any action. He stated that the' applicant has requested the propOsed zoning be RF instead of the Institutional. Ms. Turner stated that either way this is a real 'fine line. She stated that this entire procedure is not fight that property owners were not' given proper notice. Chairman Matthes thanked Ms. Turner. The Public' Hearing was closed. Mr-. Flores stated staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that it generally conforms with the standards of review as set forth in Land Development Code and does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissionem with a recommendation of approval to the RF zoning district because RF zoning is more appropriate for than area and would allow the applicant tcraccomplish its stated goals while better protecting the area than the Institutional Zoning. Mr. Hearn asked how the landscaping along the road .perimeter across the.street from residential zoning will be treated. Mr. Kelly replied that the areas which are between a vehicular use area will require the typical hedge and one tree every thirty feet. He stated areas that are screened by the building the requirements are some what less, but they are still looked to landscape those areas while reviewing the plans. November 16, 2000 page 11 Mr. Merritt .stated he is against: this petition, because it is opening the doors 'for educational facilities. He .stated thatl.has been residential area since the 1900's. In good faith he can not · change the'zoning.. He .does not have a problem with the church, but his problem is opening the door to educational facilities in that area. Chairman Matthes reiterated that educational facilities would need another hearing for a conditional use. Mr. Kelly replied in the affirmative and explained ~thatthe RF zoning only allows chumhes, synagogues, temples and .similar uses, which is the actual structure for the worship. Any.other use including educational and daycare Would have .to come back to this board for a conditional use. ~. Heam stated that along the lines of what Mr. Meffitt is refeffing to, he knows that an accessory use, playground or athletic fields, which would not require any further hearings for that to take place in that area. He has some concern about that also. Mr. Grande asked if accessory uses would require existing simi.l~ uses to be allowed without approval. Mr: Kelly replied an~hing in the ~accessory use which is parking lots, playground, and closed storage, structure that are likely. These cannot be there without the primary structure being there first. If the chumh structure.were constructed than any of the accessory uses can be put in without additional-pemtting. Chairman Matthes asked for a motion. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented~during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards .of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie CounO l~nd DeVelopment Code, i hereby move that the Planning and ZOning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Comm~sioners grant approval to the application of Miami Latin Church of God, for a change in zoning from the. AR.1 (Agriculture, Residential- ldu/aCre) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District, because it' is consistent with the Corn re . . ',p .. henstve Plan.~Mr. Trias seconded the motion. Upon a roll call'vote the motion passed 4.3, with Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Jones voted against it. Mr. Lounds abstained due to being tardy to the meeting and missing the majority of the presentation of the petition. Mr. Kelly stated that since the notification was. questioned he would like to make the. announcement that this petition will go before the Board of County Commission on December 5, 2000. He explained .there will be one more letter sent out also. The Board of County CommissiOn will make the final decision. November 16, 2000 page 12 .. Chairman Matthes .reiterated that the Planning and Zoning Board is just an advisory board. Mr. Grande asked if there is anyway to have the staff check to make sure the sign is present on the property. Mr. Kelly replied it will be checked. OTHER BUSINESS ._ Mr. Heam stated that .he shares concern of the property owners that spoke on this last issue. In regard to the time they had to prepare for the hearing. The mail sometimes gets delayed and it comes 2 or 3 days ~of the hearing. He knows from personal experience on other issues that happened, in his neighborhood in the ~past. It is extremely difficult to retain an attorney and get prepared on short notice. He knOws the code reqUirements are being met, but by the same token the time schedule might want to be reviewed to allow residents more of a notice. Mr. Heam stated he would also like to express to the board his concern about getting the packets on the Monday before the ~meeting. He'Would like to at least have the paCkets the weekend before the meeting. It .is very difficult to mad through everything in a few days and prepare for the meeting, Mr. Kelly 'replied that it would be taken care of. Mr. Grande stated he realized the legal requirement of mail notification is being-met. He asked if legal requirements would still be kept if the letters were sent out at the time of scheduling the petition. Mr. Kelly stated he 'would review that because of state and local requirements. Mr. McCurdy asked if certified mail could be sent out for notification. Mr. Kelly stated he would review for that, but he did not know what that would do to the postage budget. He explained that staff received a lot of return mail brought back and sometimes the mail is not returned until after the meeting. Chairman Matthes stated the next meeting will be held December 13, 2000 on Wednesday. ADJOURNMENT November 16, 2000 page 13 ¸ ' n St. Luc~e~Cou ty Planning and Zoning CommiSsion Meeting Minutes October 19, 2000 CommisSion Chambers at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT',, Chairman Matthes, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Heam, Mr.' Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Grande, Mr. Moore, Mr. Merritt MEMBERS ABSENT;. Mr. Lounds. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Snay, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Lancaster, Ms. Julia Shewchuk, Ms. Moler Page 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 CALL TO ORDER , ~ Chairman Matthes called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Matthes. ROLL CALL , ANNOUNCEMENTS'.. There were no announcements by staff or members of the board. Chairman Matthes explained briefly the protocol that is followed at these meetings. As the items are heard, Staff will give a very brief presentation on the item itself. Then the applicant will have an opportunity to give a presentation. After that the Public Hearing portion will be opened and closed and Staff will give the final recommendations. The Board will then do deliberations and then take action. He would like to make it perfectly clear that the actions of this board are not final. So if members of the public or the petitioners do not agree with the action their opinion can be heard in front of the Board of County Commission AGENDA ITEM 1: MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, Mr. Moore motioned for approval. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed with all members voted unanimously. Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 2: RZ 00-013 & CU 00-007 FT. PIERCE MASONIC LODGE # 87 , ,, Mr. Murphy stated that before the board were two items for the Ft. Pierce Masonic Lodge # 87. The first petition deals with a petition for a change in zoning and the second petition is for a conditional use permit to allow operation of a membership organization at that particular location.. As indicated in the staff memorandums given to the board, the subject property is located approximately 2000 feet North of Midway Road, just South of Weatherbee Road on the East side of Oleander Avenue. The purpose of the rezoning petition is to change the zoning from RM-11 (Residential, Multiple Family 11 du/acre) to I (Institutional) for the purpose of allowing the proposed conditiOnal use. The Masonic Lodge group would like to construct a membership lodge on this property. The total site is 3.8 acres in area. The Membership lodges are a conditional use in the Institutional Zoning District. County Staff has reviewed the proposed petitions for the rezoning and for the conditional use and at this time have no objections for either approval. Staff recommends apProval for File No. RZ 00-0013 and CU 00-007. He would like to note that all of his comments are combined and there will need to be a separate public hearing for both petitions. Mr. Merritt stated that he is a member of the Masonic Lodge and asked if this would be a conflict. Mr. Lancaster replied in the negative. He explained that Mr. Merritt would only have a conflict if the outcome of the vote gave him some type of special benefit, typically financial. In this instance it would not. Mr. Heam stated that there is RS-3 zoning sheet in the packet. It does not seem to belong in this particular case. Mr. Murphy replied that he was correct and obviously a production error. He apologized for that error. Mr. Murphy stated that the uses between RS-3 and RM-11 are essentially the same, except the RM-11 allows multiple family dwelling units with a maximum density of eleven units to the acre. All the other uses are the same. He stated that this error will be corrected before it goes before the Board of County Commission. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. David Evansbrum, 316 Melton Drive, the Master of the Ft. Pierce Masonic Lodge # 87. He would like to say that this organization has been in existence for 101 years and they hope to be around a lot longer. Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Chairman Matthes asked if them were any questions of the petitioner. There being none Chairman Matthes thanked the petitioner. The public heating was opened at that time for File No. RZ 00-013. He asked for the public to come forward to speak for or against the petition. There being no one the public heating was closed. Since staff has given their recommendation he asked the pleasure of the board. Mr. Heam asked if there would be any screening required between residential and institutional zoning. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative. He explained that when the actual site plan is presented, the developer will be required to meet the County's residential versus non-residential screening requirements. He does not have all of that detailed information in front of him at this' time. But there will be screening required to comply with the codes. Mr. Merritt stated after considering the testimony presented during.the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to' the application of Ft. Pierce Masonic Lodge 7/87, for a Change in Zoning from the RM-11 (Residential, Multiple-Family- 11 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District, as it will fit in to that neighborhood. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motiOn passed unanimously. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing for File No. CU-00-007. He asked for the public to come forward to speak for or against this petition. There being no one the public heating was closed. Mr. McCurdy motioned for approval of.the Conditional Use permit allowing the operation of a membership organization in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE NO. PA 00-001 & RZ 00-09 VONNIE LOFTON Mr. Murphy stated that this is a matter that came up at the last month?s meeting and was asked to be withdrawn by staff, for the purpose of re-evaluation the zoning petition to be presented to the board. In putting together staff comme:nts and putting together reports, Staff believed that all issues had been addressed that were of concern at the last meeting, however during the last few days some of those concerns have re-surfaced again and the direction may be changed one more time. He will briefly explain the situation at this time. There is a parcel of land that appears to have been included within a zoning designation that is inappropriate or was never intended for the particular parcel to begin with, He continued to explain that going back in time if you moved to the intersection of Midway Road and FEC railroad along the North and South side of the roadway, there were sand mines (extraction) operations. Those mining operations ceased in the early 1990's and the properties that were previously zoned Industrial, Extraction were petitioned to be classified to a combination of AR-1 and RE-1 by the petitioner. He stated that there was one parcel in there indicated IX on the zoning map in the PA 00-001 packet. The zoning IX was not a part of the petitions. That property frotn what has been ascertained recently was never a part of the original mining conditions on the property, so it should never been put in to Industrial Extraction in the first place. He stated 'that with that being said that brings this situation up to the current date. The property has on it an existing single-family home, that home is considered to be an existing non-conforming use. Under the County's non-conforming use standard that home is allowed 'to remain there and be fixed up and have whatever it wants to be done in there. He stated that there is no sunset clause in our non-conforming regulations to phase out the use. However if that use were to be destroyed by more 'than 50% of its value by other than an act of God it could not necessarily be replaced without specific action on the part of the County. The petitioner is a recent acquirer of the property and is seeking to put it in to a conforming zoning classification, basically for the purpose of removing any clouds on the property, relative to its ability to be re- established should it need be. When initially filed the applicant was looking to apply the RE zoning to this property consistent with the surrounding densities and land specifications. The problem that was found with applying the RE is that the parcel is less than an acre. The RE zoning requires a one acre minimum lot size. As this board should recall from a couple of meetings ago, there was a similar situation presented, where the common sense approach stated that it was not possible to rezone a parcel of land to a zoning classification or zoning designation that is inconsistent with its characteristics, namely the area. He explained that was the reason for withdrawing the petitions last month to come back and re-evaluate the direction of this situation and present the petitions at this meeting with the proposed Future Land Use Amendment to RS, which would allow for a RE-2 Zoning classification which is essentially a one half acre zoning designation. Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 The uses between the RE-1 and the RE-2 zoning districts are identical, the same thing can be done in either one of them. The difference is the lot size requirements. The RE-2 has a more narrow lot width requirement, it is only 100 foot as opposed to 150 feet. It does have a higher road frontage standard than RE-I, it has a 100 feet standard as opposed to a 30 foot standard in RE-1. The yard set backs are roughly half of the RE-1 setbacks. The front yard as opposed to being 50 feet is 25 feet. The side yard as opposed to being 20 feet is 10 feet. The rear yards are approximately 15 feet as opposed to 30 feet. He stated that the set back amounts he has given were by memory. He stated that the petitions have been presented to this board with the recommendation that both the Land Use .Amendment and Change of Zoning be found consistent with the County's goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, therefore recommending approval. Mr. Murphy stated that yesterday and today there were some inquiries about how the wording and the County's non-conforming lot statutes affects this petition, not as it relates to the Industrial Extraction zoning but as 'it relates to the application in RE-1 zoning classification. Basically, one that would be the same as the surrounding areas. The initial