Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 03-21-2002. Secretary St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3`d Floor Roger Poitras Annex March 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES -January 17, 2002 Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of January 17, 2002, meeting AGENDA ITEM 2: BAKUL PATEL -FILE NO. RZ-02-003 ~ Petition of BAKUL PATEL for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 3: CHARLES D. VELIE -FILE NO. RZ-02-004 Petition of CHARLES D. VELIE for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps OTHER BUSINESS: A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion. B. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on April 18th, 2002, in Commission Chambers at the Roger Poitras Annex Building. AD.IOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/I.ocal Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (561) 462-1777 or T.D.D. (561) 462-1428. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at (561) 462-1586. ~'~m ~~°~yPa~~~~~~ ~~~~~G St. Lucie County ~~r~~~s~~~y ~~~~~~A~~: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING March 21, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Akins, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Merritt and Mr. Hearn (Absent -With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. ' Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 1 p~~,~~~~~~~~~~ ppp~~~A°~ CALL TO ORDER C~~'~tl~~'~~~ Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Matthes advised that on Agenda Item # 2, File No. RZ-02-003, he had a conflict of interest and therefore would recuse himself from that item. Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's meeting. For those of you who have not been here before, The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff will present a brief summary of the project and then make their recommendation. After which time, the Petitioner will be asked to come forward and state his/her case for the requested petition. At any time the Commission may stop and ask questions of the Petitioner or Staff. After that process is completed the Chairman will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak for or against the petition. The purpose behind this hearing is to get input from the general public. If anyone has something to say, please feel free to come forward and state it. After everyone has gotten a chance to speak the Chairman will then close the public hearing. The Commission will deliberate and then make a decision regarding their recommendation, one way or the other. The decision that is made is typically read from a scripted set of statements that are given to the Commission. It may sound rehearsed but it really is not. There is one motion for and one motion against in the package, so that the Commission can make a motion either one way or the other so it is very clear in the records. Once again, I want to remind you that the Planning and Zoning Commission only acts in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 2 ~g~ ~ ~ON~NG AGENDA ITEM 1:.Tanuary 17, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: G ~~'~~a~~e~~lu~N ~P~R~~~. Mr. Lounds moved for approval. Motion seconded by Jones. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 3 t , St. Lucie County _ ' ~ ~'.y~l~~:dE~1 Ww'.w I~+1V l~a1GJ~~t"1~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING January 17, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Mr.-Hearn, Mr. Trial, Mr. Jones, Mr. Akins, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Grande (Absent -With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT• Mr. Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, Asst. Co. Attorney; Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. I P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 1 r, i3':h }1 C ! n 1 ~ ~ ` r~ .f~,o,F"ii~~` , t`±. i CALL TO ORDER ti~;:, w ' : 4 Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's meeting. For those of you who have not been here before, The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff will present a brief summary of the project and then make their recommendation. After which time, the Petitioner will be asked to come forward and state his/her case for the requested petition. At any time the Commission may stop and ask questions of the Petitioner or Staff. After that process is completed the Chairman will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak for or against the petition. The purpose behind this hearing is to get input from the general public. If anyone has something to say, please feel free to come forward and state it. After everyone has gotten a chance to speak the Chairman will then close the public hearing. The Commission will deliberate and then make a decision regarding their recommendation, one way or the other. The decision that is made is typically read from a scripted set of statements that are given to the Commission. It may sound rehearsed but it really is not. There is one motion for and one motion against in the package, so that the Commission can make a motion either one way or the other so it is very clear in the records. Once again, I want to remind you that the Planning and Zoning Commission only acts in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Merritt questioned if there would be a vote for annual reorganization. Mr. Murphy explained that it is time to do that and it will be Agenda Item #1. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 2 wts Election of CHAIRMAN & VICE-CHAIRMAN• S Mr. Lounds made a motion to retain the current officers. z ~ ~ ~ - ;~,A o:;{ Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to retain the current officers for Chairman and Vice Chairman. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: December 20.2001 MEETING MINUTES: ax , ~ ~ ~~b~'~y{~{~~~nA Mr. Akins made a motion for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. ~yF''''~;~.~v~.,,~ Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 4 aP.h ~ RS1 pry r ~~~~a'~~~~ ~ ~,Q~~~t~1 AGENDA ITEM 2:CALVARY ASSEMBLY OF GOD -File No. RZ-02-001: ~i`i~i~sl'51~,~?ls~ A~~~a~~ Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Calvary Assembly of God of Port St. Lucie, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development -Hidden Hammock) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District for 32.75 acres of property located on the north side of Dyer Road, approximately 400 feet east of south U.S. Highway No. 1. On September 26, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners granted approval for Hidden Hammock, a 74-lot residential subdivision. On November 20, 1990 cone-year extension was granted. Subsequent to these approvals, no construction commenced on the subject property and the site plan expired. In order for any development on the property to take place, a change in zoning to another zoning district designation is required. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Bart Cook, Land Planner, Landscape Architect stated he was the agent for the petitioner, Calvary Assembly of God. He continued that he is there to answer any questions. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Tom Mason with South Florida Towing stated that his property is located across the street from the subject property. He questioned what type of establishment is going to be placed on the property. Chairman Matthes explained that this is a hearing on the rezoning and that the petitioner will have to submit a site plan at a later date to be approved. Mr. Flores confirmed that is correct and that the petitioner hasn't submitted any plans at this time. He continued that if their plans are 6,000 square feet or more, they are required to go through the site plan process. Mr. Flores advised that the rezoning is done first and then that gives the petitioner permission to submit a site plan approval for a religious facility. He further stated that the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning only allows churches, synagogues, temples and similar uses. Mr. Mason questioned if the church would be allowed to have a school. Mr. Flores stated that is a conditional use and they would have to come back before the Commission and Board to get approval for that type of use. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt questioned if the County had considered churches when planning future land uses. Mr. Murphy stated that since 1984, the County restricted churches to the I (Institutional) Zoning District and around 1990 the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning category was added. RF and I Zoning Districts are not pre-zoned that way because they are use specific type issues. The County doesn't predetermine where a church, or church facility should be placed in each individual neighborhood. Mr. Merritt stated that all other zoning categories are predetermined and questioned why these are not included. Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Calvary Assembly of God of Port St. Lucie, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development -Hidden Hammock) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District, because it seems like it fits well in the neighborhood and there are no P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 5 5 *a n c~ 5 y is, X37 (l ..tom ~ ~ w~`~j~~ objections from the surrounding neighbors. ~ ~ ° ~a i ~~~~~~q~~ Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. ' . ; ~ -f:~ ~ r_~. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 6 5+.~ T i v'„ n ~r .n ~ 6 p9~~ AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE N0.02-002 -Future Land Use Change: ~ ~hyy~+~~) Mr. Murphy explained Agenda Items # 3 & 4 were presented to the Commission at,the December 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Meeting and were continued until this meeting to allow for further review by the petitioners and Staff. He continued that the petitioner has requested that both Agenda Items be continued once again to the April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 3 & 4 both be continued until April 18 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. He explained that each hearing would need to be reopened and continued individually. Chairman Matthes asked if there was anyone there to speak regarding these petitions (other -than the petitioner). Chairman Matthes stated that Staff might want to consider re-advertising these items so that the public will be aware of when the items will be reheard since this is second continuation. Mr. Merritt questioned if this was at the request of the petitioner. Mr. Murphy explained that was correct. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to continue this Ordinance until Apri118, 2002. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 7 fin. ~~~~i dy~~ ~ ~_~li~s~~s~1 ~~~~~~AI. AGENDA ITEM 4: ORDINANCE 02-003 -Extension of the Urban Service BounYy: Mr. Murphy explained Agenda Items # 3 & 4 were presented to the Commission at the December 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Meeting and were continued until this meeting to allow for further review by the petitioners and Staff. He continued that the petitioner has .requested that both Agenda Items be continued once again to the April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 3 & 4 both be continued until April 18 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. He explained that each hearing would need to be reopened and continued individually. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one,. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to continue this Ordinance until Apri118, 2002. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 8 ~a n~.:.:+l~., 7 ~y V ASS uxli YCe v'u v,d,q ~8 Q- AGENDA ITEM 5: ORDINANCE 02-001- Amending Section 7.09.00, Landscaping and Screening Mr. Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was to consider Draft Ordinance 02-001 amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by amending Section 7.09.03(e)(2)(f) Landscaping and Screening, to add Cattley Guava, Common Guava, Loquat, Surinam Cherry and Rose Apple to the list of trees and plants that shall not be planted in St. Lucie County. The County has been requested by the Indian River Citrus League to add these listed plants to the portion of the County's Land Development Code that addresses exotic or pest type of trees and plants. The reason cited for this request is the fact the listed trees are considered to be host plants for the Caribbean Fruit Fly, which poses a significant threat to the local areas citrus crops. He continued that Indian River County, to the north, has enacted a similar restriction and that Martin County has also been approached regarding the same issue. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation that Draft Ordinance 02-001, propose to amend Section 7.09.03(e)(2)(f) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Landscaping and Screening, to add Cattley Guava, Common Guava, Loquat, Surinam Cherry and Rose Apple to the list of trees and plants that shall not be planted in St. Lucie County, be approved. Mr. Merritt questioned who determined that Guava is exotic. Mr. Murphy explained that the list of plants provided were considered to be host plants for pests that pose a threat to the local citrus crops. Mr. Murphy explained that these are not necessarily "exotic" but they don't have another category to place them in to restrict them. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels there is some validity to the request because of the threat posed by the Caribbean Fruit Fly but he stated that groves are akeady governed by rules to certify them as being "fly free". He continued that there are already restrictions on most of these plants/trees on how far they can be from a grove. He also stated that there aze others in the County that are not within a certain radius of a grove and therefore not affected by these rules and should have the right to grow these items if they choose. Some of the plants in the original section are exotics and have a tendency to overrun planted azeas, such as Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper. He continued that he doesn't feel that the Guava's should be compared to these types of items and that this item is being motivated by one pazticulaz organization and they have other existing options available to assist them. He stated that there aze plenty of other ways for the groves to be certified fly free and it is not for all citrus, only for the fresh fruit business being exported to Japan. Mr. Merritt questioned if anyone knows what the distance requirement is for a guava tree to a grove. At this point, several members of the audience wished to speak. Chairman Matthes reopened the Public Hearing. Mr. Ray Chandler stated he works in the citrus industry and says that the distance requirements vary depending on the season. He continued that Guava is a major problem with the Caribbean Fruit Fly and it costs groves a great expense to trap them so that they can be certified as fly free. He also stated that the citrus industry is hurting, but they do a lot of exporting to Japan. A lot of the money made here in St. Lucie County comes from the groves and the packing facilities in the area. The more money that they have to spend on preparation for export means less revenue to spend in St. Lucie County. Chairman P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 9 z _ ~ ~ ~.c S 'a d 1.9~'el" P~.~s~~F<.9°~ ~ ~ C~~~~s~3?~~yi~~~ Ay ` ?i~'A~. Matthes asked Mr. Chandler if he understands that this ordinance will prohibit everyone in St. Lucie County from planting these items, not just those within regulated areas from groves. Mr. Chandler stated that being in the citrus business he feels that it would be better if no one planted them. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Chandler if he felt the primary problem with Guavas was from native or ones that individual people have planted. Mr. Chandler stated that both of them are problems. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Chandler when the fly free time was. Mr. Chandler stated that it starts when they begin shipping into Japan and continues until all packing is finished. Mr. Lounds asked when Guavas bloom and Mr. Chandler stated he was not sure. Mr. Lounds continued that when Guavas are in bloom there are no grapefruit and the fruit is the host of the tree. He stated that there is a trapping program in Florida and there are no Mediterranean or Caribbean Fruit Flies in Florida. Mr. Chandler stated that he feels that is incorrect because they have been trapping Mediterranean Flies over the years. He continued that flies have the ability to fly a long distance and could pose a great risk. Mr. Merritt questioned the existing program used by the citrus industry to eliminate the problem. Mr. Chandler stated that there is a program supplied by the County but most grove owners take care of it themselves. Mr. Lounds stated that there is the need for the citrus industry to be able to expand their marketplace but doesn't feel that anyone who may have these trees/plants outside of a three mile radius of a grove would be a threat. Mr. Trias questioned if this ordinance would apply to the city and Chairman Matthes stated he did not believe so. Mr. Jim Andrews, Vero Beach Citrus stated that he has been in the citrus industry for 22 years. He continued that he feels the flies are a major problem to their business. He also said that for four months during the summer they spend approximately seven to ten hours a day locating host plants. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds asked if the ordinance would require Countywide removal of these trees/plants as well as no new ones being planted. Mr. Murphy explained that this ordinance would only apply from the approval date forward. He continued that the County does not have a program to go out and eradicate existing exotics. Mr. McCurdy moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 02-001. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Mr. Lounds asked Staff if this ordinance would have to have a decision tonight. Mr. Murphy explained he is not. aware of any time restraints. Mr. Lounds asked if a continuation for further discussion could be done. Ms. Young stated that it would to go the Board with their vote but no recommendation. Mr. Merritt stated that he felt if this ordinance were apply to specific zoning districts instead of to the entire County it would have received more support. Upon a roll call vote the motion received a vote of 4-4 (with Mr. Jones, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Lounds and Mr. Matthes voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 10 S . ~.c. ~ t~ .i.i1 J i yL= ~~~~1::1 17478 sft~~3e3'l~~ Ea~'~`5's -:3~V~tl. AGENDA ITEM 6:ORDINANCE 02-005 -Creating Section 13.09.00, Property Maintenance Code: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director, advised that Agenda Item # 6 is to consider Draft Ordinance 02-005 (previously Ordinance 01-006) Amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by Creating Section 13.09.00, Existing Property Maintenance Code, to provide for adoption of Chapter 3, General Requirements, of The 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. As the Commission is aware, the County Commission has for the past several months been very interested in bringing forward regulations and standards that would compel property owners throughout the unincorporated area of the County to keep the buildings and structures on their property in good condition. Draft Ordinance 01-006 was significantly re-crafted and is now reflected within Ordinance 02- 005 to pattern itself after the 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. This is one of the series of standard building codes that exists throughout the Country. There are a number of subsections located in the Chapter that the County is not enforcing and applying because most them are already covered under existing regulations. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation that Draft Ordinance 02-005, which would propose to amend Chapter 13 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by creating Section 13.09.00, Existing Property Maintenance Code, which will provide for the adoption of Chapter 3, General Requirements, of The 2000 International Property Maintenance Code, be approved. Mr. Hearn questioned the deleted sections and stated that the language used in the International Code would add to our existing codes as reinforcement, especially the sections that pertain to motor vehicles in :residential areas. He also questioned why there was nothing in regards to unoccupied buildings in this draft. Mr. McCurdy stated that Section 303.2, Protective Treatment, specifically "oxidation stains on exterior surfaces" might not be enforceable because of the way the water is in the County. Mr. Jones stated that he felt there were numerous problems with this ordinance and would not be able to support it. He continued that he is not against the concept of maintaining property, but he felt there were problems with the specifics of it. He also stated that he felt this code is structured towards areas that are a more urban setting than our county is. He stated that Section 302.2, Grading and Drainage, with its current wording, sounds like it would require the draining of wetlands. Section 302.5, Rodent harborage, would affect any property with squirrels because they are considered to be rodents. He also stated that any type of agricultural property would have a problem getting rid of all of the mice and rats that may be living in their fields. He stated that he agrees that the section pertaining to motor vehicles should remain excluded because it could affect those who rebuild vehicles as a hobby. Section 303.2, Protective Treatment, regarding the peeling, flaking and chipped paint leaves too much up to judgment and could prove to be a hardship on people during certain periods of time. He continued that Section 303.7, Roofs and drainage, and Section 303.13.2, Openable windows, could become an issue if someone is reviewing every time there may be a small leak in a roof or a window that may not open easily and could also prove to be a hardship issue under certain circumstances. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. P & Z Meeting January 17,2002 Page 11 ~r-s n rr 'S r. 7 k ~ , a ~ri~~:i a . , ~~~aL~~5n7.,S.ySW i~tl tic Mr. Harry Lamb, 2328 Oak Drive, North Beach stated he felt that he was not given the materials needed to make proper comments when he has never seen the ordinance before tonight. Chairman Matthes explained that all items were advertised in local newspapers and the public had the right to come into the department at any time and get copies of the ordinances for their review. He-also stated that the Staff, Commission and Board have been trying to get this type of ordinance passed for almost a year now and on numerous occasions citizens have attended and given their feedback after coming in and reviewing the ordinances. Mr. Bill Wilson stated that he just wanted to confirm that there is already an existing ordinance on record regarding weeds and rubbish and garbage since those sections are not being adopted from the International Code. The Staff confirmed that is correct. Ms. Lee Primerano, River Park Homeowners Association questioned if there is any assistance available for the elderly, physically and financially who are unable to comply with this ordinance. Ms. Young stated that there is a small program available through grant monies with a contract with Habitat for Humanity to allow for repairs affecting life safety in homes. Mr. Bill Gessner of North Beach stated that his major concern is regarding landlords who don't maintain their property. Ms. Young stated that Section 301.2 does state that the owner of the premises is responsible for the maintenance of the structures and exterior property; the occupant is only responsible for the dwelling unit that they occupy and control. Ms. Shirley Burlingham, North Beach Homeowners Association, stated that she feels the International Code is a good idea. • She continued that there are some areas in the County that are in desperate need of this type of ordinance as soon as possible. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones stated that he would be more supportive of this ordinance if it were to apply to rental properties and properties that are less than five acres on a countywide basis to alleviate any problems with the agricultural .communities. He also stated that he felt his. previous comments regarding grading and drainage and the other issues needed to be addressed but he would otherwise support this ordinance. Chairman Matthes stated he felt the grading and drainage section should just be removed completely. Mr. Lounds stated that this ordinance is needed to allow Code Enforcement the ability to address certain issues. He continued that if a property is not maintained and takes away from the surrounding property values then the property owner is in error but rentals should be addressed differently. He stated that he wants to make sure to address absentee owners to make sure they are providing the proper standards of living within rental properties. He also stated it would be best to make sure that if it is not in a lease between the renter and property owner regarding outside maintenance that the landowner is taking responsibility for their maintenance duties. Mr. Trias asked how this ordinance, if passed, would be enforced. Mr. Murphy stated that Code Enforcement usually responds on acomplaint-by-complaint basis unless in key observance of a clear life safety or health safety issue. He continued that general practice is to make contact with the owners/occupants of the property and advise them of the problems and direct a corrective action. If they fail to comply with the directive appropriate enforcement proceedings are initiated. Mr. Merritt stated that he wanted to thank Staff for cleaning up the house in White City and the other one moved. Mr. Murphy stated he would relay the thanks to the proper people. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 12 ~ w t-' r ~~p gg.e ~1f r~ ~ ~ j e °~r9'~a1 qq y 1 1.15 Mr. Hearn stated that he would ask that the language from the original draft ordinance 01-006 Section 1- 16.1-9, Vacant buildings, given to the Commission in the May 17, 2001 packets be added to this ordinance. "The owner of a vacated building, whether a dwelling unit, business premises, or accessory structure, shall take such steps and perform such acts as may be required of him from time to time to insure that the building and its adjoining yards remain safe, secure, clean and sanitary, and do not present a hazard to adjoining property or to the public. All openings, including doors and windows, which are covered or closed for access shall be provided with painted exterior-grade plywood closures, matched in color to the building, unless the same are provided with awnings, storm panels, or other similar commercially available products designed for this intended use and installed in a workmanlike manner." Chairman Matthes asked if he wanted this to replace section 301.3 or to add this language to it. Mr. Hearn stated he would like this in addition to what is currently written. Mr. McCurdy stated that he believed that they previously had a discussion regarding storm damage. Ms. Young stated that section 301.3 does address vacant structures but doesn't have the wording regarding matching colors. She continued that in order to add the language from the previous draft ordinance they would have to make a future amendment due to the specific wording of this ordinance and the International Code. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt the way the current section is worded could cause some interpretation issues. Mr. Akins asked if this ordinance is adopted, wouldn't another ad have to be placed regarding the amendment. Ms. Young confirmed that would be correct and the best way would be to approve the ordinance the way it is currently worded and request an amendment at a later date. Mr. Jones stated that he felt since this ordinance will affect every piece of property located in St. Lucie County the changes and amendments should be made prior to any recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Jones stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that no action be taken at this time regarding Ordinance 02-005 and it be rewritten to address the comments of the Commission then brought back before the Planning and Zoning Commission As Soon As Possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and will be brought back before the Planning and Zoning Commission with revisions as soon as possible. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 13 ~~36aa~a~;~;~l~s~~ yc~6'~~i,PAI. AGENDA ITEM 7: ORDINANCE 02-009 -Amending Section 8.00.03 - Temporary Uses /Boats: Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director, stated Agenda Item # 7 was to consider Draft Ordinance 02-009, which would propose to amend Section 8.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, to permit the storage of one piece of recreational equipment in a front yard. on a paved surface for properties located in the unincorporated areas of the County. As the Commission is aware, the Board of County Commissioners has for the past several months been interested in bringing forward regulations and standards that would permit a property owner to store one piece of recreational equipment, as defined in the code, in a front yard provided that the equipment was located on a paved surface. These regulations are intended to apply to those parts of the County that are not otherwise restricted by private deed restrictions or covenants. These regulations also establish a maximum number of three (3) pieces of recreational equipment, including the one (1) recreational vehicle allowed in the front yard, that may be stored on a parcel up to one acre in size. This limitation does not apply to recreational vehicles stored in enclosed structures. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation on Draft Ordinance 02-009, which will permit the storage of one piece of recreational equipment in a front yard on a paved surface for properties located in the unincorporated areas of the County. Mr. Hearn asked if the Board of County Commissioners are in favor of this ordinance. Mr. Murphy explained that the Board was interested in bringing this forward through the public hearing process and the Board has not given any indication, on way or the other, regarding this ordinance. Mr. Akins questioned if the implementation of this ordinance would affect any existing restrictions by homeowners associations. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that on page 5 of the draft ordinance it specifically points out that this would not affect any prior deed restrictions that are more restrictive. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. David Tillman, 5407 Palm Drive, stated that he has lived here for almost 50 years and that this is the only area with the current restriction. He also stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Fort Pierce Sport Fishing Club. He continued that Martin and Indian River County, City of Fort Pierce and City of Port St. Lucie do not have the current type of restrictions there, only the unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County. He stated that having the equipment on paved surfaces is an asset because if there are any leaks or anything, they can be seen. If the equipment is on the grass, it is not easily seen. He stated that per the National Marine Industries Association, St. Lucie County, as of 1999, has 11,000 vessels registered and 85% of those are boats on trailers, which mean approximately 9,350 boats, are kept at home. He continued that not changing this ordinance would affect the dealers and manufacturers of the area. He also stated that the economic impact of the marine industry in the State of Florida is 14.1 billion dollars. He questioned why the County allows as many registered vehicles in their driveway as they want to but cannot put a boat in the driveway under the argument of child safety when boats are usually jacked up into the air to allow for drainage. He continued that having four (4) sport utility vehicles in his driveway that cannot be seen around is legal but a boat, on its trailer, which can be seen under is not allowed. Mr. Hearn asked how many of the boats that are on trailers are affected by the existing ordinance and cannot get them in the backyard. Mr. Tillman stated that he would guess approximately 1/3 of them may be affected. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 14 ~ ,.,z, ~ .g, ~ s • ; .e. ~ ~~~~.3;36:~~.3 jS1 it 6 fO~ITAL Mr. Bob Hancock, a St. Lucie County resident for almost seventeen (17) years read a paragrap~'i from e Florida Recreational Salt Water Fishing Regulations, July 2001 issue. "723 of the 4,549 world records are from Florida as listed by the International Game Fish Association. This is far greater than any other state or country. Florida ranks first (1 S`) for the number of people who fish in salt water - 2,255,171. This is more than double any other state in the United States. Florida ranks first (1S`) in the country for the number of days anglers spend fishing in salt water. 