Okay. Good evening. Call the meeting LPA meeting to order for November 6th, 2025. The first order of business is the comprehensive plan amendment 21-11
wideite text amendment. >> Miss Nolly. >> Good evening members of the local planning agency. My name is Jenna Nabi, senior planner with the growth management department and before you this evening is comprehensive plan amendment 21-11, wide text amendment.
This is requested by Lceto and Associates on behalf of the owner Caner 96th Street Investments LLC and South Florida Gateway Industrial LLC. So before I get into the specifics of this text amendment request, I'm going to turn it over to Clyde and he's going to
do some background and history of this project. >> Thank you, Jenna. Uh Clyde Dulan, comprehensive planning administrator for the record. Um what you see on the screen is the application for uh the property for which the proposed sight
specific text amendment would be applicable that was originally submitted in uh 2021. Uh I'm I want to go back to these slides in a second. Um but before we even go to these slides, I want to go backward in time just a little bit and show you how
we got here to some extent. prior to the submittal of these these uh sight specific text amendments and the concurrent future land use map amendment you'll consider at the next public hearing. Back in 2010, uh the board of county commissioners approved a future land use map amendment
assigning commercial waterfront and uh industrial where you see the blue and the yellow on the on the five 499 acre parcel that uh was the beginning was the base parcel for the 2021 plan amendment.
Um that never developed pursuant to those future land use designations. Um, a few years later in 2019, uh, the Neil parcels, as it was called, 20, uh, CPA19-6,
the applicant proposed to move that commercial waterfront and that industrial land from where you saw it on the last slide to where you see the 250 acres of industrial on this slide. The thinking was it was a no-n net change in industrial and commercial activity and
it moved it away from 96th Street and moved it over to Caner Highway. Uh it was no like I said no no no net change and um it was recommended for approval by by staff and was approved by the board and that is how we got to where we
are today or what we where we started with the um is this right? >> Next one. >> Next one. Yes. >> Where we start out in 2021 uh with the industrial 250 acres fronting on Caner Highway and the
agricultural land to the west of it on approximately a total 499 acres. In 2021, the sight specific text amendment and future land use map applications we were as you see here this the text amendment were was going to apply to
this land that was proposed for um low density residential that was about uh yeah that was on a two about 298 acres of the 499 acres. Um and then um later the applicant changed the
application materials uh in part because of some industrial land use changes that were being proposed on the the gateway on yeah the gateway property. Uh as you can see here partial one and partial two flipped the same amount of acreage around and it caused this the
residential that was being proposed in the wateride amendment to also have to change. And so this was resubmitted and you can see the re it didn't follow the same um outline and the same uh geometry of the
last slide. So then another submitt was made in 2024 which looks a lot more like the one that you have today. The sight specific text amendments were applicable to these properties this area of uh lowdensity residential that's proposed
and um I believe that's it isn't it? We go back. So that's kind of some background of how we got here and it's why you have such a very large application package in your package to review is you have these multiple submitts that have occurred over years.
Um and so that's the the background on the site specific text amendment applicable to this specific property. And I'll let Jenna take over and cover the um the more recent submitt and the details of that more recent submitt.
So the text amendment request that is before you this evening proposes amendments to chapters 1 2 4 and 11 of the comprehensive growth management plan. This text amendment is concurrent with a future land use map amendment or
a flume which is CPA 21-12 the wide flume and that will be the next public hearing following this one. This is a very complex text amendment. So we have uh broken it into three main components to make it a little bit
easier to explain. The first of those three components are the sightsp specific policies that are applicable to the proposed residential land. The second are is the expansion of the primary urban service district and the subsequent elimination of the
freestanding industrial urban service district. And there uh the third component are amendments to the residential capacity methodology. And in addition to the text and policies of the comp plan that are proposed for amendment, there's also these three
figures that are uh proposed for amendment as well. And that's figure 4-2, urban service district, figure 11-1, areas currently served by regional utilities, and figure 11-2 potential service areas.
So this is an aerial location map of the subject property. The red outlined property is known as the wide property. It's about 396 acres. And then the yellow outlined property adjacent to it is uh industrial future land use. It's
the freestanding urban service district and it's about 250 acres of industrial. So you can see this property in its totality is located south of Southwest 96th Street. It's just east of the St. Lucy Canal. Um Southwest Caner Highway
is fronting its uh uh eastern boundary and it is located west of Southwest Pratt Whitney Road. And we touched on these figures before, you'll see them more in the next hearing, but this is the existing future land use. The property in outlined in
red has an agricultural future land use designation and it's proposed for lowdensity residential also outlined in red just to give some context for the current conditions on the property. So moving into the first component of
the text amendment. These are the sightsp specific policies that are proposed for addition to policy 4.1b2 in chapter 4. So these policies are specific to the proposed residential land that is the subject of the future
land use map amendment. So that 396 acres of land. The high spots for what these proposed amendments are the sight specific policies are that the residential units shall be limited to a maximum of 150 units. Prior to the
issuance of the 100th building permit, a monetary contribution of a thousand dollars per residential unit shall be donated to the Martin County Community Land Trust. All future applications for development approval shall be processed as a planned unit development or PUD and
the owner developer shall plan and appropriately fund public facilities consistent with policy 14.1b2 which requires that future developments pay the full cost of capital facilities needed to address the impacts of such development.
The second component of the text amendment application is the expansion of the primary urban service district. This proposed expansion covers approximately 646 acres. That's because it covers the proposed residential that
is 396 acres and the adjacent industrial land which is 250 acres. So it involves converting the existing freestanding urban service district to become part of the primary urban service district on that adjacent industrial property. And
in order to make sure that that change with the freestanding versus primary is consistent with each other, there are four policies listed here in chapter 4 that have the same piece of text uh proposed for removal so that there's no
conflict between having that land be shown as freestanding when it would be part of the primary. And in order to achieve the expansion of the primary urban service district, there are amendments to those three figures that I mentioned earlier that would depict this
expansion. So we'll go into those on the next slides. So this is an excerpt of the proposed figure 4-2 urban service districts that would show this expansion. The red outlined property is the wide proposed residential property and the black
outlined property is that adjacent industrial land. The pink color on this map denotes the primary urban service district. The purple that is east of Pratt Whitney Road shows the secondary urban service district. So with this
proposed amendment, all of that 646 acres is shown in pink to become part of the primary. Also, just a point of clarification on this figure, um, where my cursor is and where I'm circling, there's these, uh, five lots that are
south of Southwest 96th Street. And on this figure, they're shown in pink, meaning that they would be part of the primary, but um, they are not part of the primary urban service district currently, and they are not part of this application. So, I just wanted to um, clarify that for the record.
The proposed figure 11-1 is uh the blue outline and that warm brown color denotes the primary urban service district on this figure. So that same 646 acres would all become part of the blue outline and have that blue that
brown color that denotes that it's part of the primary urban service district with this amendment. And similarly with the proposed figure 11-2, part of that blue outline and having that same brown color that would denote the primary urban service
district. So policy 7 or sorry, policy 4.77 in chapter 4 of the comprehensive plan provides eight different criteria that must be analyzed whenever the board of county commissioners is considering an expansion of the primary urban service
district. And during staff's analysis of this application, we found that compliance with criteria one, two, and five were not met. So criteria one is that the application shall not create any internal inconsistency with other elements of the adopted comp plan.