response is that it cannot be done that way. Something cannot be zoned something that is incompatible with the lot parcels. This was the initial reaction a few meetings ago on another matter, however to review it again a little more carefully in the non-conforming use and lot revisions, it can be understood that it is possible in a non-conforming lot of record situation, it is a very narrowly focused issue, one that meets that definition, it is possible to re-zone that parcel to a designation that would be inconsistent with its area of width requirements. He explained that in translation this means it is possible to re-zone this to RE-1 as opposed to going to RE-2 only under the conditions and circumstances that exist in this particular case, because it is a non-conforming lot of record. The property owner does not own in any of the adjoining parcels that could make it a conforming lot of record. If the property owner had owned more acreage than here that would application or interpretation would not apply to this instance. Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Mr. Murphy explained that this leaves the board with 1 of 2 options. The first being the board approves the sited petitioned for a change in zoning to RE-2 and land use RS. The second option is to deny action on the change of land use, simply make the recommendation to rezone the property to RE-1 and recognize that it is a non-conforming lot of record and has no negative affect on the ability of the property owner to maintain the home, improve the home, replace the home, or anything else the owner might wish to do to the home, as long as they cOnform to the setbacks, subject to variance if needed. As a non-conforming lot of record you are allowed to get up to a 80% for yard setbacks if they are needed. Either option will make this work and either way is the fight way. This is really a matter of how the board feels is the best way to deal with it. He stated that this is clearly a confusing matter and over the next couple weeks them will be a review of the non-confo~ng regUlations, not only in this regard but-in some broader pictures as well. There will probably be some recommendations to change some at the first of the year. He stated that he will now answer any questions. Mr. Grande stated that he believes he understood and agreed with everything Mr. Murphy said. His question is that if the board went with RE-l-and the existing house was to be destroyed or made unusable by more than 50% is staff sure the house could be replaced. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative. Mr. Grande stated that he would ask it again. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative again. Chairman Matthes asked if the existing structure meets RE-1 setback requirements and if the house was destroyed and had to be re-built could it be re-built in the same location. Mr. Mmphy replied that he is not sure if it does meet all the setback requirements or not. He can not answer that specifically one way or another. If it occupied the same foot print, he believes the permit would be issued without any problems. Chairman Matthes stated he needed a better answer than "I believe", he wants a "yes or no". Mr. Murphy stated at this point in time the answer is "I believe". Mr. Heam asked if staff could tell the board what the zoning was in that whole strip on Midway Road, prior to the Industrial, Extraction zoning. Mr. Murphy believes it was zoned A-1. That would have been the zoning designation in the time of 1984, it allowed mining and material extraction operations as a special exception. Mr. Heam stated that was not AR-1. Mr. Murphy replied that prior to 1984 AR-1 zoning did not exist. Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Chairman Matthes asked if there were any other questions of staff at this point. Mr. Merritt stated that to his understanding the board could go either way on this. He would have a problem of putting 2 units on .85 acres. Mr. Murphy stated practically speaking in RE-2 it can not be done due to requirements and other issues. Chairman Matthes asked the petitioner to come forward and address the board. Ms. Vonnie Lofton, currently residing at 2605 St. Lucie Boulevard, she stated that anything she might add to legal series of events that Mr. Murphy explained so eloquently would only be repetitious. She would like to state that she has spent over 25 hour in the County Attorney's office and Community Development Department researching a resolution that will explain the zoning change from A-1 to Excavation. She called upon Mr. Wilson in the Property Appraiser's office to do a zoning research of her property, He also was not available to find a resolution that would explain the course of events. At that time Mr. WilSon explained to her that the County was required to submit in 1984 a Community Development scheme and that is the only explanation she has been able to find as to how this property changed from A-1 to Excavation. She has searched through 3 files in the Engineering Department concerning the permitting in the mining business. The only information concerning 120 Midway Road was a complaint that was a investigated and found to be tree of the operations encroaching the 15 foot boundary to the adjacent property. She would like to fix up the existing house that was built in the 1930's. She does know that this property was purchased