when the I run till I drop hey thoughts of a fool's got just a fool waiting on oh yeah [Music]
lot of the love that I found not all the love that I found not all the love that I love that I found
[Music] sh [Music] well it's a crazy little world crazy we're living in a
All right like to call this meeting of the local planning agency for April 3rd to order can I get a motion to approve the minutes i'd move to approve the minutes from February 20th and I got a second a
second okay we have a motion by my friend Mr more seconded by Dr brown all in favor i I Okay uh new business comprehensive plan
amendment 24-25 Coral Gardens uh vacuum station flume please hello my name is Amy Offenbach for the record I'm a planner with the Martin County Growth Management Department this
is CPA or comprehensive plan amendment 24-25 the Coral Gardens backstation future land use map amendment the property is owned by Martin County and the applicant is the board of county commissioners with me I have Leo Repeti with utilities and solid
waste this is a smallcale amendment and this is the first public hearing for the amendment so the request is to change the future land use on 4.2 acres on a property known as the Coral Gardens Vax Station
from institutional recreational to institutional general in order to build a a vacuum-based sewer system for approximately 638 homes in the Coral Gardens community
the property is located south of Southeast Pomeray Street on the northeast corner of Southeast Willoughby Boulevard and Southeast Coral Lakes Way and it's highlighted here in red on the location
map the adopted future land use map shows the property designated as institutional recreational in green here and the proposed future land use map would show the property designated as institutional
general colored in teal here and let me forward to page eight the amendment complies with three out of four criteria from section 1.11 of the comprehensive growth management
plan and the amendment discourages urban sprawl pursuant to all 13 of the criteria required by state statutes and complies with eight additional criteria that discourages the
pre proliferation of urban sprawl and so the the amendment is compliant with the future I'm sorry the amendment is compliant with the comprehensive growth
management plan and consistent with the policies of the general commercial or I mean general institutional future land use and so staff recommends approval thank you does anyone have any questions
for staff no sir seeing none is there any public comment seeing none back to the board could I get a motion i'd move to approve staff's recommendation for this to be a general institutional uh land use can I
get a second a second i have a motion by Mr moore i have a second by Dr brown all in favor mr yes i'm sorry uh we need to mention that the notices were received were and there are no public comments public
notice has been included in the work file okay thank you so I have a motion still yes and can I all in favor i it passes unanimously thank you
clyde do you have to sit in for this one if not we have Coral Gables VA vacconing this is quasi judicial does any of my board members
have communications to divulge mr brown no communication and I have none okay okay staff present oh swear it in please raise your right hand do you
swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i think I do so this is the reasonzoning for the Coral Gardens vacation concurrent with CPA 24-25 just considered again the owner of the
property is Martin County the applicant is the board of county commissioners and this is the first public hearing of two required this request is to change the zoning on 4.2 acres from the PR public
recreation to PS1 public service and again the location is highlighted in red on the corner of Southeast Willoughby Boulevard and Coral Lakes Way the two zoning districts that
implement the institutional general future land use are PS1 and PS2 the PS1 has fewer permitted uses and less intense permitted uses this is the
table 3.11.2 permitted use table and under these columns PS1 and PS2 permitted uses are labeled with a P and as you can see halfway houses are not permitted in the
PS1 shooting ranges outdoor are not permitted salvage yards yard trash processing and what have you so there are subtle differences these tables 3.12.1 and 3.12.2 are the development standards and
as you can see they're both the same for both districts they would have to both maintain 40% open space the adopted zoning atlas shows the
subject designated with the PR district in green and the proposed zoning atlas would have the subject designated as PS1 in dark blue and so this amendment is consistent
with the comprehensive growth management plan and staff recommends approval okay do we have any questions for staff uh just one that I can think of um PS1 allows uh passive recreational uses on
the property correct I believe so yes sir that's correct yeah I I I thought so but I just I didn't see it um when I read through it and I just wanted to make sure thank you you're welcome okay do we have any interveners Miss
Woods no interveners no okay do we have any public comment seeing none back to the board i'd move for staff's recommendation to designate this property as PS1 i got a second
i second i have a motion by Mr moore i have a second by by Dr brown mr chairman may I inter I'm sorry again uh Paul Schilling for the record but we do want to acknowledge that the uh mailings and work history were turned in as part of