Number two is not result in incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. And number five is demonstrate that reasonable capacity does not exist on suitable land in the existing primary urban service district for the 20-year planning period.
And the third and final component of this text amendment application are the amendments to the residential capacity analysis. Um they're quite complex and so they span three different chapters of the comp plan. Chapter 1, chapter 2, and
chapter 4. In chapter 1, there are four different policies proposed for amendment. Chapter 2 has uh amended and revised definitions and new definitions added. And chapter 4 has seven seven different policies and sections that that are proposed for amendment. Uh we
didn't want to get too into the weeds in the presentation, but if you have any specific questions on those, we can certainly answer them. And in conclusion, staff recommends denial of the applicant's proposed text amendments. The basis for staff's
recommendation uh is that compliance with policy 4.787 subsections 1 2 and 5 have not been demonstrated for expansion of the primary urban service district. The proposed amendments to sections of
chapter 1 and policies in sections in chapter 4 are not clear. Until a methodology is applied and words describing calculations become calculations, it's unclear what the result of these amendments would be. and elements of the proposed amendments to
the population technical bulletin and the residential capacity analysis methodology would likely result in multiple internal inconsistencies within the text of the comprehensive growth management plan. And that concludes staff's presentation. >> Do you have uh anything, Rick?
>> Sure. >> So my big question, when was when was the last time we we expanded the urban service district? That would be the uh Pineland Prairie Newfield property in uh Palm City. >> Other than that one,
>> uh other than that, uh no, that was 2018. >> 2018. That was 2018. But before that, we hadn't expanded it since we adopted that. Uh the only one that I can think of
prior to that of any size would be 2004 when the primary urban service district was expanded into the secondary urban service district on the south side of Cove Road. >> Trey Bell pardon >> Trey Bell. >> Trey Bell and other lands south of Cove Road. It was I think it was somewhere
around 800 acres. >> Yeah. And and the other problem I have with the needs analysis, it the maximum density is how they calculate it using the maximum density. I I don't know of any development in Martin County that
got maximum density. Usually when you know if it's eight units per acre, you usually ended up with five and a half or six if that many. And so that to me is really flawed. And and I I don't I don't understand why we use maximum density
when we know we don't use maximum density in this county or anywhere probably. That's not a question. I didn't think you could answer so I wouldn't I didn't ask him. >> Is that it, Rick? >> Yeah, I think so for now. Okay, Jared.
>> Um, when the freestanding urban service uh district was created, it was created as a freestanding industrial urban service district. Correct. >> Yes. The freestanding urban service district is only available to properties with an industrial future land use. And
so the properties that are described by that freestanding urban service district are exactly the same sort of polygon that is described by the industrial land use on this map.
>> Yes. And there you you mentioned the sort of the island that would be created of non primary urban service district on 96, but there's also another one on Caner Highway which is in that odd shape. Um the other question I have is
the commercial waterfront designation that was on that property directly on the C44 has been moved. I'm not sure I understood what happened to that because we have a no net loss
policy. Yes. And uh we recommended uh eliminating that commercial waterfront future land use designation on that property uh because the there is an Army Corps of Engineers easement >> on this portion of the property along
fronting on the canal. >> Yeah. that 100 foot barrier that exists and is problematic >> is very problematic. >> Right. So, so would that property line be moved to the south of that easement
for Wateride? >> Uh, no. The easement is on top of the property and the any development that would occur there if as proposed by the applicant currently would have to take into account that easement as well.
Okay. Thank you, Howard. Anything? I >> I just have a qu. I mean, the the few things that you say that they're not in compliance with, are they attempting to comply or just
what's >> Well, under normal circumstances, when there's a a recommendation of denial by staff, um applicants resubmit and uh we work through it. Uh, in this case, the applicant requested to come forward to
this body for a public hearing and to the board of county commissioners for a public hearing. >> Okay. Anything else on it? >> No, sir. >> I'm just going to ask Julie, do you want to say anything? >> Okay. Well, just say it into the mic for
the record. I just wanted to catch you for once. >> Right. >> You did catch me for once. I was listening very intently, but at this moment I do not have anything. >> Okay, >> Julie, just just because I'm curious. Um, students from this development, if it developed, would go to Crystal Lake
as an elementary school and South Fork as a high school. >> Where would their middle school be? >> Anderson. >> Anderson. >> Yes. And this, from what we put together was a 10year. That's likely to change by the time this gets built probably. >> Yes. But I did bring all that
documentation if you have any more questions. >> So Caner Highway would be the conveyance. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Applicant. >> Okay. For the record, my name is Morris Krady, senior partner with Leo and
Associates, and I do have proof of notice to surrounding property owners within 2500 ft, which was about 800 letters. Um, and we agree with some of staff comments and we disagree with some of staff comments, and obviously we disagree with the conclusion, the recommendation of denial, but I'll go
into a little more detail as to why um we we're having these points of contention. Um, the site, as you know, is very well explained. location. Um, you know, this is the South Florida Gateway PUD, uh, that has been developed
successfully over the past 5 years. Um, and this is the existing land use and, uh, um, the 250 acres, uh, that include South Florida Gateway. PUD also includes a 30 acre county site here, which is the
county um, acquired and is proposing to put their operations facility there. That's zone general industrial that's not part of the PUB um and the surrounding property. Uh this is um within the primary urban service district. This is uh the estate density.
There's this commercial along the intersection where the convenience store gas station is. There's self storage here. This is a commercial site uh that public's got approval for to build a shopping center. Uh Crystal Lake Elementary School is located here. This
is St. Lucy Falls, which is at 8 units per acre. And this is a commercial waterfront that's been developed in a combination of residential and um and and actual commercial uh uh waterfront uses and that's at 10 units per acre.
So, uh the urban service boundary is essentially right across the street from this site. Um I provided this graphic to kind of show you the relationship of the primary urban service boundary to the property. Um and again the uh these
these are two parcels that uh um are currently one unit per 20 acres but these are five acre lots. There's I think five different tracks here. It doesn't conform to agricultural use and in fact there's single family homes on this parcel and there's single family
homes on this parcel. Um, so they're they're currently adjacent to the primary urban service boundary and adjacent to the uh freestanding industrial urban service district. And I also wanted to show the secondary urban service district that was mentioned.