in 1942 from Mrs. Rose Bennett by Mrs. Elsie Reynolds, whom she purchased the property from and closed in June 2000. He intentions are to fix up the little house and live in it. This is all she wants to do. She stated that it is quite simple and she has nothing further. Chairman Matthes asked if there were questions of the petitioner. Mr. Grande stated that if he understands this correctly, no matter which way this is approved. If any of the recommendations are approved by the County Commission she would be limited to the existing house or a replacement of the existing house. He is saying this in case in needs to be corrected, in no circumstance would this lot get to have two houses. He asked if Ms. Lofton understood that. Ms. Lofton replied that she did understands that with the RE-1 or RE-2 there is an allowance for a guest cottage and with that a kitchen would have to be removed from one of the structures and as long as the structures do not exceed the 20% of the property area. But there is a guest cottage allowed in either RE-1 or RE-2 zoning. This little house is only 856 square feet, it is a very tiny little house and she does understand what Mr. Grande is saying. She asked Mr. Murphy if she was correct in saying that the guest cottage is allowed in either zoning district. Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative. He stated that both zonings d© allow a guest cottage as an accessory subject to certain circumstances. Mr. Grande asked if the kitchen was removed from the existing structure could the applicant build a larger more significant house on the lot and use the existing structure as the guest cottage. Mr. Murphy stated that in general it could be that way and it had been done in other properties in the past. In those circumstances the older homes have been changed to remove the living unit characteristics and a new home has been constructed. This in the past has made the older home a glorified master bedroom guest suite. Again he stated this is subject to criteria outlined in Section 7.10 of the Land Development Code which basically goes forward and prohibits the use for rental purposes, seasonal or annual. He stated that it would strictly be a guest home for people to stay over or visitors for the applicant. Ms. Lofton stated that she has no plans at the present time to build in the future and it is a long future. She currently just plans to fix the house and live in it. Chairman Matthes asked the applicant what her preference was of the two options and does she have one. Ms. Lofton stated that as years have gone by it seems RE-2 is what she needs as far as minimize lot size. She would never want that to be contested somewhere down the line. She believes to prefer the RE-2 zoning because it is more in accordance with what she currently has. Chairman Matthes asked if the board chose to recommend the RE-1 would she go before the Board of County Commissioners and ask it to be changed. Ms. Lofton replied in the negative, as long as no one would ever contest the fact that she doesn't have 43000 square feet in her minimum lot size down the line, because that would put her through 'this situation again. She would like to settle 'this at one time and she does meet the requirements for RE-2 currently. Chairman Matthes asked if there were any more questions of staff. Mr. Jones asked if he was correct in understanding that this lot was mistakenly zoned in to IX. Mr. Murphy replied that it appears to included in there in error. Mr. Jones reiterated that it was A-1 zoning before that. Mr Murphy replied in the affirmative Mr. Jones asked if it had not been reclassified what would have been the course of action that would have been taken at this time. Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Mr. Murphy stated that in all likely hood it would have been zoned AR-1 and would have been treated as a non-conforming lot. Mr. Jones asked for clarification that this property is between to RE-1 pieces. Mr. Murphy stated that the RE-1 zoning was applied to that area following the closure of the mining operations. Mr. Jones asked why there was a narrow RE-1 piece adjacent to it on the East. Mr. Mmphy stated because .the property ownership that wraps around the parcel was a common ownership. The parcels are not numbered but looking at the zoning map the parcel on the North is tagged AR-l, the parcel to the left of the petition property Lots 6,7,8,9, and 10 which are RE-1. The ½ of lot 4 is under RE-1, or at least at that time under a common ownership. Mr. Jones asked if Lot #4 on the zoning map is currently a non-conforming lot Mr. Murphy replied in the negative. He has not done a property search on all of the surrounding areas to verify entirely. He believes Lot #4 is under the same ownership as the larger AR-1 parcel above it. That lot mainly allows access to the larger piece. Mr. Grande asked if this house was built when it was A-1. Mr. Mmphy replied that he believes this house was built prior to zoning. Ms. Lofton stated it was built in 1930. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing. He asked if the public would like to speak for or against the petition. Page 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Mr. Becht stated he would be speaking on behalf Mr. and Mrs. Petri who own a home on the South side of Midway Road, that is essentially across the street. The Wild family owns approXimately 20 acres on the North side wrapping around the petitioners property want to be good neighbors. Both fa~lies :wanted to make certain that Ms. Lofton understood'their intentions. They do have concerns about their investments and their neighbOrhood. He took a moment to thank Mr. Lancaster in his help of researching this issue and coming up with the authority that she can build a single family home on this property without rezoning it at all, he believes, certainly with a zoning change to RE-2 and also to RE-1. It is his client's preference that the neighborhood maintain its character as a 1 unit to the acre at that density level. He believes that if you look at the maps that everything on the east side of Savanah and the West side of the railroad is 1 unit to the acre, either as AR-1 or RE-1. He stated that oddly enough he is standing at this time trying to keep the density down, when normally he stands trying to get the density up. The argument that he was going to present is that if the board opens the door here for this applicant with 2 units per acre. The Wild brothers own 20 acres around her and staff will have all of their comments as to why it is not appropriate. But if she is 2 units to the acre, why would the Wild brothers not be able to come in with the property wrapped around her and say they want 2 units to the acre. At that point there would be 40 units in that area instead of the current 20. The Wild brothers are present at this meeting and there is a letter in the packets requesting to keeP the zoning to RE-1. The other argument he would like to present is if this property is gone to RE-2 it is spot zoning by some of the definitions that he has read. The difference is two units to the acre / one unit to the acre and some might find that silly. But that doubles the density. On this piece it does not matter that much, but if it is expanded to what the Wild brothers own it could be a real problem. So they are asking to stay with the RE-1. Mr. Moore stated that aside from the argument that Mr. Becht is making about setting back precedent with going with RE-2. He asked if there were any other objections or his clients have about RE-2. Mr. Becht replied that the applicant did not need that RE-2 zoning. He stated that she has a single family designation and it maintains the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Moore reiterated that with the research that was discussed with the RE-i, is how Mr. Becht is making the argument of the applicant not needing RE-2. Mr.' Becht confirmed that is what he meant. He stated that she has the ability to maintain the character of this neighborhood with out rezoning higher to RE-1. In looking at the map, everything around it is 1 unit to the acre. If this applicant gets to be allowed to be zoned in to 2 units to the acre, it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Heam asked Mr. Murphy if it is out of the realm of possibility to give this property owner a letter for her file stating that if she is zoned RE-1 she will not be hassled years down the road about this same issue. He thinks this is a very tough situation for a property owner to go through what this applicant has gone through for one piece of property. He hopes that this evening it can be solved to keep protecting the applicant and keeping the neighborhood happy. Page 11 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Mr. Murphy stated that :this request can be done and can be accomplished in two ways. One way is to issue a formal non-conforming lot of record determination, as well the accompany of a zoning change petitions that outlines the action that will take place here. In addition, the history of this CoUnty has been that non-conforming issues have not been done in a retro'active basis, meaning that if a future board amends that non-conforming status. He sees nothing that will change that. He would, assume that even if that wanted to be done, if there had been some sort of opinion to :say that it was okay. The legal community would pretty much say that it was fine and that would be their acknowledgement until something else occurred. In answer to the question it is yes, there would be certain documentation given that would record these conversations. Mr. McCurdy state he would like to comment that he appreciates Mr. Becht's concern about the precedent it would set. He also thinks Mr. Murphy is correct that there are come things the County can do to make it less likely that the applicant will have problems in the future on RE-1 in a non-conforming matter. He does not want to leave her with a false sense of security. He stated that there can be things done to nullify it. He asked Mr. Lancaster if he agreed with that statement. Mr. Lancaster replied in the affirmative. Mr. McCurdy explained that he does not want Ms. Lofton to think that if the Board says it is non- conforming and the Board of County Commission agrees with that, then she will never have any one in the future say that. He does not want to leave that impression with her, if that is the action that is taken. He stated that Mr. Becht has brought up some valid point if that is what is done. He stated he would appreciate any steps to avoid that in the future. Mr. Merritt stated his concern if it does get a zoning for 2 units per acre and hypothetically she sells the property and the buyer goes in and acquires an additional 6500 square