the agenda okay yes that's correct the uh proof of public um notice and publications have been submitted as exhibit A along with my work history thank you okay we still have a motion we still
have a second all in favor i I passes unanimously thank you very much thank you now we get the famous Mr dulan once in a while infamous no never as he does
battle this is NPH3 comprehensive plan amendment 24-26 rural lifestyle text good evening my name is Clyde Dulan comprehensive planning administrator uh thank you for all uh being here uh this
is a text amendment to the comprehensive growth management plan it does not involve any future land use map amendments proposed uh this was initiated by the board of county commissioners to uh make some modifications to the text of the uh
rural lifestyle feature land use designation as you may know this was adopted uh a couple of years ago and the land use designation has been assigned to three properties in uh Martin County outside
uh the primary urban service district the text in that is in italics here is text from the comprehensive growth management plan describing the rural lifestyle future land use designation the text changes are proposing in PN A here that describes
the 1,00 contiguous acres that must be um adjacent to the primary or the secondary or freestanding it's it shows to strike just the secondary or the freestanding urban service district and it would you would still be able to do the rural lifestyle feature land use
designation adjacent to the primary urban service district with a 1,000 acre minimum property the other the next change is in PNB B where uh the text allows 3,000 contiguous
acres to be within 6,000 ft of the primary or a freestanding and it shows the freestanding stricken so that you would be only able to do a 3,000 acre uh free rural lifestyle property within
6,000 ft of the primary urban service district and those are the the changes that that are shown in this proposed text change um the balance of the text that you see in italics there's no strike and underline there's no proposed changes to the rest of the text that
deals with any of the other uh requirements of it uh you're still required to do uh preservation offsite if you're going to exceed density of one unit per 20 acres uh still requires all the same um off-site perpetual
conservation easement golf cottages no change no dormatory changes uh nothing like that nothing in the rest of this text is proposed for change in this as shown here in the staff report i'm going to roll into uh the latter part of the staff report to discuss uh our analysis
of the secondary urban service district and the freestanding urban service districts we'll start with the freestanding uh we have uh four gateway which is off of Caner Highway and is adjacent to uh the three lakes or what
is now called the Apogee uh rural lifestyle property and the map is the best way to go about this here's the Gateway Freestanding urban service district in white where my cursor is the hatching
around it shows a 6,000 ft perimeter and as you can see this triangle somewhat triangular shape and this shape over here represents the Three Lakes or Apogee rural lifestyle property as you can see it's adjacent to
the gateway uh and the the change proposed if if if rural lifestyle if if you take away the the this freestanding urban service district as one of the ones that you had to be adjacent to or within 6,000 ft of
it would affect these properties here these properties here and these properties here these properties in that are agricultural surrounding the gateway are all less than a thousand acres so they wouldn't be affected they aren't able to do rural lifestyle now so if you
change this language they wouldn't be able to do rural lifestyle later this property here uh is adjacent to the primary urban service district so if you take away if you make the proposed changes this property would still be able to do rural lifestyle if they wanted to it would
have no effect on them it's highly unlikely in staff's opinion that anybody in the a ranchette this brown color would want to do rural lifestyle because they already can do more density than rural lifestyle allows and they don't
have to do any set aside so it's it's in our opinion very unlikely that anybody in this hatched area would seek to do rural lifestyle and so the change the proposed change as far as being adjacent to a prime prime freestanding urban service district would not have an effect on these property owners aren't
they also they're adjacent to the primary uh this property is yes and so you you you make a good point if they wanted to do rural lifestyle they'd be able to do it as being adjacent to the primary um
moving on to the next map and the 7J's property uh for those of you who don't know 7JS is a freestanding urban service district in the Palm City area this is publicly owned land and this is publicly owned land in pink so the adjacency for
this would only be the property here to the to the east side of this property and this is all part of the Newfield property that so and it's all in preservation as far as Newfield is concerned so it wouldn't be eligible for rural lifestyle and they wouldn't want
to do so likely anyway can you go back to the previous page and talked about the ranch sure how without the gateway freestanding urban service district how does the the