This is where um uh Foxwood I think is located. The South Fork High School is in this area and also the recently approved the uh PY project I think it's called High Point in that area. And then the rural lifestyle, the you know the rural lifestyle was a strategic land use
that that it was designed to prevent urban sprawl and and and in fact this this will contain the urban development because this is now being developed under rural lifestyle and the owners of this property also purchased 200 acres adjacent to it that they're looking to
add to rural lifestyle sometime in the future. So there is no active agriculture adjacent to the property um or on the property although it's been used for agricultural for decades and and successfully but at this point the
transition of of um urban uses adjacent to us and the the the rural lifestyle and industrial uses doesn't make it suitable for agricultural use anymore. Um and and in fact there's services already here. This is the Martin County Utilities Service Area and uh everything
in in blue here is is in the Martin County Utilities Service Area. There's water and sewer lines already constructed along Caner Highway that goes in front of these agricultural parcels. There's water and sewer lines on 96th Street that goes right adjacent
to the property. All of these uh uses up here are can tie into water and sewer, but uh these lots that unfortunately are are on well and septic tank cannot connect to water and sewer and and these lots cannot connect to water and sewer. And so they have well and septic tanks
that discharge for the most part into the robot creek headwaters that start at this point. So, um, you know, in normal times that the county would look at these out parcels and and be proactive and and and actually include them in the
primary urban service district because they're adjacent to the primary urban service. They're adjacent to water and sewer facilities. The same police and fire protection that provide services to the people on the north side of 96 Street will provide services to these
parcels and to our property and to these other parcels. So, um, you know, this would be the the addition of the of the property. It it certainly makes sense. We're not out west of town somewhere. The, uh, St. Lucy Canal provides a
physical barrier to the west. Rural lifestyle provides a physical barrier to the south. Um again, these two out parcels, the county should initiate their own comp plan amendment to give them the ability to connect to water and sewer and not have them stand out um by
themselves in this situation. So, this is the existing land use, but as staff pointed out, um and I'll go back, let me go back to this again. um this uh wide pud um has been around or at least the
um 250 acres here that was adjacent to the urban service district um and part of the urban service district. Let me go to this. This is this this was all part of the primary urban service district and was done in 2010 by the county
commission at that time to promote economic development. I didn't start working on this property until 2018 for the Neil um family and they tried for 10 years to get industrial development on this property. But uh access was was was
very difficult because industrial traffic on Southwest 96 Street with the Arundle Bridge created site vision problems. And there was a there is currently a a actually a 16 acre perpetual army corps easement that
encumbers 16 acres of the property. It runs up to 96 street and around this. So there was no way we could even develop the property under the commercial waterfront um land use and none of the industrial users that were looking to develop in Martin County. Um they all
wanted access to Caner Highway and bringing water and sewer to the site um you know was was was um a key component and having frontage on Kenner Highway was a key component to making South Florida Gateway successful and and they have developed
successfully. But you can see part of the uh this was the primary urban service district in 2010. And the only reason we had to create an independent um freestanding urban service district is because we didn't control this property. But this is primary urban
service district. This is agricultural ranchet. This is industrial freestanding urban service district. So we're we're trying to fill in the gaps and and this is a classic case of um of of really infill. So, um, in order to achieve
this, we, you know, we looked at the residential capacity methodology in chapter 4, which was changed by a previous commission back in 2016. Um, we believe it overestimates capacity and underestimates need because it does
assign maximum density to to vacant land uses. It includes uh vacant lots that can't be developed such as in Point Sienna Gardens. There's hundreds of lots there that are included in the vacant capacity methodology that have no water and sewer that have no roads, but they're all part of the county's future
capacity analysis. And they also estimate that there's a certain number of vacant units dur during the year. So, we believe the methodology is flawed. Um so we have proposed a different methodology using an expert um um from Orlando the GI consultants. I'll go in
that in in in in one moment. So the other portion of this is converting the 250 acres of the freestanding urban service district to primary and also converting the 396 acres of our agricultural use um that sur that's surrounded by the freestanding urban
service district to primary urban service district. So, we're on the 396 acres, we're restricting it to 1,50 units, which is 2.65 units per acre, not five units per acre. Uh, we're acquiring this contribution of $1,000 per unit, which will ultimately be over a million
dollars that the county can use towards affordable um housing opportunities. We're also requiring that any future development on the property be processed as a PUD so the county can can evaluate the appropriate use, the appropriate
design of of uh any any development on the property and also require public benefits which could include connecting some of these other properties to water and sewer and preventing impacts to u robut creek. But probably the most important is the
fourth part of this, which we're requiring that the development on this subject property, the owners and developers of this sub of of of this property pay the full cost of capital improvements to serve this development. So there will be no burden on taxpayers. The developer owner of the project has
to pay to extend water and sewer. They have to pay to extend um the roads that are necessary to uh facilitate this project just like they did with South Florida Gateway PUD. The county paid nothing towards the extension of water and sewer towards South Florida Gateway.
The developer owner paid for all of those costs and uh brought services to that site so the county could also access those services for their site. So this is the figure 4-2 one that we're amending. Again, we're on the edge of the urban boundary. It's we're simply
trying to fill in the gaps between the the freestanding urban service district and the um and the uh primary urban service district. This is the actual code language that we're proposing. Again, the section D that the owner developer shall plan and appropriately
fund public facilities consistent with with the policy in the comp plan which requires that the development pay the full cost to capital facilities. So there is no burden on taxpayers. We're simply trying to identify an area where residential growth can go because they
were out of residential land to develop. So, there are eight criteria within the comprehensive plan that allows for the extension of the primary urban service district. Um, and staff agrees that we meet all of them, but three. So, I'm just going to kind of go through the three that they disagree with us on. And
one of them is the internal inconsistency with other elements of the adopted plan. And really the the basis for staff's um concern here is that we revise the residential capacity formula to be consistent with what we believe is best management practices and and the
requirements of the Florida statute. So, but they're they're concerned that that could lead to inconsistencies. We believe that we've addressed all the inconsistencies within the uh the required um chapters of the comprehensive plan by amending the various figures and documents and
policies within there. We do not believe that the that the uh the revision to the residential capacity formula creates u in inconsistencies. The staff also mentioned that um there was an inconsistency because they're concerned
about a uh a policy a self-imposed policy that that we put on the industrial property that prevented any access of industrial uses to go to state uh southwest 96 street. um they're assuming that that's going to be some
type of inconsistency, but we believe through the PUD review process there is no conflict with this policy. Um we're there's no reason why any of this industrial traffic has to access 96th Street. There are we have three access
points on Caner Highway. There's no intention of allowing industrial traffic to access 96th Street. we we're the ones that imposed that requirement on the property when we moved the industrial to Caner Highway. So, that's not a
legitimate concern um in our opinion. Um they're also concerned about incompatibilities with adjacent land uses and and they're mainly pointing out the these parcels along 96 Street and
Caner Highway that are currently uh um agriculture. these two parcels here and again these parcels are are already exist. They're already surrounded on two sides by the primary and sec and uh and uh freestanding urban service district
and by a highway on the east side. Water and sewer is available up there. This this is not these are not agricultural enclaves. These are residential properties that should be in the primary urban service district because they have access to all urban services. But yet
the county wants to maintain them as as agricultural um parcels and and we don't believe that's an inconsistency. We believe it's a failure on the county's part to uh ignore these parcels and and the fact that they're in a location that they should be entitled to water and