feet. Now there would be two units. He can see putting this as 2 units per acre on that property with the surrounding uses. He asked Mr. Murphy if that was possible. Mr. Murphy stated that the property would have to be rezoned to do what he is suggesting might happen. There are two zoning classifications which allowed 2 units per acre, RE-2 and RS-2. The RS-2 zoning is more liberal in its frontage and lot dimension than the RE-2 which is much more restricted. If under Mr. Merritt's scenario it were reclassified and 6500 square feet are added, or whatever it takes to get to one acre, unless you have taken the lot street frontage up to 160 feet, you have nothing. There will be nothing accomplished because you can not meet the division requirements for the separation of the property to create two different parcels. Mr. Men'itt stated with that scenario that the precedent had been set. This is what he was trying to point out. Mr. Murphy stated that precedent exists in any situation that is done. Page 12 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Mr. Grande stated that he is very sympathetic to Mr. Merntt . concern. He does feel it is relatively easy to meet those minor frontage requirements or get 80% waivers. He really liked Mr. Heam's idea, except he feels it is directed in the wrong place. Mr. Grande would want to get assurance from the legal department instead of the Community Development Department. If a document were to be put in the file and given to the owner about this .85 acre being zoned to 1 unit to the acre with having this exception recorded. He thinks that should be addressed by Mr. Lancaster and he feels that is where the assurance shoUld come from. He does not mean to trivialize what Mr. Murphy said, but he feels it is important. Mr. Heam apologized for any misunderstanding of his idea. He did mean for the document to be put in the file to come from the legal department. Chairman Matthes thanked him for the clarification. He asked Mr. Lancaster to address that idea and if it was possible to come from the legal department. Mr. Lancaster stated that in the opinion of the attorney's office at this point under current codes, she could build the house as been discussed this evening. He stated he was hesitating to try and to determine what relevance a letter from an attorney expressing opinion would be for the applicant in terms of a solid assurance. He feels that the opinion has been expressed that it is possible on the record. Mr. Grande stated that his specific worry is actually less one of her selling the property. His concern is 10 years from now the house bums down and they look to replace it. At that time it would be more than 50% destroyed and would be non-conforming at 1 unit to the acre. He does not think it would be fair at that point to tell the applicant that she could not rebuild the house. He thinks everything is resolved here with 1 unit per acre, if the owner can have some assurance that the resolution is in perpetuity rather than until this particular house is destroyed. Mr. Murphy stated that under the specific scenario that was described, which is an act of God destruction of property. There are provisions in the code that would allow it to be replaced. The only thing that is non-conforming about this parcel, is the parcel itself, not the home. If it is a residentially zoned piece of property that would allow for a residential unit to go back on there. Mr. Grande stated that if it was zoned 1 unit per acre. Mr. Murphy stated if that is the case the only thing that has been done is made it a non- conforming lot of record. As a non-conforming lot of record it is allowed to be re-established. Mr. Jones asked if this is currently a non-conforming use. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative. Page 13 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 Mr. Jones asked if when Ms. Lofton acquired the property was it a non-conforming use. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative. Mr. Jones asked if the approval for RE-1 took place it would be making this better than it is today. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative. He explained that it is actually putting it in a better condition of non-conformity. There is much more latitude in some of the dimensional issues than there are in use issues. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy if he heard him say a lot like this already platted and non- confornfing and zoned residential any lot it can have a house built on it. Mr. Murphy stated that as long as certain standards and code requirements are met. Mr. Trias stated that the code already deals with this issue that is trying to be addresses. He stated that in fact this discussion does not have much relevance from a practical point of view. Mr. Murphy stated that only in to the sense that it cannot be zoned Industrial, Extraction. Chairman Matthes stated that it was still a public hearing if anyone would like address the board. Mr. Bud Wild residing at 119 East Midway Road. He owns the property on all three sides of the property in question. He would much rather see the RE-1 zoning as opposed to the RE-2 zoning. He feels it is a win-win situation. He can keep his zoning intact the way it is and she gets to re do her home or possibly build a house and have a guesthouse. He thinks this accomplishes want both sides need to see done. If the