uh ranch get approved the ranch is already approved so this would they would be exempted you're you're getting a little ahead of me i'm I'm going to circle back around to the existing um So why don't we wait and let Clyde Okay i I I just wanted to
I'll try not to dally too long i just wanted to run through so that everybody understands that the proposed changes that you see in that text are going to have very little effect on most properties in Martin County um and it would not deny most property owners the ability to do so i want to just touch on
the ones that where it would have an effect that proposed text um 7J's uh very little effect of the the hatching showing the 6,000 ft perimeter um would uh involve these properties but
again they are a ranchet and uh we don't we see a very low probability but any would want to go there for rural lifestyle i'm going to scroll down to the next one the Atte and Martin Commerce Park freestanding urban service districts this um is Martin Commerce
Park we didn't have the color change to reflect the fact that it is a freestanding urban service district and this is the Atte urban service district u properties to the east of Martin Commerce Park are all agent we considered a very low likelihood or very
little likelihood that any would want to do rural lifestyle here the properties that would be most likely to be affected by the proposed text change are those that are um west of the Martin Commerce Park or south of the Atte property and
west of the Ae property they are uh these properties would no longer be able to seek the rural lifestyle future land use designation um this would these this one is adjacent to the southside this is adjacent on the west side of the AGTE and the same property holding is
adjacent on the west side of the Martin Commerce Park so it would affect these properties and these properties most and no one else uh in terms of freestanding taking away the freestanding urban service district as an adjacency in terms of the secondary
urban service district uh it's only allowed to have the 1,00 acre uh rural lifestyle uh version adjacent to the secondary the the 3,000 acre isn't allowed to be within 6,000 feet of the secondary as of as as of now uh
currently so in the Palm Sea the tropical farms and west of Hope Sound we did our analysis and we found that it would have little or no effect on properties within adjacency to the secondary urban service district the tropical farms um the area the second
area that's in this light blue and is a uh secondary urban service district in the tropical farms area um the properties to the west of that I'm sorry to the east of that where my cursor is already have adjacency to the primary urban service district here so
they're not affected um properties to the west side of this are as I said um earlier they are adjacent to the primary urban service district here so they would not be affected and this area is outside the the um the 6,000 ft range of
uh the primary and as I said these properties do not have a uh that are adjacent to the primary adjacent to the secondary are not able to do rural lifestyle at this moment anyway these properties along this part of the secondary urban service district and it
is in Hope Sound this is a grandette so we feel there's a low probability anyone would want to seek rural lifestyle there and this is public land to the south and so there's no possibility that anyone there would want rural lifestyle because that's Jonathan Dickensson State Park
for the most part um I'm going to scroll back up and I'm going to try and address your question Mr moyer because it leads me to something else that I want to talk about with um with the local planning agency
we only proposed a minimum number of text changes but after consideration after this item was released and and staff has further considered the subject we feel that there is a problem uh with the exist
that regarding the existing rural properties with a rural lifestyle feature land use which is three lakes the uh the ranch and the discovery property uh we do not mention how to deal with them or how to address them and so I think you're you're right on point with
your question uh staff is concerned and we think that we do need to do some additional text changes uh to address what is their status whether it be legal conforming legally non-conforming and
what would be the way of dealing with any proposed changes that they wanted to make if they wanted to amend their PUB if they wanted to uh or if they wanted to even expand their their existing footprint of rural lifestyle and so um
I'm going to leave this screen and go to uh internally staff has been discussing addition adding two more pieces of text below the ones that I showed you already um PN A and PN B
you've seen they're in your staff report this is the same as they read uh we would we're discussing striking the words and locationational criteria because the additional two uh paragraphs or additional two items we're we would think are needed would be one to address
just those existing properties with a rural lifestyle feature land use designation so it would read be located within unincorporated Martin County and outside the primary urban service district and satisfy one of the following a B or C having an existing