sewer service and urban services. And again, this is how it would look. there'll still be there. But again, you know, these parcels can apply on their own or the county can initiate an amendment uh to the to the land use and to the comprehensive plan that allows
these parcels to be in the primary urban service district. They certainly are entitled to it from a locationational perspective. So again, this is explaining the the fact that the PUB re review process will ensure that there's compatibility with
the adjacent industrial uses. And in fact, we designed the industrial uses knowing or at least hoping that the property in the back of the industrials would be there um uh uh would become residential to support the employment base. We're within the South Florida
Gateway PED, we have about 4 to 500 jobs that are being generated. Within the county's 30 acre parcel, another 300 employees are going to be working there to the south in the uh in the Apogee project and in the ranch project. another four or 500 um jobs that will be
created and and and again it's the perfect location for residential where where where where we propose it behind the architectural or where behind the industrial area and and compatibility and you know we can we've built giant uh BMS for compatibility. We we're
proposing lakes back there to create separation between the industrial and there is no incompatibility with the surrounding agricultural areas or the rural lifestyle areas. There is not a compatibility issue. Um staff does agree that we're not going to adversely impact
environmental, natural, historical or archaeological resources. They they acknowledge that the site is already impacted with environmental. there are no environmental or archaeological or historical elements on this property because it's been commercially farmed for decades. So, we agree that there's
no issue. Uh the county staff also agrees that we're consistent with goal 4.9 related to appropriate residential land use capacities because again, by going to five units per acre, we can propose a a range of housing types. They all won't have to be a million-dollar
homes. We can have town homes, we can have apartments, we can have single family homes. Um, but we can address the need to provide appropriate residential land use capacities for uh the anticipated population and provide residents with a variety of choices and
housing types. And that's a requirement of the comp plan and the and the county staff agrees that we meet that criteria. This is one that we don't it's it really boils down does the the county really need to plan for the next 20 years or can they cook the numbers in the current
formula to show that they don't need to do anything for the next 20 years and you know we did our own uh capacity analysis we hired a consultant out of Orlando uh GI consultants um and they're showing that there's only 64% capacity
in the 15-year period and now that's been extended to 20 years there's even less capacity and and this particular firm does a lot of these studies throughout the state. Uh we base it on best management practices consistent with the with um with the um Florida
statutes and the county basically disagrees because we're not following the policies or the formula in the current comprehensive plan. Well, we're not following those policies because they're not correct. They're flawed. they overestimate
uh the capacity in the county and the county has acknowledged that in the past but they were not able to change the formula to be to to to to uh address best management practices. So we're saying that there's there's less than 100% capacity currently in the 20 year
in in uh horizon. And the comp plan says you have to uh start expanding the urban service boundary once you um can meet the 100% capacity. And in the past before it was changed it was 125%. The county had to start planning at 125%
capacity because that allowed for some market variation but they took that out. So now when we fall under 100% we have to expand the district or the uh the urban service area. Now, the county's original analysis was based on >> Wait, Rick, let him let him finish then you can ask him any question.
>> Yeah, the the county's originally analysis was based on the uh the metro forecasting model that was done in December 2023 and that showed that there was 237% capacity um for future growth within the
vacant lands. Now, we obviously disagree with that. Um now, the county recently updated the new residential capacity. It was adopted on Tuesday by the county commission and you can see you know they went out 20 years and it dropped from 237% to 148% of the projected demand
through 2045 and it also concludes that the capacity in the secondary primary urban service district falls to 68% of the projected demand in 2045. So even the county's current analysis, which is still based on the flawed methodology in
the comprehensive plan, shows that it's time to plan for future growth. We just can't ignore the fact that we're running out of land. You know, I've been doing this for 40 years and working under the comprehensive plan for that long. And I can tell you, you know, my son's a realtor. I know Mr. Hartman's a realtor.
There is no vacant land out there for residential use. And the numbers that the county is using assumes that every parcel is going to have maximum every vacant parcel is going to apparently ignore the wetland rules and develop at maximum density and the areas in the CRA
are going to develop at 15 units per acre three-story you know buildings and and it's just not true and and and but that's how the analysis is done right now. It's it's assuming maximum density and the CRAAS are going to develop at 15 units per acre and which means
everything has to be three stories to even get close to 15 units per acre. And the one thing the county staff doesn't do is they don't don't look at the second part of this policy. It says, "For the purpose of this subsection, reasonable means available for
development from the standpoint of environmental concerns availability of development sites in relationship to projected needs of the population. Well, we know there's no environmental concerns on this property, but the properties that are left within the primary urban service district have not
been developed because there are environmental concerns on those properties. They're they're 50 60 70% wet. So there so so you have to acknowledge that those parcels aren't suitable for maximum development because they do have significant environmental
concerns that diminish their capacity, but no one's saying that. Um it's also important that you look at the efficient use of expansion of public facilities and service. County staff concurs that based on the proximity of existing public facilities and services, this
site is suitable. Uh it can uh expand water and sewer services because of its proximity to the primary urban service district and existing water and sewer lines, existing police and fire protection, existing schools. Crystal Lake Elementary is within walking
distance. South Fork High School is less than a mile away. Shopping is with is is within a close proximity. So, and again the the last part of that county staff concurs that this is a quote that the site is suitable based upon the location adjacent to the primary urban service
district and proximity to employment, cultural centers, fire and police protection and the avoidance of adverse impacts to natural resources. That's a quote from the county staff report. So the county agrees that um on policy
six that the that we demonstrate the land affected is suitable for for urban uses at a minimum. Um it's not environmentally sensitive. It doesn't affect uh groundwater recharge or endanger or threatened species. So they agree that we meet criteria six. Um they
agree that because of our addition of the of the text policy that requires the developer owner to pay for all the uh impacts or all the services needed to facilitate the the project that we also meet criteria seven that we we can plan
for a full range of urban and public facilities economically and efficiency and meet the county's adopted level of service standards because we're paying to increase that capacity to service the project, not the county taxpayers. County staff also agrees that we're
consistent with the adopted capital improvements elements again because we added that condition that requires the applicant, the developer, to amend the capital improvement plan and pay for developer funded improvements to increase traffic uh capacity or utility
capacity. And we're prepared to do that. We're prepared to make improvements to Southwest 96 Street. We're prepared to make improvements to water and sewer in the area. We're prepared to allow other property owners in the area to connect to water and sewer. Um, this site is ideally situated and there's only a
couple sites in the entire county that can support the expansion of the urban service district under these criteria. Um, so we we unfortunately the staff is recommending denial based on the policies one which was the internal consistencies. We we believe they've
been addressed. uh policy two which regards compatibility. We think through the PUD approval process we can make residential compatible with the adjacent industrial uses and the adjacent rural lifestyle uses and the adjacent agricultural which aren't really
agricultural uses. And in subsection 5, we believe the county's residential capacity analysis is flawed. It overestimates uh what can be built in the urban service area. Uh we think the county should be using residential capacity to plan for growth, not to try
to deny uh growth from h from ever happening. And the other policies that the other re the other the other reasons for the county's um uh denial is based on the fact that we're changing the uh residential capacity formula. And again,
we're doing that to show reality. We're not trying to cook the books. We're trying to show what really can be built and what the real need is. So, um, you know, we think we're in the perfect location for expansion of the urban boundary. It doesn't lead to urban
sprawl. Um, it makes a lot of sense. This is again one of the probably only two areas in the county where the expansion of the primary urban service district makes sense. And with that understanding, we would appreciate your support. Okay. >> Is there anybody you bringing anyone else up?