board does this with a non-conforming lot of record under RE-1 zoning. He stated that as far as he knows a non-conforming lot of record is a legal status. There have been some questions about that, but it is a legal status. She can build her house and have a guesthouse as far as that. Ms. Lofton stated that she understands that the 20 acres of land around her property is a mostly water, so there would not be homes out there at all. She stated to the North of her property there is quite a bit of water. There are some RS designated homes on the other side of railroad tracks in South Midway Road and Indian River Drive. If the Wilds are worried about the density aspect they are in complete control over that concern, because they do own everything around her property. Chaim~an Matthes stated as Mr. Wild approached the podium a second time that typically the board does not allow a person to come forward twice for a rebuttal. Mr. Wild stated that not only do they own the property on the same side of the road, but they own 100 acres on the other side of the road. If she is granted this RE-2 zoning, then Mr. Wild may Page 14 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 come back and force the.board to rezone those i00 acres of land to RE-2 as well. Chairman Matthes stated that if the Wild Brothers did come back for a change in zoning on those 100 acres it would be a request and would not be an automatic granting. Mr. Grande asked if the zoning is going to be changed to RE-1, then does the land use need to be changed from Residential Estate to Residential Suburban. Mr. Murphy replied in the negative. If the zoning is changed to RE-1 then a motion for denial for the land use petition is the action that can be taken. In that scenario the zoning petition would need amended to a more restrictive category. Mr. Grande stated the RE-1 would meet Ms. Lofton's every need and maintain the character of the neighborhood. Chairman Matthes closed the public hearing there being no one else from the public to speak. He asked for any further discussion from the board. Mr. Moore asked Mr. Lancaster about the research that was discussed earlier. That research was recently and that was on RE-1 being non-conforming. Mr. Lancaster stated that the research was done on the question of given the size of the property and given the history of the property whether a building permit could be given to build a single family residence on that lot for a RE-1 zoning. The answer that was concluded was yes. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the petition of Vonnie Lotion fir a change in Future Land Use Designation from the RE ( Residential, Estate) to RS (Residential, Suburban). Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed 6-1, with Mr..McCurdy opposing the vote. Chairman Matthes stated since staff presented by file items the public hearing will be opened for File No. RZ 00-009. Them being no one from the public wishing to speak. The public hearing Was closed. Mr. Jones asked if the RE' 1 zoning can be approved if the applicant did not request it. Mr. Murphy stated that the board has the ability to go to a more restricted zoning category, if it meets the code criteria. Mr. Jones reiterated his question, since the petitioner requested RE-2 can the board recommend RE-1 instead. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative. Page 15 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000 :s asked if'there was something to add to the motion that would reflect that all transcriptions of this meeting be part of that. That would make her case as strong e future. .ated that is not a problem at all for the motion to include the minutes. He would for the record that the minutes and discussions are included here, as part of the .is based on. after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, ;omtnents, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning commend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant of Vonnie E. Lotion, for a change in zoning from the IX (Industrial, RE-1 (Residential, Estate ldu/acre) zoning district, because it is consistent the area and accomplishes the purpose requested by the applicant and also the proceedings given to the applicant for future records. Mr. Jones seconded a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. ~S ',ated that he needed the members to look at their calendars. He stated that all items will be at the November 8, 2000 Board of County Commission Meeting. .ng and Zoning Commission meeting is scheduled for November 16, 200 and ill be heard at the December 5, 2000 Board of County Commission, which is the meeting of the year. The December meeting for this board is scheduled 2000 which is the day before Christmas hOlidays begin. Staff recommends this -scheduled for Wednesday, December 13, 2000. There is a conflict for Thursday ,2000 so it had to be moved. sked what could be on the agenda. replied there would be a rezoning/site development plan out in the Glades Cut off a PUD for the west end of Gatlin and 1-95. asked if that would be for December. asked what was the site plan on Glades Cut off. replied the Duke Energy. He stated there may be more but these were the big ones. · stated that at this time the board seems to be alright with December 13. The will be November 16, 200 in the Commission Chambers. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 19, 2000