rural lifestyle future land use designation that would that may they that way they would be legally conforming they wouldn't be losing anything and another another paragraph or another sentence would say be adjacent to a rural lifestyle future
land use to expand a rural lifestyle planned unit development so existing on the day of this adoption this par this insert insert this day of adoption would affect with these two paragraphs or these two lines would affect the three
properties that already have the rural lifestyle and nobody else and it would protect their rights and uh hopefully minimize any potential for litigation there's language as I believe in the
rural land and use amendment that prohibits rural lifestyle being an addition to already approved rural lifestyle andor being expanded upon as a border to rural lifestyle and I think
D I'm uncomfortable with D do you know where that is Jim um well at least was said several times that it wouldn't be possible for a land owner
to put another rural land use uh lifestyle amendment contiguous to that and use that as an expansion of the urban service boundary yeah well I don't think that's what Clyde is saying is well this is what what D concerns me a great deal it says be adjacent to a
rural lifestyle future land use and expand to a rural lifestyle plan unit development that could go on forever and I I don't think D is is what we mean certainly not what I would like to endorse
well presently with no changes um there's nothing to stop an applicant from seeking to expand the rural their their land use designation on to a larger
area in any of those three locations if if you look at those three locations there's there's almost no way they can expand well I mean have you got that map that you can put i'm sorry you're right i'm on the wrong place um let me go back to
this language just briefly and then I'll go back to the map uh this property holding actually that's west of the discovery property has adjacency to the primary so I don't
think they would be affected anyway um this property might seek to expand but they would these yellow polygons are existing subdivisions like uh Trailside and Sunlight Ranches and this is a public land so the only place this one
would be likely to expand potentially would be west and that would be there uh Three Lakes could potentially expand um to pick up this land in between the existing Three Lakes property and the gateway um presently I don't see any reason why
they wouldn't be able to expand presently barring the changes that we're being discussing here tonight um Mr moyer I think and correct me if I'm wrong um I think you're referring to the discussion of
utilities extending that's true i from the rural lifestyle to some other property yes and and I think that what what I'm concerned about is that is probably the the
largest cost um for our county to expand into rural lifestyle and so if you keep allowing expansion of those urban services through rural lifestyle to more property we're just sprawling out further and
further and further m Mr chair Mr moore Paul Schilling growth management director for the record so the rule lifestyle in the accompanying PUB zoning agreements require that all those costs to facilitate the utilities bring coming to
the site are borne by the property owner th that is not a public entity that is a cost that's associated with the actual development to bring those util capacity is something that we all share and and so that is a cost
but it's it's a supporting cost that they're paying for their they're paying for the cost they're paying for the the infrastructure they're not paying for the capacity you want to say something Miss Woods i wish Leah was still here sarah Woods county attorney for the record but the
capacity is paid for by the with a uh I'm trying to by the utilities agreement that that are signed i work on those it's not free it's they pay for that their reservation
of capacity they pay for it and so when you then need to expand they put that you know utilities is an enterprise fund it isn't dependent on the taxpayers it pays for itself it's like the airport
which is also an enterprise fund and in if anything Jim at the end of the day what this is doing is limiting which we don't have any limitation now so I think this is better it certainly I mean
I mean than what we have if that if if you're trying to do I'm just not certain why we need to include D um it just seems to I mean if we're if if what we're trying to do is limit an expansion because we allowed
freestanding urban service districts to be the measuring stick um that we allowed this I think very wrong idea um I I just don't see why we need to keep allowing a further expansion of it
by allowing contiguous properties to expand ever westward well we have a fundamental difference that I don't think this was done wrongly i I understand so the best part we're having a discussion that's that's right you don't have to cut me off well we we have to have a discussion so that everyone
can participate and go ahead and you have to go through the chair Dick oh excuse me may I have May I have Yes you may okay my my thoughts would be this was a good idea to preserve land th This is a better than what we had before the
rural lifestyle that's better than we had before having a 20 acre ranchette cut up like that is terrible for wildlife it's terrible for drainage it's there's just no good point to it so if I can take that rural lifestyle and expand