>> Okay. Rick, your question >> or comment. >> You said why can't why can't we change the formula to do the needs analysis? What's hold up there? I mean it it growth management realizes nobody gets maximum density. So there ought to be
some kind of formula to say okay on an average if you've got eight units per acre or six units per acre or whatever that you're going to get six or you're only going to get four. Why don't why don't we do our analysis based on those kind of numbers rather than this pie in
the sky thing? Cuz but to to to Morris's comment, I mean, I'm a realtor been doing it for over 20 years and and it and I I've sold one house in 20 years. That's I've only sold one house in 20 years. And so I sell land and and Morris
is right. There is no vacant land left to do something like this with unless it's got wetlands in it. And we can't even mitigate the wetlands in the county, which is a whole another issue. But if you got 40 acres and 20 of it's wet and depending on how the wetland's
laid out, you can't do anything with that. So somehow we've got to get to the point to get realistic. The the other problem I have with this is this is a perfect spot for it. If we're going to do anything with urban service district, this is the place to do it. Most of the
people are either going to work in this wide pud I mean in the industrial area or they're going to be taking Bridge Road out to 95 and going to Palm Beach and work which is getting really silly that most people in Palm Beach I mean partner county have to go somewhere else to work. So why not have a thousand
homes that are on the south end of the county so people don't come and come through Palm City. I live in Steuart West. People come from Moachchobee. People come from Port St. Lucy. Coming through 714 is is horrible. And probably some of these people are going there. So somehow we've got to get our head out of
our uh you get our head up. I mean pick our head up and start planning these these standalone urban service districts just bother me to no end. I hate them. And so if we've only had two urban service district expansions in the last
20 years something like that. >> Yes, sir. And and you're telling me in 20 years that we've still got all this vacant land that we can put houses on? I don't believe it. I mean, I I don't I
just I just can't imagine that because all we hear about is rampant growth. And where all these people going, if they're all coming here, most of that land's got to be used, used up. And so this this location is perfect. I'm going take an old farm ground that and you said it was
successful a well that wasn't successful that's why there's no farms there they weren't making any money and they sold it so this is the place to do it but but to answer my question why can't we change our our analysis on how we figure out do we really need
more residential land or more industrial land and if you want to look at it on industrial land if you looked at and I did this if you look at the industrial land most of the industrial land before Indiantown Incorporated that was our industrial kind of our hub. Most of that
industrial land in in Indiantown is about 40% wet. And I've seen site plans on done in that land. And you know what it costs to to try to develop around a wetland? I mean, you you guys don't know the numbers, but you know, it's really expensive to try to do something like that. So, if we're
going to do something, plan where where it's going to be close to where water and sewer is. That's everybody talks about we we don't want any more septic tanks. Well, this is this is the perfect spot to put it. >> Well, let him answer now. Do you have an answer for for it or
>> members of the local planning agency, I'd start by saying that uh legislative decisions like this are fairly debatable. Uh there's it's not a legis it is not a quasi judicial situation where you compare it to the black letters on the
white paper and whether and say yes or is and no it isn't. There are points to be made in favor and there are points to be made not in favor of any given future land use map amendment or text amendment that that comes before you. Um staff
disagrees with the applicant's slide that you see on the screen on subsection 1, 2, and five. Um there are internal consistencies. Uh in fact, I'm prepared to add another one to the list that's been discussed. Um we acknowledge some
compatibility with adjacent but we we also see if you'll go to one of the slides showing uh Jenna the property with the outline um showing there next one down or up um
yeah there if may the applicant is proposing to lay out residential >> adjacent to a grandhat and Then all along this boundary where my cursor is moving which is in all of it industrial
that's a large that's a long linear area and the residential will be laid out around that industrial all the way around. And so it is entirely a debatable uh decision as to whether or not it's compatible to put >> industrial
>> 2.7 residential units per acre, which is what they would be capping it down to, adjacent to all of the industrial that's there. Um yes, it's possible through a PUD to address that, but this is the land use stage that where you decide
even before you get to the PUD whether it's appropriate or not. and it's fairly debatable. Uh there are points to be made in favor, there are points to be made against. Um going back to the the three items that the applicant noted, the residential capacity analysis, which
has been uh questioned here, I would first say that the in the entire history of the residential capacity analysis, even before it was put into the text of the comp plan in 2013, staff has always counted maximum density. And the large the main reason for that is that
different properties have different density capabilities. Wetlands is one issue. Storm water management uh traffic concurrency various things are issues that can limit a development or not. And if you use a planned unit development in
many cases you can achieve very close to your max density. That doesn't mean it happens in every case. There are cases that it doesn't happen and probably in decades past that was more true. But in more recent developments, we've been seeing the densities get a lot closer to
the max permitted by the future land use designation. So uh and that's just an anecdotal observation, but uh it's still reasonable to consider that max because you don't know whether an applicant's going to press for the full max, whether
the site conditions prevent per permit it. And so it is as reasonable to say 100% as it is to try and make up a number as the applicant is proposing in their in their proposed residential capacity analysis as it is to make up
some other number. Uh it's it becomes extremely debatable either way and so there is reason for doing it that way and counting the maximum density. Uh we did bring forward proposed uh changes to the residential capacity analysis. You
may remember from the evaluation and appraisal report and the year-based plan amendments, the board of county commissioners declined to make those proposed changes. And it's a fairly debatable that was a fairly debatable decision as well. And I would note for
the record that the residential capacity analysis that was put into the comp plan in 2013 and was then litigated and found consistent with state statute through an administrative hearing process. So it remains a viable and reasonable option
for calculating residential capacity. And u I concur with one something Mr. Kdy did say is that there was another residential capacity analysis done. We did it just this year. We presented to the board of county commissioners this
last Tuesday because there is a plan policy that requires the residential capacity analysis to be done, updated, and adopted prior to considering amendments such as this one. It we did that in the mid midpoint between two
five-year uh analyses specifically in response to this proposed plan amendment. And Mr. has correctly identified the fact that the capacity is less than it was calculated in 2023. So yes, there are decreases in the amount
of residential vacant land in the urban service district. But you will note when you look at that residential capacity analysis there that there are around 5,000 units that are not speculative at all in terms of max density. There are
5,000 units of capacity listed in that analysis that are all approved site plans. So there's no speculation as to whether you can get max density. Those are approved site plans. And the board of county commissioners on Tuesday approved two of those site plans in uh
Rio. Uh so it there is capacity. Um, you can debate the methodology, you can debate all of these other things, but there is capacity and that updated residential capacity analysis shows that that it's there. >> Jared, do you have any questions for
Morris? >> Yes, sir. >> Jim, >> no, I mean it would be mostly observations rather than questions. >> Okay, Mr. Brown, nothing. Do we have any public comment? >> Nothing that's been turned in.