25,139,988, this too is more than double any other state in the U.S. Over three (3) times more non-residential angler trips were taken in Florida than any other state - 2.8 million. Florida ranks first (ls`) in the country in boating purchases, such as boats, 760 million, outboard motors 404,522,000, boat trailers 23,584,000 and miscellaneous marine accessories 221,479. Florida has over 2,100 marinas ranking it number one (1) in the country. " Mr. Charlie Myers, 7104 Eden Road, Lakewood Park, said that he has been there since June 1974. He stated that he could not put a boat in his side yard because he has trees planted there and would be encroaching on his neighbors property. He continued that he has been having problems with the existing ordinance since 1998 and has been trying to change it. He stated that Dennis Bunt gave him a copy of 4,300 complaints that they received about Code Enforcement issues just in Lakewood Park in the past eight (8) months. He advised that he chose Lakewood Park because it wasn't a deed restricted or gated community. He stated that he felt this new ordinance would be a fair compromise for everyone. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Myers if he had a pad for his boat and Mr. Myers replied that he has a double wide concrete driveway. Mr. Brian Combs stated he lives on Atlantic Beach Boulevard, North Beach and previously lived in Lakewood Park for twenty years. He stated that boat owners pay more taxes than non-boat owners. They pay taxes on the boat purchase and registration, trailer purchase and registration, bait, tackle and gas. He continued that most homeowners do not have the ability to get their boat and trailer in the backyard. He also said that having a boat in the side or back yard, on the grass, kills it and with the swales, it is difficult to get a boat over those. He stated that he felt that the Homeowners Associations speak for themselves and not for the actual homeowners. He questioned the portion of the ordinance regarding more restrictive communities and Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that was in reference to deed-restrictions. He also . stated that he has a six (6) inch thick, 75-foot concrete driveway that he is not currently allowed to place his boat upon. Mr. Keith Prosky, Lakewood Park resident, stated that it would not be possible for him to get a boat in his backyard like many others in the area. He also stated that he did not feel it was fair to tell those that don't have any possible way to get a boat in their yard, that they cannot own one, because they aren't allowed to put it in the front on the driveway. Ms. Lee Primerano, River Park Homeowners Association stated they were concerned about the number of total items would be allowed in the front yard. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that the term being used in the ordinance is recreational equipment and would allow one (1) on a paved surface, in the front yard along with the new restriction of a maximum of three (3) pieces of equipment on the property all together. Under the current ordinance, you may have as many as you want on the property in the back yard. Ms. Primerano also stated that she feels there may be a visibility issue (especially for home in River Park) for people backing out. She continued that having that much paved area in a front yard cuts down on the amount of water that can absorbed therefore increasing storm water run off. She also questioned if there is any way to keep people from parking their recreational equipment in their driveways and then parking their vehicles on the grass to avoid adding a secondary paved surface. Mr. Billy Brown of Indian River Estates stated that it is not possible for him to place his boat on the side or back of his home and if this ordinance were not approved, he would have to sell his boat. He stated P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 15 n r r - ~9 ~ ! ry n:mm ~8's :_'.i a ? c..f !'r :a1 , P~,~~3~~~~=~~ ~ ZG~I~G C~;~`~"~g~'~~~~i~ RP~'RGVAI. that with the oak trees in his yard and the size of his lot, he would not be able to place the boat on the side of his house without ending up on the neighbors property line. He continued that he dcesn't have any problems with keeping the boat on a paved surface in the front of his home. He stated that he feels having the boat shows his progress in life. Mr. Bill Wilson, a Port St. Lucie resident stated that the city does have specific ordinances governing recreational equipment. He continued that they must be parked in the driveway or ten (10) feet inside the rear yard. He questioned if this ordinance would include motor homes. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that it does. He stated that he feels parking these types of equipment in the front of the home does detract from the property values and that is why a lot of homeowners associations and condominium associations have banned this type of equipment all together. Chairman Matthes asked if his issue is with all recreational equipment or just motor homes. Mr. Wilson stated that he doesn't feel that anything should be parked in the front yard. Chairman Matthes stated that he resides in the city of Port St. Lucie and they allow it. Mr. Wilson stated that the city states it has to be in the driveway or to the right hand side of the house. Chairman Matthes explained that this ordinance is suggesting they be pazked on a paved surface, not in the grass of the front yard. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith did confirm that the intent of the ordinance is that the recreational equipment must be on a paved surface perpendicular to the roadway. Ms. Vickie Tillman stated that she and her husband Bud Tillman own St. Lucie Outboard Marine and have been in the county since 1956. She stated that she would like to see this ordinance be forwarded to the Commission with a recommendation of approval because they feel it will greatly affect their business because they sell trailerable boats up to thirty (30) feet. She also stated that there are two (2) major trailer companies in the azea and they utilize their trailers and products greatly and this would affect all of them, Mr. McCurdy asked Ms. Tillman if a trailer would make atwenty-five (25) foot boat exceed the ordinance. maximum of twenty-six (26) feet. Ms. Tilhnan stated that she believed atwenty-five (25) foot boat on a trailer would most likely measure thirty feet (30) in length. Chairman Matthes asked staff if "recreational equipment less than twenty-six feet (26) in length" would actually include the trailer. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that it includes the phrase, "items on trailers" to treat them as one under defined terms on page three (3). Mr. Skip Lashon, Sales Director for Maverick Boat Company stated that marine manufacturing is also a lazge part of the community. He continued that his company builds about sixteen (16) different model boats, twenty-four (24) feet and under that are all trailerable. They employ one hundred seventy (170) people, maintain fifty-two (52) marine retailers azound the country and their third largest dealer is located in Stuart and approximately 80% of the units he sells are to those in St. Lucie County. He stated that he feels this new ordinance is very important and can affect the sales of boats in the county. Ms. Nancy Spalding, Coral Cove Homeowners Association, stated that she would like to see the existing ordinance remain the same. She continued that the City of Ft. Pierce has done a great job keeping their communities looking great and feels this ordinance will not do that for their communities on North Beach. She also stated that she is concerned with the aesthetics of the community and she feels having recreational equipment in .the front of the property will decrease property values. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Trial what the City's policy is and Mr. Trial explained that their ordinances are- very compazable to the new ordinance that has been presented here tonight. Mr. Jim Andrews, Lakewood Pazk resident stated he has a 24-1/z foot boat and does not have the ability to place it on either side of his home. He said that he was concerned about the children that will be affected by this because the cost of docking a boat in a marina is quite high and the hours of operation can be difficult if you don't work a standard 9=5 shift. If the boat were at your home, the time of night that you take it out would not be an issue. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Andrews if his boat was on a paved surface and P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 16 ~ '7 ~ c t sl a YI aj,?Y's5`a i.~ 4`~ ~~'ze~ti4rib~~l~~ A~~~VAI. he stated that he has it on his concrete double driveway. Mr. McCurdy stated that he would not be in compliance with the ordinance due to the length of the boat and the trailer. Mr. Andrews confirmed that is correct. Mr. Ed Lewis, 3111 Sunrise Boulevard stated that his family has been living here for many generations and there are no vehicles as beautiful as a boat. He also stated that his sod is completely dead on the side of his house where he has had his sea craft parked and he feels the boat would look much better sitting in the front of the house instead of having dead grass. He continued that the grass in his backyard would never be able to support the weight of the boat, especially during the rainy season and would most likely end up stuck because of it. Mr. Bob Brian stated he has lived in Indian River Estates for twenty-seven (27) years and that having his boat on the side of his property tears up the grass and leaves ruts in the ground. He continued that he doesn't feel the length should be an issue. He suggested rewording it to the trailer tongue having to be back off the property line five feet instead of how long the boat is once it is on a trailer. Mr. Bob Bangert of Holiday Pines Homeowners Association stated that he has owned a boat himself for many years and is not against it, his concern is where the boat is stored. He advised that he would not consider most of St. Lucie County fishing communities and a large percentage of the boats manufactured in the county aze actually shipped out of the county. He also stated that fishing tournaments do bring a lot of money into the county but he dossn't feel that has anything to do with where a boat is stored. He continued that Commissioner Barnes requested the revision of the ordinance because the present ordinance puts too much of a load on Code Enforcement. He also stated that the Code Enforcement "Board stated that they wanted to leave the existing ordinance the way that it is. He then showed some poster boards to the Commission that -had pictures showing boats, motor homes and RV's in the driveway. He asked if work trailers aze included under this ordinance. Chairman Matthes stated that he didn't believe work trailers were categorized as being "recreational equipment". He then stated that he feels if someone can afford a $33,000 boat, they should be able to afford $20 to $25 a month to store it instead of having it in their front yazd. He questioned if there aze any restrictions to moving vehicles onto the grass so they can put the equipment in the driveway. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that there are no ordinances right now that restrict them from parking on their lawn if they want to, so this ordinance wouldn't stop them either. He gave a photo to the Commission and Staff showing a -large motor home in a driveway and stated there is no way to legally pazk items of this size in a fifty foot driveway if they have to be ten feet off the property line given the existing right-of--ways. He stated he is also concerned with the decreased visibility with an item of this size in the driveway and the ability to stop a motor vehicle fast enough to avoid hitting a child. Chairman Matthes stated that usually if a driver is obeying the speed limit in those residential communities they should be able to stop. He also stated that he is not aware of any homeowner's group who support this ordinance revision, except possibly St. Lucie Village. He continued that there maybe a lot of boat owners in the county, but he doesn't feel they would represent over 10% of the total residents. The population of St. Lucie County, as of the last census was 192,695 and if approximately 9,000 of them own a boat, that is less than 10%. _ Mr. Lounds stated that he dossn't feel that everyone that makes up the population owns a lot and he continued that this new ordinance actually addresses many of the issues shown in the photographs and they show there is a need for this. Mr. Akins also explained that this ordinance would not affect those in deed-restricted communities. Mr. Ray Shepard, 5200 Eagle Drive in Holiday Pines stated that he has lived in Fort Pierce for forty-five P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 17 n , ~ iql years and stores his motor home for $35 a month. He stated that when they bought th ~Gper~y m Holiday Pines, they asked about overnight loading and unloading his motor home and they advised him there was no problem with that even though it is deed-restricted from keeping them there. He continued that there are people in the community who call Code Enforcement the minute he leaves to say he is in violation and he has been cited several times because of it. He stated loading and unloading a motor home does take some time and according to the County Commissioners, the minute the motor home is turned off, it is considered being stored, therefore making him in violation. He continued that his motor home is thirty-four feet long and would not allow him to store it in his driveway anyway under this ordinance, but he would like to see something specifying a time for overnight loading and unloading. Mr. Richard Crew, Indian River Estates, stated he has afourteen-foot boat and was cited back in September for having it in his driveway. He continued that the reason for that is because he is handicapped and it is virtually impossible for him to try to work with it in the side yard when he takes it out everyday and wants the existing ordinance changed. NIr. Bill Adams of Holiday Pines stated that he searched for adeed-restricted community that controlled specific elements of the area. He questioned if this ordinance only applies to those parts of the county that are not otherwise restricted by private deed restrictions. Mr. Bobby Carton stated he lives at 5106 Palm Drive in Indian River Estates and that his homeowners association does not speak for him. He continued that he is in favor of the new ordinance and that those who are not and do not reside in deed-restricted communities should not have the right to restrict them. He stated that his would like to see a small revision that states the equipment must have current registrations in order to keep them in the front of the house. Mr. David Weeks stated that he lives on a corner lot and has no side yazd to park his boat in. He also advised that the size of the lot and the trees do not enable him to put it in the backyazd. He continued that he is in favor of this ordinance and stated that he felt there are many other aesthetic problem azeas in the county that are more important for cleaning up the area than a boat in the front yazd. He stated that he chose not to live in adeed-restricted area because he didn't like the extra restrictions and to have a small boat in his yard is his idea of the American dream. Mr. Robin Thorne stated he has owned a home in Lakewood Pazk for the last sixteen years and has a boat on a trailer in his doublewide driveway. He continued that there is no physical way for him to move the boat on the grass to the side of his home and if the ordinance remains the way it is, he would probably have to get rid of his boat so he is not in non-compliance. Mr. Ken Irish, 355 South Ocean Drive, stated that he feels the taxpayer should have the right to park their recreational equipment in their own yard on their property if they wish to. He continued that these types of equipment keep a lot of kids occupied in their free time, therefore keeping them away from drugs and other illegal activities. He also stated that if they chose to live in adeed-restricted community that dcesn't allow these things, that is their choice, but he doesn't feel they shouldn't place their views and restrictions on those outside of that deed-restricted community. He asked if this ordinance would apply to someone who owns over an acre of land. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that there is an exception to the ordinance that if you own more than an acre and keep the equipment at least one hundred feet (100) back from the street frontage, then you aze in compliance. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. McCurdy asked Staff how the twenty-six foot (26) length was decided and what was the intent P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 18 - y H 7 - e; M1 ~J 1 a J . tr a3S :cra vA~ rt;V~~;!y,~;A[.,,,, O '7 Aga s~~t~.s~~'~~EV E~~~s Vti~ behind that specific number. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that it was a compromise, originally when first drafted there was no length restriction, but there were some requests to add a length restriction so there weren't fifty-foot RV's in front of the standard size home. She continued that there is also a height restriction so that the equipment isn't taller than the home. Mr. McCurdy asked if the length restrictions were due to safety concerns and Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated it was safety, aesthetics and comparison to similar ordinances around the state. She also stated they added the minimum five foot (5) setback to allow for safety and sight. Mr. Merritt questioned what the restrictions are on the current ordinance. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated it does not allow any boat in the front yard; they must be in the side or back yard and does allow for as many as you want on the property. Mr. Jones stated that he felt it would be easier to enforce this new ordinance if the length specifications were regarding the actual boat length, not including the trailer and keep the setback the same. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that Code Enforcement felt it was enforceable keeping the trailer and boat as one item in regards to the length restriction. Mr. McCurdy stated that the length, on a trailer, could vary tremendously depending on how the boat is placed. Mr. Lounds stated he felt it would be best to eliminate the length restriction and focus on the setback. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that most self-propelled motor homes are over the twenty-six feet length. Mr. Lounds stated that someone made a comment about adding text regarding unregistered vehicles and he found that there is already a provision for that in the ordinance. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith verified that was correct and that there is also a provision in paragraph seven (7) stating they cannot be inoperable. Mr. Hearn questioned if the present code allows for any hardship relief. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated there is nothing in the existing code. Mr. Hearn asked if they might go to the Board of Adjustment for some help. Mr. Murphy explained that the Board of Adjustment is limited in its authority and granting waivers and relief are usually based on dimensional standards, not use standards. Mr. Hearn stated that if this ordinance were passed they would need to address Section 8.00.02, Dimension and Location Regulations of the Land Development code and change the language in Section A dealing with accessory structures and uses in the front yard. Mr. Murphy stated they would review it and see if it may cause conflict. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt this might be something that the Board of County Commissioners may want to leave up to the voters to decide. Mr. Akins questioned the enforceability by the Code Enforcement department and how they will handle these types of violations. Mr. Murphy explained that they usually handle violations on a complaint basis; if they receive one, they will take the appropriate measurements and verify if it exceeds the measurement restrictions or setback issues, then any appropriate violation notices would be issued, if necessary. Mr. Merritt questioned if page 4, Section F, number 2, regarding parking at least one hundred (100) feet from any public street would also apply to those living in Indian River Estates because the lots are only 85x100. Mr. Murphy explained that provision is in regards to lots over one (1) acre. Mr. Merritt stated that he felt it needed to be reworded to be clearer. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the St. Lucie County_Board of County Commissioners grant approval to Ordinance 02-009 with several provisions: drop length of the vehicle in lieu of either a five (5) or eight (8) foot setback and add the word "functional" to # 5 and # 6. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. McCurdy stated that Section F, # 1, should have a provision added to allow a 24-hour period for loading and unloading purposes. Mr. Lounds stated he would not have a problem adding that to his P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 19 L+~ , ~ ~B °R~`fv f~v C?`~ Tk ~~7 V g~ $.