it to the piece next to it and put it under the same restrictions that's a win-win for everybody for the bees the bunnies the water situation and for the environment all the way around so I don't know why you wouldn't want to be i mean I understand we have a fundamental
difference i'm here to preserve as much of the natural flora and fauna as we can and the best way to do it is under this program the best one we have today i I I know you disagree and so we're not going to go anywhere with that uh do you want
to say anything Dr brown i I just I know it's probably but for for me being on the board rural lifestyle what what are we talking about just area that can expand or uh when we just a definition of rural lifestyle oh I mean I just I
just loaded question that's a loaded question okay just just help me so I can Sure i'll be I'll be happy to uh uh Dr brown I'll um the rural lifestyle future language designation was
created to as the language here says guide self guide development of self-supporting selfcontained rural communities uh including in affiliated recreational amenities with an emphasis on maintaining enhancing natural and man-made open space it
allows the same density as the agricultural future land use designation but it allows them to be clustered and to set aside larger areas for open space contiguous areas for open space it also allows if you do a
thousand acre minimum adjacent to the primary urban service district or freestanding at the present to do the clustering of the units at a higher density than one unit per 20 but not higher than one unit per five which is comparable to the a ranchette but still
ends up being less than the a ranchet because if you do that density increase on that thousand acres you have to set aside one acre for every two acres someplace else and put it under a perpetual easement that strips the developability of it it could be it
could still be used for agriculture or it could be used for conservation purposes so you end up with a lower density even in that circumstance than the agent chat density of one unit per 5 acres um and the intent here is to allow simil what similar densities to what's already
allowed but to require a PUD that's going to maintain these areas as open space and larger contiguous preserve areas and at the same time while allowing these
property owners to enjoy a somewhat luxurious uh and recreational lifestyle um so you're effectively having the same densities and the same number of dwelling units and the same draw in terms of public services as you have
with the existing land use designations in this area thank you sir so we're here tonight not to to discuss one more time rural lifestyle but actually because the county commission wants to limit it in
some way they've expressed that I think this is the minimum amount that it can be limited yes so I'm going to say I think it's a good thing and I think D
gives us more protection than we had before so I'm going to take public comment unless staff wants to add to that or Yes I did want to add just briefly to that um the existing rural lifestyle language does not limit the
expansion of these existing rural lifestyle properties uh the language that I think Mr moyer was referring to describes the extension of utility services from or through the primary urban service district the secondary or freestanding to a specific parcel with a
rural lifestyle land use designation and a planned unit development zoning classification shall not serve any other property outside the rural lifestyle future land use designation so if you are getting water and sewer to the ranch
for instance you can't go and extend it to the to these subdivisions outside of it but you could still ask for a land use map amendment to expand the rural lifestyle future land use and thus extend it to that area with a rural
lifestyle and our concern adding the per the additional language that I showed you um adding D is intended to protect their rights as they have them now and not not
infringe on those rights that's the purpose of staff recommending the additional text all right so is there any public comment did you fill out a green card sir a green card wow back to El Salvador no no no
wrong wrong wrong uh wrong uh board i I've got Before he starts can I go back to that other map the first map where we're looking at UTE i like Okay
atte Oh so the next one down further further yeah there you go my my issue with this is is you've got a tech sitting here we know what that's going to be then right next to it that used to apply uh royal rural
lifestyle i call it royal lifestyle but the royal lifestyle used to apply here so we've got the alipata right next to it which is a good natural area and and I look at this and we're taking away the ability to cluster stuff on here if we
if we limit that where they can't cluster and I don't know how familiar any of you are but this is this is really good farm ground on the north end and at the south end there's a lot of wetlands there's a it's a really pretty place and so when we do this what we're
going to end up with because because of its location and being close to a tech and we know what we think we know what's going to go there this is going to be an ideal spot for 20 acre ranchets i mean just perfect spot because you're going to have research people that want to have a nice place in the woods and they