>> Nope. Okay, back to the board. >> Did you want to say something else, Rick? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Can I just Paul Schilling for the record? You did you did see receive a copy of the letter from >> Yes. from the Guardians as well. >> From the Guardians. Yes.
>> Yes. The Guardians and Miss Right. Miss >> Yes. Both. Okay, >> I got I got a question and I'm I'm a little bit I'm not sure. Would this qualify as an agricultural
enclave? At one time it was a and now it's surrounded by either residential or um industrial. Would it would it qualify as an agricultural enclave and have something
that that the owner could come back on us for? Uh at the present time we do not uh we have not found that it is in that it meets the all of the terms and requirements in Florida statute for to meet that definition. I think if it did
the applicant would probably be exercising that option. >> Well maybe it's just not doing it yet. >> Depends on what the state does to preempt us. >> Yeah. And that's that's the other thing that you know this is not a question. I'm I'm I'm playing I'm playing Tim
tonight. >> Well, you'd have to switch sides. I just I just hate to see this, you know, get ourselves in a crack again that here's an opportunity to do something right and put some houses
where it needs to be because we've got you've got Kippeners up there in northern part of the county that's going to help. And what you said in Rio is over there. But if you come to the southern part of the county in a place where a lot of people want to go to Palm Beach to work, we don't we don't have
anything down there. And when you look at all what's been done with the rural lifestyle between the three of them that are down there, there's not any ground left much to develop down there. And if you look at the the the border we're putting around between rural lifestyle
and the C44 project and conservation easements and the things that we've done, there's there's just not a whole lot of property left. And I had a a large land owner say I asked him why he bought it and he said, "This is an
infill project." And I said, "Infill? What are you talking about?" and his his attorney pulled out a nighttime map and here's Palm Beach County coming up with all the lights and St. Lucy County coming all the way down with the lights and he said right here there's no lights
here and he said at some point and we're patient we you know we we don't care if we own this for 20 years or 25 years but at some point when we get ready to do something and and the state looks at all these lights coming both ways and here's Martin County sitting in the middle of it and it's all dark that they're going
to go to the legislature and the legislature is going to tell us what we can do with that and that makes me really nervous. So that's my soap box. >> Okay. I don't really have a soapbox and
I agree with Morris but my job is not to look at what Morris says which makes perfect sense to me but it's really to take the experts you and make sure that you we are we are
following the rules that was laid down by the county commission. The county commission has said X, Y, and Z. Therefore, as long as we are following those rules and I'm making sure that the
applicant is get getting a square deal according to those rules. I wish I could change them, but that's not my job. And while this is not quasi judicial, it is legislative. I believe that's too much on the other
side to to agree with the applicant to overturn the three reasons that you denied approval. And I don't think it's I think the county commission on t what this is
going to be heard on t uh >> November 18th >> on the on November 18th if they want to they can very easily approve this because it is their own rules and
they're not changing they're not they don't have to change anything in order to approve this but that's up to them. I see myself as making sure the rules are followed and I think staff has followed the rules as
the county commission has laid down. I don't think they're the right rules, but I do think that we have to follow what the county commission wishes, otherwise they should change the rules. So, I'll look for a motion one way or the other
unless anyone else has any other questions. I'd move for staff's recommendation to deny this this um land use amendment. >> I'll second that. >> Or text amendment. Sorry. >> We have a we have a motion by Mr. Moore. A second by Jared. I can't pronounce
your last name. >> All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. 41 with Mr. Hartman opposed. >> Wellar argued point though. He'll come back and bite us in the butt. I'll bet you.
>> Well, this this has been a a a fulcrum for a while. >> Okay. M moving on. NPH2 Comprehensive L Plan Amendment 2112
Wateride Flume. Before we get started, since we moved not to approve the last, doesn't this automatically fall? >> It it doesn't because the board is going to um hear hear the if you recommend approval or denial of a project, the
board still hears it. So, we don't know what the board's going to do on the first project. So, this could go to the board. >> Just I mean, unless someone objects, can we just take a motion one way or the other? The applicant would probably like to present. >> Would you like to present? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Then staff can present first. >> Thank you. So for the record again, Jenna Nabi, senior planner with the growth management department. And this is comprehensive plan amendment 21-12,
the wide future land use map amendment. And this is also requested by Lucido and Associates on behalf of the owner Caner 96 Street Investments LLC and South Florida Gateway Industrial LLC. So, we already covered some of the
history so we don't have to rehash all of these slides again, but just going through how um we got to this point today. And this boundary that you see on the right side here where my cursor is is the um boundary that is considered
for this future land use map amendment. So the uh amendment request in this application is to amend the future land use of the subject property from agricultural to lowdensity residential and this is concurrent with the text amendment that we heard in the last
public hearing. The subject property for this flume is 396.06 acres. And table one here shows a comparison between the existing future land use designation and the proposed future land use of lowdensity residential and what the total
residential units are allowed within each of those designations. So under the agricultural designation which has a residential density of one unit per 20 acres, there would be 19 potential residential units permitted. And under the proposed lowdensity residential at a
maximum of five units per acre, there would be 1,00 or I'm sorry, 1980 units, but with the concurrent text amendment that we had just heard, they're proposed to restrict those maximum number of units to uh 150.
Again, just for context, the location map, the red outlined property is the subject of this specific future land use map amendment, and that is the 396 acres and the existing future land use map showing that the uh land use designation
of this red outlined subject property is agricultural and then the proposed land use designation of low density residential in that property. So, moving into some of the future land uses in the immediate area of the
subject property. To the north, we have the blue commercial waterfront designation. Um, the agricultural designation over these five lots south of southwest 96th Street. Then moving north of 96th Street is the mobile home
designation and residential estate density 2 units per acre. And where my cursor is, this teal box here is general institutional and that is Crystal Lake Elementary. Then to the south of the subject property um is an agricultural feature
land use designation. To the east we have the estate density two units per acre, the agricultural ranchet properties uh fronting Caner Highway that have a residential density of one unit per 5 acres and the 250 acres of
industrial that we have previously discussed. And to the west of the property we have the St. Lucy Canal and the Three Lakes property, also known as Apogee, which has a rural lifestyle future land use designation. So with this land use amendment um staff
does have concerns with compatibility with surrounding land uses um and we can go into that further. So there are three sections of the staff report that go over different criteria for um land use changes and for urban
sprawl. In section 2.1 of the staff report, we've during our analysis, we found that one out of the four criteria for a future land use map amendment have been met, and that's criteria B. In section 2.2 of the staff report, um, or
I'll back up. Florida statutes has two different sets of indicators or criteria that um, help judge whether a future land use amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl. So we analyzed both of those sets of criteria
in this report and under the first set staff found that this amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl under six of the 13 criteria that are found in Florida statute. And in that second set of criteria, there are eight that um eight criteria that must
be analyzed. and staff found that this amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl under three of the eight criteria that are found in Florida statute. So in conclusion, staff recommends denial of the applicant's proposed future land use map amendment. This is
because of the compatibility with adjacent land uses, the sprawl criteria that we just reviewed, and the current lack of public facilities to serve an additional 1,050 residential units. And that concludes staff's presentation. >> Any questions for staff?