~-,;=arm F a~~pps P~~~-s3: b'o5~ ~ G.4Sh~ 1E6~~ C~~r'~~~`~~~~~~~al ~~~~~~€!L motion, however, he does not want it to offset any pre-existing deed-restrictions. He continued that he does agree there does need to be a provision to allow time (24 or 48 hours) for loading and unloading of any recreational equipment on a paved surface. He also stated that he felt the five (5) foot setback was too close to the street and he would be more comfortable with an eight (8) foot setback. Mr. Merritt stated that changing the setback to eight (8) feet would cause a hardship for those living in Indian River Estates and he would rather leave it at five (5) feet. Mr. Lounds stated he personally feels that five (5) feet is too close to the property line but would yield to the discussion of the Commission and Staf£ Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed with Mr. Lounds and would rather have the eight (8) foot setback. Mr. Lounds stated that he would support the five (5) foot setback, but he just personally feels it would be a little better to have eight (8) feet. Mr. Jones stated that he does not agree with not allowing them to park on a non-paved surface for forty-eight (48) hours. Chairman Matthes stated he personally would not want them parking on the grass and would prefer it remain on a paved surface. Mr. Lounds restated his motion to read that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners that they grant approval to Draft Ordinance 02-009 with several amendments: 1. drop the length of the vehicle (referenced in paragraph F(1)) in lieu of maintaining a minimum five (5) foot setback, and; 2. add the word "functional" in front of the word "equipment" to paragraphs F(5), F(~ and F(7), and; 3. add a new section that would allow for aforty-eight (48) hour grace period for the purpose of maintaining, loading and unloading any recreational equipment as long as on a paved surface. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 20 Next scheduled meeting will February 21, 2002. ~ , T~s3~~:~ AD.TOURNMENT Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Hearn and seconded by Mr. Trial. Meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitt Approved by: n Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman J P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 21 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSIQN, AUTHO OR.COM E St. Lucie Count Plannu~.g and~~Loning ~imFttission Matthes Stefan MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, OMMISSION, AUTHORfTY OR COMMffTEE ON ' 298 S. 25th Street WHICH I SERVE IS A UNrf OF: CITY COUNTY C CfTY ~C' OUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLRICAL SUBDIVISION: Fort Pierce St. Lucie DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURAED St. Lucie Courit MY POSfrION IS: M1r'CYl 21~ 2~~2 C ELECTIVE ~ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the mini etas of tha mPetina. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Stefan Matthes ,hereby disclose that on )`arch 21, 20 02 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) _ inured to my special private gain or loss; _ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, _ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, X inured to the special gain or loss of n?Y, employer ~ by -whom I am retained; or ~ ~ _ . _ inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: ATENDA ITEM 2: BAKIJL PATEL - FIVE NO. RZ=02=003 Petition of BAKLTL PATEL for a Change in . Zoning frcgn the AR-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District. My fine is currently doing work for the Petitioner on. this project. Date Filed - ~ . nature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION REVIEW: 3/21/02 File Number RZ-02-003 ~n ~ ~ ~ MEMORANDUM F~ ~ R10P DEPARTMENT OF COl~~VIUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager DATE: March 14, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of Bakul Patel, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural Residential -1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple Family - 5 du/acre)) Zoning District. LOCATION: Southwest corner of South Kings Highway and Research Center Road. EXISTING ZONING: AR-1 (Agricultural Residential -1 du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING: RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-family - 5 du/acre) FUTURE LAND USE: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 25 acres PROPOSED U5E: The purpose of the requested change in zoning is to allow the construction of a multiple family residential development. PERMITTED USES: Section 3.01.03(L), RM-5 (Residential. Multiple-family - 5 du/acre) identifies the designated uses which are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted through the conditional use process in the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further review and approval. Any use not identified in the zoning district regulations is considered to be a prohibited use in that district (see Attachment "AA"). SURROUNDING ZONING: AR-1 (Agricultural Residential - 1 du/acre) zoning district surrounds the petitioned property to the north, south and west, RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 - dulacre) and IL (Industrial Light) surrounds the petitioned property to the east. March 14, 2002 Petition: Bakul Patel Page 2 File RZ-02-003 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Florida Master Packing House is to the east of the subject property and existing citrus groves are located to the north, south and west of the subject property. The property located to the north is designated with a RS (Residential Suburban) future land use designation, properties located to the south and west are designated with a RU (Residential Urban) future land use designation and properties located to the east aze designated with a MXD-Crossroads future land use designation. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station # 1, is located approximately4 miles to the east. UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is located within the FPUA service delivery area. J TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of--way for Kings Highway is SO feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: See Comments TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUC1E COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural Residential -1 dulacre) Zoning District to the RM-S (Residential, Multiple-family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District. The azea in which the subject property is located is currently utilized as citrus groves. The stated purpose of this change in zoning is to allow for the development of the 25 acres as amulti-family residential project. The subject property is adjacent to South Kings Highway, which is a state owned North/South Arterial roadway. Access to the property will be via a driveway from Reseazch Center Road. March 14, 2002 Petition: Bakul Patel Page 3 File RZ-02-003 The RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-family - 5 dulacre) Zoning District has been determined to be an .acceptable zoning district for the proposed area. The applicant's request would provide a transitional use from the more intense industrially zoned lands to the east and the less intense residential and agriculturally zoned properties to the west. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; Table 1.6 of the Future Land Use Element, Data and Analysis, indicates those zoning classifications allowed under the RU (Residential Urban) Future Land Use Designation. According to this table, the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District is considered to be acceptable within the azeas designated with a Future Land Use Classification of RU (Residential Urban). The proposed rezoning request is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. As the subject property is located within the FPUA service delivery area, staff will require the developer to submit a letter of sufficient capacity from the service provider prior to receiving site plan approval. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed zoning district is considered to be consistent with existing and proposed future land use designations in the azea. The surrounding properties to the north, south and west aze all being utilized as citrus groves. The properties to the east aze utilized as citrus groves and a packinghouse. The permitted uses in the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District aze not expected to unduly impact the surrounding azea or uses. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment. As the Kings Highway corridor develops, there will be pressure to allow more intense uses adjacent to the roadway. The applicant's request will continue to maintain a residential chazacter within the area, yet, also allow for a more intense transitional use between the roadway and industrial uses to the east and the low density residential and agricultural uses to the west. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. The State of Florida Department of Transportation's work program for 2000/2001- 2004/2005, indicates that South Kings Highway, from Okeechobee Road north to Angle Road was slated for resurfacing in the yeaz 2001. Currently, this resurfacing project is going forward. The existing right-of--way for South Kings Highway, adjacent to the subject property is 50 feet in width. According to Section 7.04.04 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the ultimate right-of--way for South Kings Highway from Orange Avenue south to Okeechobee Road is 130 feet. March 14, 2002 Petition: Bakul Patel Page 4 File RZ-02-003 Based upon this, at the time of site plan approval for the subject property additionalright-of--way will be required to be dedicated to the County for the widening of Kings Highway. Under the current AR-1 zoning designation, a 25 acre land parcel would be permitted a density of 1 du/acre, equating to a total of 25 dwelling units. Under the proposed RM-5 zoning, the project would be allowed a maximum of 125 dwelling units an increase of 500%. The ITT Trip Generation Book, single-family residential developments generate a total of 10 trips per day and amulti-family complex generates 7 trips per day. Based upon this generation, under the existing zoning, the subject property at its maximum would create 250 trips per day. Under the proposed zoning, the subject property at its maximum density would create 875 trips per day. According to the Wiring 2001Traffic Counts, South Kings Highway, north of Okeechobee Road has a LOS Capacity of 15,000 total trips. Currently there are 10,159 trips per day accounted for on this roadway segment. This leaves the remaining capacity of 5,441 trips available for this roadway segment. The proposed rezoning will not negatively impact this roadway segment with an increased capacity and density. At the time of development, a review of the available public facility capacity will be completed.. All impacts will be assessed for the development at that time. The FPUA has -the proposed area designated within its service delivery area. Prior to obtaining site plan approval, the developer will be required to depict that sufficient capacity is available to meet the demands/needs of any development proposed for the site. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed amendment is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The existing use of the property is a citrus grove. The applicandproperty owner will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local environmental regulations as part of any submitted development plans for the site. 7. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would- result in an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such patterns; An orderly and logical development pattern will occur with this change in zoning. The subject property has access from South Kings Highway and Research Center Road. The request for a change in zoning will continue the development pattern that is occurring along South Kings Highway and will provide a transitional use from the more intense Industrially light zoned property to the east and the low density residentiaUagriculturally zoned properties to the west. 8. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,. and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code; The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Z - _ .H March 14;2002 Petition: Bakul P,atel~ Page 5 File RZ-02-003;.. COMMENTS - - The petitioner, Bakul Patel, has requested this change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural Residential - I du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-family- 5 du/acre) Zoning District 'in order to develop a 25 acre .parcel-of land as a multifamily residential :project for property .located on the southwest corner of the intersection.of South. Kings Highway and Research Center Road. The indicated purpose of this change in zoning is toy allow for the submission of an application-for site plan review for ~ multi-family residential project. The subject property is in an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being compatible with or for the. RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District. Attached is a copy. of Section 3.01.03(L) - RM=S (Residential; Multiple-family - 5 du/acre), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, which delineates thepermitted, accessory and conditional uses allowed in the RM-5 ('Residential, Multiple-family.- 5 du/acre) Zoning District. If the change in zoning request were approved, the applicant, by right; would be allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses ; section. Any use under the Accessory Uses section would be allowed only if one or more of the permitted :uses exists on the ubject property: Any use under the Conditional Uses: section eonld only be allowed if it first receives approval through the Board of County;Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to he Standards:Of Review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St'Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition. to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. III Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. cs cc: Harold Melville IIf B ui Patel ak Raymond Hoeffner- III File. H:\wp\rezoning\Bakul Patelstfrpt.wpd Suggested motion to recommend approvaUdenial of this requested change in zoning. MOTION TO APPROVE: 'AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN .SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IHEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS- GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF BAI~UL PATEL, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM TIIE AR-1 (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL = 1 DU/ACRE) :ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RM=5 ? ~ f (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY = 5 DU/ACRE) ZONING,DISTRICT, BECAUSE..:.. .[CITE REASON WHY :PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. MOTION TO DENY: ; AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,- INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND.THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SETFORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I.HEREBY.MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST, LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF BAKUL PATEL, FOR A CHANGE I1V ZONING FROMTHE AR-1 (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 DU/ACRE).. ZONING DISTRICT TO THE. RM-5 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIlLE=FAMILY - 5 DU/ACRE} ZONING DISTRICT,: BECAUSE,.,.. ~ _ [CITE REASON WHY-PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. l ~.~o r ` Section 3.01:03 Zoning District Use Regula~io~s ' . ( E. AR-1 AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL - 1 ~ 1: Pur os e P The purpose of this district is to provide and protect 'an environment suitable for single-family dwellings at a maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre, together with such other uses t. . as: may be necessary for and compatible with very low density rural residential surroundings. The number in "O" following each identified use-corresponds to the-.SIC code reference described in; Section 3:01.02 B ( )..The number 999 a lies to a use no PP t defined under the SIC code but may' be further defined in Section 2.00:00 of this code. 2 Permi - tted Uses a Family day care homes. ts9e> , b. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family residential home and " rovided that . P ; the sponsoring agency or Department of Health and Refiabilitative Services (HRS)`notifies ~ t he 6 oard of Coun Commission r e s at th tY a time of home occu anc that the home islicense P Y d by HRS: t~~ c. Single-family.: detached dwellings. t~~ i 3. Lot Size R e ui q rements Lot size requirements shall bean accordance with Table 1. in Se ctio n 7.04.00. 4. Dimen sio ~ nal R egulations~ :Dimensional. requirements shall bean accordance with Table 1 in Section 7.04.00. II 8. Off-street Parking Requirements O ff-st re et arki n r e uire ments s j P 9 4 hall be m accordance with Section 7.06.00. 6: Conditional Uses !I a. Crop services tozz~ b: Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another such family residential home. t~~ c: Industrial wastewater disposal tsse~ ~ d. Kennels -completely enclosed. to~s2~ e. Landscaping & horticultural services to~ei f. Retail: (1) Fruits and Vegetables. tsaai - g. Ridin stables. sss 9 ~ ~ h. Veterina servic es: m4 tY t i Telecommunication .towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 ts9s~ 7. .Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: l Atlopted August 1, 1990 101 Revised Through 08/01/00. J Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations f~ f~ a. Agriculture (farms and ranches aecessory;to single-family,'detacFed dwelling). ~o,ro2~ b. Animals, subject to the requirements of Section 7.1'0.03. te9~i t. c' Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04: tes9> ' _ d: Mobile. Home subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. ts9ei e. Retail and wholesale trade -subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity. Adopted August 1, 1990. 102 Revised Through 08/01/00 .,y " Section 3.01.03 << ; . Zoning District Use Regulations ~ J L RM-5 RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY = S 1. Purpose. The purpose of_this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable',for single-family, two-family; three-family, and multiple-family dwellings. at a maximum density o`f five:{5) dwelling units per gross acre, together with such other usesas maybe necessary for and compatible with low and medium density residential surroundings. The number `in "O" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(8). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the-SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00:00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a Community residential homes subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.07. tseei b: Family day care homes. t~> c. Family residential homes provided that such homes shalt not be iocated'within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by'HRS. c~~ d. Multiple-familydwellings (3 ormore units)`~t e. Single-family detached dwellings. f. Two-family dwellings. c~si f _ 3. Lot Size Requirements... { Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00: 4. Dimensiortal Re ulatio s n 9 Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking Requirements Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements ~ - Landscaping requirements shall be in accordance with Section. 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another such family residential home. (s~> k b. Telecommunication towers -.subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 tsssi 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00. ' Adopted August 1, 1990 109 ~ Revised Through 08/17:1/00 z _ o ~ ^ ~ N O n N ` ~V ~ n I a a L..L ~ u _ N cn d ~ ~ " C~ 4 4 ~ .o~?~ G a O W e h f+~ s6 f ~ ~ c ~ ` d' N ~~.N Y7 W ' S~ ` ~ ~ `O S,V'pl ~ ~tUr"" ~ i 5 d o+ ~ ~ ~ 4' a ~W ~ , ~ ~ i - W 0. P t9E~U1 W p y e f O e ~ ~ d f ~ • ~ C C 9 3 is ~ ~ wra a r ~ g ~ ~r Y Da ti P V V ~I iyra ~ !lr .j _ g~' o A ~ W j ~ W n n r'b rea 'fib, ~ } ~ a ns F- oa ar~n j roa xinsxtoaa O Z U ~ o p aroa ~i Sara U arD~ aea at ~ ~ ~ r nar] alar3x ~ W ~ ~ O as aaatoa irw W ~ ~ M J ~ aroa aai'w?~ ~ ff aroa onas a a o K•~ z W W A ~ ~~0 MI M ~ C S Y£ 1 S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 J~1.N(108 3380H~33~10 o, A Petition of Bakul Patel fora change in zoning ,from the AR=1 (Agricultural; Residential-l unt/acre)= ' ZoningDistrict to he RM-5 (Residential, Multiple Family-5 unitsiacre) Zoning .'.District, ' k F k.~ r _ r Mfr, - - 'ftJ~ f 1 { oT~ 3 ~ ,L , ~ vl Y d i ~,[<< i P r51 F~ Y j• Tt 112j ! ' 1 { menld olbn a h MFG Coed Na.~e ' f f Q. O D:• IN 2 0 - - - Y Y O Y ~ _ - - - _ a - w c ~ ~ - n ~ _ - ' m ~ - - " - uu .n. A n - ~ ~e `rOfB 6~9 d~• r . e 9 7 s f~ N ' 0~s .o 900 ~1 f e .1 r . _ _ r )i` t s . Q f •f yt ` - _ _ - _ - - - to <Oae RZ 02-003 ~ This pattern indicates subject parcel ~~s. Map prepared February 1, 2002 vM.: ~.adnw e..o .,w a mo.l w~.+.ro - . - This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce ~ m N - - ~ ldan.em oo..u.~~mr~.m w~u. ~ r~ ~n oon,n.v. Zonin Bakuf Patef 9 0 ~ T ~ ; J L z ~ A~-1 R S-2 AR-~ Y ~a sa~b" a ana Coal No. 48 ~ r - f ~ J AR-1 Z ~ ~ L b Y " R S-2 Z _ _ w e • _ _ ter,; _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - ¢ 'r . P _ _ - _ a d` - - - - - r - - - - moo ' ° - - o - - - - _ - - - _ - I yr - - Yj _ _ 7 ~ _ _ _ O~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ °`1 ~:.J. ~ - 1'. 1r t, ~ t,._- -_1'..,= J;; ~..r__)i • ~ O 1. , - RZ 02-003 This pattern indicates subject parcel ~ _ Map prepared February 1, 2002 Nti4 way wblhY bsi nltl~ b pw/b M rtntaWM Ytl mW _ - - This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce ~"~"'°"'m"°"°"°""°`"'°'""°"°'"'°°"'°"~ N - y/y~i/y~ poYW,t4 n4tFYi0a0 trv r"g7fy WtlnG OoMist Bakul Patel k~ Land Use ^~'°:k .r,. ~`y; ~i.' , o , i, , r l P Y COM RU RS Y f ' t. ~,F_ r `r •;.1.: 1:, w ~ '.CorwINO. !8 ~ t I ~ MXD 4 4 ~ a Crossroads R za U Y Y ' C Y - - - O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Z R ' o v - - - M 6 ¦ _ _ ^ _ _ _ III- ~ i _ 3 _ rll ri e J ' ; O~ ~M - _ ' r _ - - - - , , - ~ _ - - , - _ - - - - - - r . , -r - - - ~i - - - - - - s, of ~ ~ t c ; c ~ ~Ie ,p ~ r r r ~ = ~ ? .r 1 ~ q _ r ~ ;ova - - _ - _ - - w~~ _ - - RZ 02-003 This pattern indicates .subject parcel Gt~~ _ Map prepared February 1, 2002 M1i My Man M1r W~ rtyd b t~ mYItV~Y ~d . . _ This pattern indicates City of Ft._Pierce ~ N - Ybm~N1 Ply. ~ V w HY'Ld bi iM r ~ I.pr/ NK V dItl/ML ¦ ~ , a ' a~~: :r: r<p; ~,i .,I s".;.t S:t 3 i : fir. R :.i~ tst ~sii: r.: r`P i;M.. 1 • ::r-. •-r+~.r..:;w::..:^ 'tg::::•r :?L. 4 ! h t'~ ~ f P~i~~€} ;d~ i~ ! 