want to have 20 acres and they want to have horses and dogs and cats and all that kind of stuff and so they're going to have all that stuff there and we start carving this up into 20 acre ranchets that to me is such a travesty and so you've got a piece here that really makes sense to preserve because
it's right next to Alipata so if we didn't limit it here and I realize you know we can vote one way or the other and the county commissioner will ignore us anyhow but if if you could put a if you could put royal lifestyle over here and and preserve the stuff and make it
nicer for Alipata to the south and to the west it just makes perfect sense that's that's where you need we need to plan i mean right now we're going back to no planning we're going back to saying 20 acre ranchets is a good idea and I don't think you'll find any land
planner conservation-minded land planner that would tell you 20 acre ranchets if we we see the growth coming at least I do cuz I live in Steuart West so it used to be just no problem getting in and out of here and it's a bear anymore i would say a but that
people told me I couldn't say that but it's a bear and so if you make this into 20 acre ranchets out here it it's just going to be a to me an environmental it just makes no sense environmentally so we're we're we're trying to limit we we
quote unquote some people want to be conservationist and they want to break it up into 20 acre ranchets and anybody will tell you 20 acre ranchets are just that's sprawl to me that's the worst kind of sprawl i don't know how many units would be allowed on there but if
you concentrate them right down and put them back on the canal on the C23 canal where you're looking across at apartment buildings that's a good place for those and you got a shooting range right over here so why not do all we can to preserve and connectivity with Alipata i
mean connectivity is is the buzz word and it's a real buzzword wildlife needs more room for connectivity and what we're doing is we're killing connectivity mr krady I'm uh yes for the record my name is
Morris Krady senior partner with the Cedar Associates and I am here specifically on behalf of Three Legs Golf Club LLC if you can go back to that particular graphic sure because I do want to support the inclusion of paragraph D because there is the uh you
know the the real possibility that three lakes may apply for you know they're not guaranteed anything but they may apply for a change to the agricultural lands adjacent to them you know that's kind of between the gateway industrial site and uh their property just to to expand the
existing project it wouldn't be a new project it would be a PUD amendment and a and a flume amendment specific specifically to expand their existing project so they're not doing what I think you were concerned with is having a new project leaprog you know after uh
an existing project so that D gives us the right to at least make that application it would still be up to you guys and the and the county staff and the county commission oh nothing's up to us come on well to review it at least thank you thank you Mark thank you okay
is there any more questions for staff can I get a motion i'd move to approve staff's recommendation of these amendments to the rural lifestyle text including uh A and D c and D i I I definitely Let me
get a second then you can say why you're not in favor of your motion no no no i can I get a second a second have a motion by Mr moore a second by Mr brown jim do you want to say something
now i I think that you know protecting us from from lawsuits is an important thing to do it was concernful when I read the text without these these languages especially for the ranch i
predicted trouble and I'm glad that the staff is thinking about this i'm I'm a little concerned that this doesn't limit it i um I am not in favor of recreational amenities out to the lake um I I don't think that's conservation
you would rather have 20 acre ranchets out to the lake no I would rather have conservation land and we could argue that back and forth but that's not what this is about so unless my motion stands your motion stands you want to say something Clay
can I ask for clarification on the motion does the motion include Motion includes C and D thank you okay it uh it also includes limiting and taking out the piece on the west side of ADTE it it also uh the
language as proposed would would would not allow this to become rural lifestyle that's correct okay you mentioned noticing uh notice has been provided in the in the paper and uh we have complied with the notice that's why we need to
have an applicant cuz they never failed to mention that we got it in before the vote we did all in favor i I passes unanimously no it doesn't no it doesn't oh you're voting
against it okay 3-1 with Mr hartman in opposition thank you members of the LPA thank you do you want to say anything to us [Laughter] lots
just u I appreciate that u so for April 17 we have no items and then that advertising was due uh today in fact and May 1st we we don't have any items as of currently May 15th we do have tenative items so I was trying to get a gauge on
May 1st and May 15th are fine with me okay thank you same same here thank I don't have a clue thank you very much if there are no other questions there are no other comments see you in May this motion is
this this meeting is adjourned thank you again