>> Yeah. Um when staff analyzed the capacity for water and sewer specifically from the freestanding uh industrial urban service district was advanced treatment of waste water considered. Is there capacity for that
including the proposed um rural land use developments further west that are also going to be using the capacity here? I know we have a member of our utilities department here. >> Uh Leo Repetti, technical services
administrator with Martin County Utilities. Uh no, we had not uh looked at the uh advanced wastewater treatment >> capacity >> capacity for for this spec specific project >> because this is a thousand new units on already a stretched freestanding urban
service industrial urban service provision. >> So I'm not sure I understand the question. >> Thank you. capacity exists for for a thousand units
perhaps at least according to Morris previously. Is that advanced wastewater treatment or is that just minimal service? >> Uh not not minimal. It's a it's a standard uh wastewater treatment that we provide >> but it's not advanced
>> secondary uh primary and secondary uh disinfection. >> Okay. But it's not dititrified. It's just as close to state standards as we have to be. >> Uh we exceed state standards. >> Yeah. >> Is it like the water in his house?
>> No, my house actually is uneptic because >> All right. The water in my house. >> We haven't got that out in Rocky Point yet, >> which is part of the problem. >> I think I think it would be safe to say it's the same. It would be the same as on the other side of on the north side
of 96th Street, right? Uh correct. It >> Yeah, it's the same way sort of treatment facility. The same, but that was pro provided for South Fork, >> you know. >> Everything from the south of the Roosevelt Bridge is uh through the Tropical Farms, right, wastewater treatment facility,
>> right? Thank you. >> Any other questions? Mars, you're up. Okay. >> Yes. Again, for the record, my name is Morris Krady, senior partner with the Cedar Associates. You have to go all the way to the end of this. Um, and just on the the water issue, just so you know.
Okay. Um, you know, we have been in discussions with the county utilities department and um, you know, talked about the fact that, you know, we would have to to make sure there's capacity for this project before we get any type of PUB approval. and we talked about um
helping them with capacity by providing um uh well sites on this property and also by uh constructing additional loop system around the property. So so you know again the the the cost of that we've already committed to paying for as
part of the text amendment. So any capacity that's needed for water and sewer, any capacity that's needed for traffic, any capacity that's needed for fire and police protection will be the cost would be borne by the owner of the property, not by the county. And that's
in the that's in the text amendment. Um so under the flume, there's a let me just get back here to the beginning. Um there's four criteria for the county to evaluate changes to land
use and only one of the four criteria has to be met. We believe we meet the criteria A which is past changes and land use designations in the general area make the proposed use logical and consistent with these uses. And again, we're talking about past changes being
the industrial uh property being the rural lifestyle bring uh the and some of the other land use changes that have been in the area. The I think the county staff disagrees with that because they don't believe adequate public services are available. Um but again, all we need
to do is meet one. We do agree that we meet uh criteria B which is growth in the area in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services has altered the character of the area. Just that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent. They do agree
with that criteria. So, um, uh, their only reason they're not agreeing with criteria A is because their comment is the applicant must commit to funding capacity improvements for the full range of urban public facilities and services that are sufficient to support the proposed future land use designation.
Well, we are committing to that by virtue of the text amendment. So, I'm not sure why they're disagreeing that we're not going to uh have adequate public for services available. um they do agree that the past changes in the designations make it logical and consistent. And again, the comp plan
only requires that we meet one of the four criteria in order to um uh uh recommend approval of a land use change. And again, we're we're ensuring that adequate public facilities are available by committing to making those
improvements as part of the development. Um, and to talk about urban sprawl, I just want to make sure everyone understands what urban sprawl is. It's defined as a development pattern characterized by lowdensity automobile dependent development with either a single use or
multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses. And I think just on the basis of location alone where this is
not urban sprawl. This is really is an infill property adjacent to urban boundaries. Um water and sewer facilities are in the area. There's police and fire. All the services are there. So, it's hard to to claim that we're urban sprawl. And and one of the
reasons the county is is making that that that judgment is because uh we're proposing low dens only low density um residential use on the 396 acres. What they're not considering is that we're part of a much larger area and we're
we're you know there's schools within a mile. There's there's a there's um uh commercial services. There's marine waterfront services. There's uh employment of over a hundred a thousand jobs within the w within proximity. So
you can't just look at this application as just a 396 acres. We proposed single use on that 396 acres being residential, but that also allows for uh multifamily. It allows for town homes. It allows for
single family. So um we don't believe there's an urban sprawl issue here or a compatibility issue um because of the adjacent uses in the area. Um even know staff agrees with with this particular indicator. The location is not they
agree that the the project is not a substantial distance from the urban area. The PUSD is across the subject site on Southwest 96th Street. the subject property is adjacent to 250 acres of industrial land that is within a free standing and is currently undergoing development. So in this case
they agree that it discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl. So there there's there's another finding that it that the county staff agrees that it um it it it um maximizes the use of future public facilities and services again
because of the proximity. So there's areas in the sprawl criteria that conflict with the county's um previous um determinations um and all of them are subjective. But at the you know at the end of the day we we we we disagree that that for instance
that um we do see a uh and encourage a functional mix of uses. But you got to look at the at the property in the context of the overall area, not just the land use uh map amendment that we're proposing. So again, all of these all of
these elements adjacent to the property, water, sewer, Crystal Lake Elementary, Southwork High School, all of these uses uh uh are a mix of uses that support residential on this property because there is no other residential available.
we have all the other uses except residential in the area. Um so we believe it it we do provide a functional mix of uses and it does in all cases discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl and again the county staff on in
this particular area um agrees that um or uh agrees that we can have linked and related services because of the adjacent use. So there's a lot of of inconsistencies in the staff's conclusions. They they basically um um
determined that we uh discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl under six of the 13 criteria. Our analysis finds that we discourage urban sprawl under all 13 of the criteria and that's based on an analysis that we provided to the
county. Um there's also additional parts of the um uh determination of urban sprawl that again the county's position is that um again looking at their narrow analysis that we're not we don't have a
balance of uses because they're only looking at the 396 acres not the entire area uh that has other supporting uses and um and in and their conclusion of the of the eight additional criteria. They believe we
meet three of the eight. Um we've evaluated and we believe we meet seven of the eight criteria. And again, that's because we're not just looking at the 396 acres. We're looking at the 250 acres adjacent to it that's industrial. We're looking at at the 1,200 acres and
Apogee that provides jobs. We're looking at the uh the other land uses in the area, the the commercial, the the the um the school facilities in the area. So, we believe all that taken together, uh, we're not urban sprawl. We're infield
development that happens to be agriculture. Um, and and the county staff agrees that this is not the place for agricultural development. Again, staff analys analysis states that most agricultural lands are far removed from urban service
districts and cannot be converted to urban use without substantial increases in the cost of providing and maintaining and operating dispersed services. However, the subject property is not far removed from urban service district. This is the county's conclusion, not and
also mine. And again and and and they agree that the low density residential um land use uh were consistent that the the comments that they're stating and this is again from staff's analysis. The neighboring communities of River Forest
and St. Lucy Falls have developed under a density of approximately six units per acre with the requested density of 5 units per acre. The low density residential designation is not incompatible with the existing neighborhoods to the north. The proposed density does not appear to impact the
stability and integrity of established residential development. However, the proposed residential has much less compatibility with adjacent industrial lands. However, they go on to say a large-scale residential PUD would require buffering and transitions
between the industrial and the residential uses as well as buffering and transitions between the residential and surrounding land uses to maximize compatibility. So, we agree we agree with staff that low density is the appropriate land use on this property.
We agree with staff that agricultural is not the appropriate land use on this property. But yet, we're stuck with a recommendation of denial. Um and and again, for reasons that just clearly don't make sense. One of the reasons is inconsistency with they believe that if
we they approve the the residential land use that we're somehow going to allow industrial traffic to start accessing Southwest 96th Street. That's never been our intent. We voluntarily agreed to restrict industrial property from Southwest Nandy Street. There's no basis
for assuming that we can't comply with this self-imposed policy. And then they can maintain that and ensure that through the PUB review process. The county doesn't have to allow industrial traffic on Southwest 96 Street and this shouldn't be a basis for denial.
So, they're recommending denial because we don't meet Well, they're saying we we only meet one of the four criteria. Well, that's all you have to meet is one of the four criteria. We think we meet two. Um they're recommending denial based on the urban sprawl criteria,
which we believe um uh we we we meet all of them. That discourages urban sprawl. So, um, it's just that, uh, there's really no basis for the recommendation. There's a lot of conflicting statements in here. And, um,
again, we we believe the full impact of the subject property. Um, and all of its requirements can be addressed during the PUD master site plan application. The county has has full ability to to approve or deny a future PED on the property if it doesn't meet these
criteria. But um we're we're we're convinced that this is the right place for additional residential development because there is no available residential development in this area that can support the uh the thousands of jobs that are being created within this
area. That understanding I don't think you'll support the project, but I think we have a good argument nonetheless. Thank you. >> Thanks, Morris. >> Any questions for Morris? >> No thanks. Thank you, Morris. So staff, I think he makes some pretty good
arguments for accepting, but it doesn't really matter since the text amendment isn't accepted. >> So could you go through the go through those just for me? It's academic, but
>> why you rejected the staff? Yeah, I understand his point and I sort of agree. Well, I don't know if I can cover everything that is the highlights smooth as as Mr. Krady, but let's go to page 15
of the staff report or it's page PDF 15. Uh this is the Mr. KY showed you some of the criteria or some of the the staff quotes on the criteria A which discusses past changes in land use designations.
uh past changes in land land use designations in the general area make the proposed use logical and consistent with these uses. That's the criteria. Well, it's land use changes that make this change conable, not just any land use change in the
area. So, for instance, the rural lifestyle changes in the area don't justify this land use change. They are land use changes that are land use changes. Um likewise, if you look at um this paragraph here, which wasn't quoted,
talking about the general commercial acreage at the intersection of 96 Street and Caner Highway. Well, that's an amendment that didn't change the character of the area. That was just an expansion, a little expansion of an existing general commercial piece of ground that has been
there for since 1982 as the general commercial. So that was just really a little expansion of the general commercial so that the proposed commercial development wouldn't go into a wetland. >> CL I disagree with you. Once you made
that bigger change to that commercial and and opened it up where you could put a Publix in a shopping center and do this kind of stuff, you changed the area. If it stayed the 7-Eleven store and that's all you had, you didn't change the area. But when you put in Publix, you have changed the area. You
have changed the complex the complexion of that part of the property or that area that people want to be there now because there is a Publix. A lot of people don't want to live there because they got to go a long way to Publix. But you put a Publix there and you have changed the area.
>> Perfect example of fairly debatable. >> In the next paragraph down, the residential future land use changing the area uh for PY at Christ Fellowship. Uh Paul Schilling for the record just to clarify there is there is the ability to construct the Publix at that
intersection but there is no Publix but >> just to >> Yeah. Okay. But >> yes >> well if you wanted to expand that argument a little further rural land use allowed this expansion which is the exact definition of suburban sprawl.
>> I think now we're going a little too far. No, I think this was this was what was happening while that decision was being made. This is this is exactly what happens. >> I go on please. >> So, in the next paragraph down on this page, uh staff looks at the larger area
which and and we looked at the PI Christ Fellowship property that became uh a residential subdivision. Uh it's near Bulldog Way and and uh South Fork High School. Uh there was a land use change there that did not require the expansion of the secondary urban service district
and or did and did not require changing from secondary to primary. It utilizes the the available services and increase the densities but it was a land use change that was consistent with the rural dens I'm sorry with the secondary urban service district.
It wasn't of the magnitude of the proposed change that we're discussing here tonight. Uh and in contrast with the land use changes discussed above the proposed amendment seeks to increase the residential dent number of units from 19
well we'll we'll call it 1,50 because it you know the land use could go to 1984 units if there's no restriction but given the restriction it's still a bump from 19 to 1,50 which is a much more larger magnitude
than the other. It says, "But residential feature land use map amendments of this size intensity have not been made in this general area." So when you look at the larger area, there's nothing else of this size that's been approved in this area of tropical
farms and uh so on like that. So >> because it's not been done does not mean it's not a good idea. >> Not arguing that point. Not arguing that point. But Mr. has taken some pieces of text out of this larger multiparagraph
analysis that's intended to be very balanced and recognize good points and not so good points. And what I attempt at attempted to do here was point out some of the ways in which the analysis was not favorable and why
when you balance the scales staff did not find criteria A had been met. I think if you go through the sprawl criteria, you can have a similar debate and a similar discussion as well and uh consider them fairly debatable.
>> Well, I think I'll let the commission have that debate if they pass the text amendment. >> Can I get a motion, please? >> I'd move for staff's recommendation of denial of the uh future land use uh change on this property. >> Is there a second?
>> I'll second. So, we have a motion to for staff's recommendation from Mr. Moore and seconded by Say your last name, please. >> Yes. Jared. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed.
>> Nay. Mr. Hartman has said nay. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you members of the local planning agency. >> Thank you. >> Do you want to say anything? >> Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Schilling for the record. So, we have an
application on November 20th and then we also have some applications on December 4th. So, I was looking for a just to let you know that >> I think I'll be here. >> I I will be here for for the the November one.
I think I'll be here for the December one, but I'm not sure right this second. >> I'll be here for both. >> Thank you. >> That's the farm city event. So, on the 20th, so everybody come to that. Yes. Buy your tickets. >> Yes. But that's at 11:30. It's >> I'm just getting a plug in. Buy your tickets. >> Okay.
>> We only got about 10 left. But before we leave, um, this has been approved by the state. >> Yeah. Was >> approved by the board of county commissioners Tuesday. >> Been approved by the state. >> It doesn't have to be. >> The methodology doesn't have to be approved by the state. Well, the methodology was reviewed by the state in an administrative hearing and found
consistent with state statutes. This is a new and different >> group. It wasn't. She shuts it off.