4 34,:•;.L':..•Y.a...w. j1;aaq';~° s~?'id,ai a '}'jp( ~l..s}.i jjr1,t;(2`}i~lE,3 S!. ji.:..n..., n,""'w.SC:.`:wT ' a .al -i.~. <.a:,r:~r"~~,'~ct :.y. •'•~j:~.}',k't, yi :'"i, 43t F -sr It i ~7+~i~, fir ,q k `a'.r,:::n-r.< i::.•i,~c:: r<,~~~ {3; 'jt{''s.:.{; .~;;1 °t: . tk~r f' ~ ~ q:~~i~, `~,,5~ e Y y~`.:C:. :k ^c~ .,~se.~a..a.,~is `-t ~v,r:r, r: ~,~tfp, ,5~•a~,= ~ } S t ~.1~ ~ ~t t~` k i(~ ° i 'k , 3 ;tea a vp w .;~.+.m;>xf ;.-ct>p i : ~ M% c ; ! # 1 r't `i ' v ~t> , ,Ef en t..t ~ ~ , rt a: ' «s-..aaa..K<c. vim' ~ z•~< <.r. ~.;t~. ~:y} t;~,= ~ j'q, ! .t +2 ,i 3, ~ t Y 3~ y Snae.v..v.3...,;ey„,.Z E ~5 M ~ Y p r ~ s F - i jj x-:':< ~xc:.,: ~ i`, d; x:3 'r~i c~'t.j~I~ t S~i3~~~:1 t > ~ k ',1 ,t ,es ( { - •x u. ---`"+~:.¢s i>°-'^'~ l~>"` '(~1 #J~(~ 7 4 I ~ } t A x ~ ~ r > ~u ~:.R x• ><wxx seer z i;'=„r.';i~~a~t.t~.-'~<~ s i s' jq t i:~~, j` ~ { j ~:>altaa. t s t• } a ,<,,.x. ~ a..... ~ al..:.o.<,zcc*~ =nv=n+.G.;~:.-aaso ar•.w~:~ C'~L (~q~ t i~;}d. ~(~~r $ ~ 1 11 ~ ~7 ~ ' ! MV l 4 l•t xn!<,..1.- .a a~..t, 8 u,hbs3c^rusdrM~t•Y.•.s,f x 3 lY8 it%~L}~c~~iyi~ j it ~t~ k PP i' a .n... ~.:ea4;unn ~ x~a=~n ~n o_~ :x ~ ~S: t[, ~t~ink~Y~`p.. s ,j ~j __44~~ ( 11 awr~a~R.xu { t-, y ~H j '!!~:^7k ~ ~ 4 it ~~d ~ ~ ` '+ue~~7, N-t ~4.d3.. § ~ ..:,ab.,.~': A tiler<:.a ~.tmo. ...,^v?.:,&Sa ^.~'Y,x>+n, y ~t~.~F,~. '.i.~j~b Ad~ ~~j a\.y S A'if.~' ~ F T® ~ t,K.s S ..tri..x ~ ~ ~..,c,•.:'..,,.,,....¢a.aY.a-d'S:6+M36sN S 1 • ~`4 i'~ .a 'g'nrrn'ti~t.s,rY'.~ ~ Gs.:~~,.a vri .,,.:.,=;a,.v':..- n~xav.4•~. ~,...s~.,~:k,w k Y }q. ~ t~ ~i { r:.. ..;a..., K.e.,yt',J.~:.:.",b',.i.,SAx't,Y%i.m?!F4%.• ,g ;h Y ~ ~ ~~.Y, ~"~'a1'~ .t '.~_2~~-..v~cuas.. y is >u='~;-y"'} 'r ~..s`;, -_.~s~»T.c.~wxw,:f~ .`Y ,F+{.~~:€y3 %~3~ Y°l~+j" „„irtv t 4y fr 'i7: t~,. „v:: mow. ;.zi•.`~>>„•, .;e ..:.az:•aa::,xs' 3• ,Y''•~ 7• i 3Y.. ~ a. ••rt yig"".e:..`,:i••enrc..3 a f ;i. .,=i',,-.~ a;,,,w:xemx gz~.a~v':ab St '«;,~.`+~~L?~a~y. '~S{~S,,k. ~'4 • Oa.i,,,LL...t mv.R3xaroae.v',8 2 " x3..a :ua ~ ~ e_,.:..::v , n., a.a:: =:i '„r:a,,,,z~a.,v^•~r: ws:.q `:~'i , ~k; ~ri.l''•. 3=i °~l "$.te.•., a! J ~ N~s.s.,~,.a"..~ ,;.~y:- ";vix:c.a„<.y.. ~ s•S~->~S~=,a~3 S_.~ ~2,s.~R:,1~i wsasb S~. _.,,v~,;. ~r',,+:..n.,csa-:.~:raxr-o-ms':..~,.,: ~su~a `t'••~ ~I. •~r%'''~ g ':4 a,1~ ~ ~ ~aat-dx4J.ta.., u ~ ~ w., sr: ,xs; e;,se.>..,,:,>,:se~hT~xs,;.a;.'a».• ; I ~•r~(~ s~. ~Yra• ~ . ~ ? r~ xaa ~ iata a .,«;:a ,.s•.. '~.y,=: 1 S v*. .s.ew .:u.~F.: ~ z, Y`eep~'e' $ ~ Y4t{'~,Y.i y{, . u.,, , a. ~ '~.,,,:..b.a.aiia.sa...nu.,.~. Yw...;,.x..•.,..;.~,..,........~- ~r..3n y.. 's i~x,rs~.•s:m.3:u.~w.ra>wv.,ssruvan rb.a~.y~ rx ~ a ,,.x' E Y+1xu mos.:..., sar„.aat s f _i4 , . ,.w=°Eiasw+:cr^"' rc?un,.aen r°~-~~~w,a'3;;n*e~,~',.a } w,wlsac,. n.mmnmw.a,-.x~ • ' Y ~ a yx ~ ~<..~w^;s',. `.'i, -.c:c,~.~.,~i"`~:°~t h' ~ i~44~~?R,s~ mraeia,x,.q..~a:~: _ ~d 'if~&sk.:.,."";Ri.>`.Tt ;s(d:;: xr ,::ry.-,x,r,®r;. z,,..me+=rt~S `:e~~r ^~=a {.}f•b~.F'i~'~y!. v t• .tz, j, V~ „r,• `.c?:')'S. °'l k'la~aa~lse.: ~.~3i -b«'`,.cyriy wa+.av...vv.o~y~ ,.Ay'~'- ~>s'P.a~~ ~,r....•i°a' .5 , Saa. .e. a~ s yr: • e.~ .:i: itf.: i' ~:ii ',b? t •r ~ rss,as~se.-i. rsR«s..a~.~roo.>.«.aa~-c xs ' :F ~r,.' 3~.. ;a:"'F'; 4, 8 ~ ,::,r a.r`l... .~a",s.r~`iw p„ ~8~ie; :~~5;i "ny.?§~~ :'Ali A.usF,.r4i• ;:sne,.mwe,sk,a„•a...wRa-x,.tixe...,r ..4~{: t, m~ ,~~7i..'~r.. ''e 'b:. l y.~ .JA•.ua~L~x~arl ~:Y .,Y 4~~~ ..•'.~~.~s~ f'~>~ , .m 6, f .I ~ +c~' s6: rr~~, .x.;. + r~ i wna.a.•ar:a+ i'-0H~','~•,'{~ 9 ' 4~ u'; w' , ~ x nr ...,..,..,ypr!'~g ~ : Tom' . i sue, 3^Tf:W;. `i<CdV~flM .k4j 1 ~ ' 5+ ..R ivid,„+xn'sriv::t` ~ ~ kaX'f ~ ~ + 5 w "S' .Yi rn w:r: s,< "•v,_' L gam. 1ytg t; • F.. ~.,,,,g,:x r x~+}s~o_u:>>rn.:.fi.:'s.`• ~'~e~r ~',a~v' '~i•~.KU* sssx, G,: . z.: s'`~, . x~~ :ta i ~ • .~3r~.:c, ...x~::rv.,3c&t.e~.x.R~'..,,x..n,:.< xt pw asco .w<v.:~. v.-..e.-w x» t . i ~a~,.~:;g. ' :i.,~ .i S F }a4 „^ka 4§L~ra.s;,> . wwk'' f.c~.a+ as A"w asp evr z 'y,~,''_<. .k~A : -k p aw,~=. ~3~. x~ ~ j ~~Y-=-k t!•':n~=.,E3ixeabe.E,.:,a,. a..~~a..s„S~-# ~a~:v V~r s ~'V~•~:~~; 4'* , d~~t"'r ,R E~~ t ~ $ ~~.~'f 1$~i! :,,w:ui~.,.d,lty fa wt:Fs~ xxT:,3;A~ ~s'~.f~H 4.usv ~ vo, oar -i..~. fq:.+:Z h e "fr '%~:.'Z.r n +i,:~.:3`r'*;~ ~ F ~ .9 ~ ;t, ~ xss.,r:;,•rhstl.3a}.t~vs~rair::u?.a...:+.cf. th~ A rx~sA "•'z:'.,7> [ ~ ,r!,~ .y*Rr+ tli r.t<. _l.n ;,..t;; y,:%~e.''• ~Y.r. , • ~ `3 JT~ S.k3.$$.YE A.# LYe.4R.R^'at.:,'. • 'b. ale rRLxk•!I~&'i~ ~ 9 4~~'... ' Y.,~.;• ..C f ? 4 .4s ~ ~ S#,LLt 3,S.4'+~s.,~b51.,~,S~Sa • <~y, ~eCa' /."sy l4 J.B64, - ~ W 'CBi,;4.' '~1. .d L t3.i. ~1 R:¢f{a:.~rc..ns;,i te.s>.~~F x'x:M<a}. ,fx-i E, y e'-`':?«,•; .,./4 _ •5,'!tk, ;Y< ''~A i 3 y$ 5 a'~ :t~p,l ~::~3.~'>"d=,` ~i~.><, a v,..ak, F#ar .~.•,>A,:s sv n k ~ " S }.Y, 4 .1 R~7 7 E$ kar-..,<,,•o„c,FS i3r",., Ys3av':~zm S ~,r l3E ~ 1~ft ~ it ' r iq@ L ~ < t; r ~1 k iwwPb o-.'K ' 1.ro,1&++"•e a•+ ~ N ~ r S ~7 b: ,3, ~ i,y{$. ) yt"'r Y 3~I ~^a ~a'..,`n .ms's bah t t~tJ p:-L r .F,, w ~ ; )71 L~<aii '$tq ,q, •S'n ~3, PDaT i i ~ ~t~`...Z Nile .2R>i ix .f w r' i ~ .Gl+ ~S , ,y. y '"s~x. .`Y,I~K, oga ~~~ifS ~.i ~ v -3'k~ ~ ~ ~•n•~ t. .lea i[` ¢~~$::#,F. ~.kr g1 %.s s~4 qg1 ' Wr4>ty° i4t•g{ ''3l , as•"irp@.:a • .~~xi•~~ _''o `.a`,<~ ~ is 1y. -,I ~Si Si:.3t -1 ~i ' s Syr t ~ F fr~ ~ t/t~y 3 n 'x5 > sa ~frY~c~aKts L k ~ ` ~ ' Ji x x ~mi ~ .cC.i 5 ~ ~ a ,F..-/_b q AeF'S..F:' ihF+{.F~?r A t. F ~N' h ~ I f J ~ ~ , a daN,$ 3 > 6a f ~ ~ d ~ / YY bt 7 f / j ~ ~ ~ ba M ,fat { K,+ ! ~.p, ' k t ~ € ^t try. ' ~ ~ 3„ ~ a pr,~ ~ ' f k.i a C e~~~F. a g% yy~ ye [}y," h ~ f ~~a' t m w#'Sr .s ; ~,as -L ~ ff~:a (a ' .Y ~a.,~ i~ { ~ ~ - y rv.d .ror r y" r,3.. if",'. ~ ox M / "Y'~YR3'.,¢ V F.`kl E '.!"R xeFe _ yE~~ l ~ f ,'2'C'q. x C 5 S R,? zsA .4 { F vc I g 3 { f ' ( x`a~ aY bYsY9 ^P T ;ci„'Ei .T7 M ar S.%~,h s".' 10, "j~~ r t~ eX., i ~ p . Aw+ca~., .avm a,>.6\..a?•-saLsb>-..r, y.~ f l 1A~~$ S~~~'b-F'z~,,y bX` L ~ .t a h i}Y il~ S3ng6T++{.K..?,x^ aamri@'Xa~~.! $Fh`~? f ~ V%aT ~`~'4~<: , ~ ~wa.,aKr bai t y ry S I .aw , ~ ~ xe J ~ 1 J b .:S ~ . ! ' ~ ks,.:....m..3ix`~a,«,..~~'.Y ~y„ 4 a~ z.as.~- ~ aSS...~~..~..ti.~._ t to ~ a §'Y„ , ~ cr ~ { «n..,a.a....x wa¢%a°A, ^""'4'~"~79?i ~31e6s+a+wC r : ~3 ..-w :x't ! ~ ~„a s. a. Yet ~ ~ M a ~a~~~s'''' y ~ ~ f leaf i~~i ~\~Y~ aS~ ~ f ~~~a Lqgy ~ a ® ®e . • - ~i AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~G~E CpG ~L~ THURSDAY, MARCH 2I, 2002 ~n ~ ~ 7:00 P.M. 'c<ORIDP BAKUL PATEL, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -1 dulacre) Zoning District to the RM-S (Residential, Multiple-Family - S du/acre) Zoning District for the following described property: V Location: SW Corner of the intersection of Kings Highway and Research Center Road. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners March 8, 2002. Legal notice was published in The News on March 6, 2002 and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on March Il, 2002. File No. RZ-02-003 cc >~G".C G.O . ,r~ G a 0 ARD OF COUNTY ,ti L., C O MM U N TY COMMISSIONERS ~ - DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~ORIOP March 8, 2002 In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that Bakul Patel has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District. Location: SW Corner of the intersection of Kings Highway and Research Center Road. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The first public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00. P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on Thursday, March 21, 2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 l~rginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. ff a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of .any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to adate-certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (561) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (561) 462-1428. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. Please call 561/462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number RZ-02-003. Sincerely, - ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Stefa tthes Chairman JOHN D. DRUHN, District No. 1 DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 PAULA A. LEWIS. District No. 3 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 CLIFF DARNES, District No. 5 County Adminisrroror - Douglos M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (561) 462-1590 Planning: (561) 462-2822 GIS/Technical Services: (561) 462-1553 Economic Development: (561) 462-1550 Fox: (561) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (561) 462-1529 Fax: (561) 462-2132 N ~ O ~ - C M M ~ N OHO VN'M-. .N. M -M C ~ ~ ~ O N ~ oo ~n v~ ~n M oNO ~ ~ O ~ ~Q`a' oo oNO oNO - - ~ - rl N~ M' M M ' M M M M M M~ I i ~ ~ iii ~ ~ it r ~ . i ! .~i~aiai,-.a~~al~~~,~;.~ aja;a', ~v~ ww~wwwwww~wwjw~~ 1 I l 1~ I{ ~ j ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ 41 I j I lj ~ ~ cd W ~ ti~ ~ tit, - ~ ~ ~r N~.G~-~;N Nj.N ~j~ a, a -~aaaaa,a,j o c~ o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 V_ w H~w >_3 wow w w w w' - ~ - , -j-- , i, ~ ~ x~.~ b vo~~Gq~~O oa "CJ N M O O O n N O O N N M N sN' N - -:H ~ ~ a~ a ~ o ~ - . ~ O M' ~ 4., ~ U ~ C .O O i~ ~o z a~ as v A: a ~I' ~ N a o G ~ ~ ~ biD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O z ti~~ ~ c~ a ~ a{ ~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ i a w ~ c F; A' ~ ~c ~ a ~ a~: a~ o ~U. 0 a~ ~ E-' ti a~ o ~ ~ ~ a a ~ Z d Q~~~ w x x z~~ - 0 CY V - W O ~ n ~D M M O h o0 O~ O- O O C O O O O O O O O L O O O 0 O O O O O ~ ..r O~ O O O O O O O O O cccO~cOOOOo i.~ r~i ~f N O M N O O O C O N O ~ hit M vO'~ N N N N h~~ ~N+ t} Y~1 CV N N N N N N A/-~ H N N N N N N N N N N N . ~ - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ FLANNING.ANU . ~ zoNwc co,~IMtssroN lUfA1C HEARING AGENOA i Morch 71.4007 - ~ i TO WHOM I~ MAY - - - - CpNCERN - ~ NOT1C! b herby alwn M ~ - accordance wnh SeNlen - 11.00.07 0l the SI. luHe Cwmr. lend OewbpTenr Code and IM pev6loM d die 4r. lode Ce,rrMT Can- Rrehengw non. the IoRaw• tn• appfleoMe how regwrted that 11N 11, lvcN Co~n~yy flenntn• and 2an• N+• Coewelalon comldN N,dr htlowtn0 re0~~ 1, •okul FaleL fOr a Chetge M 2ontnQ han the ` M•1 NplwNlrel, Aalden- rid - f du/om0 2MUq INcutd ro th. RM-1 rR•d- aWwtal, MufaaN•ralnuy- e d%th)) leeln• OkMM for IM felleerirp dec<rtbed PrePNM t0T3 1, • ANO 1 Op ' lANO COM?ANr~1 IU/DNI/ION the kdenalhn d K1M~ydR • C M~1oed~ RNeereh Ch.MR o. velb. M e h 2eNp tole IM • A0.'J Uyrtadtwel - 1 a/I.eanq !accent atetrkf b IAe R/ ( /ed•. . tleq lonirll olrrld fa the feliewln• detilrl~r~ Proiht r -4 - ~ ° Y w~: ! a - ~ ~ ,'dGGO 1yyl1 ~ROF frYV ~ - Iv r 1 t ION f ~ t , RANG! 01 !AS?, •LN N 1,7? I~T,1MlNC1 ! 3~ . • FEEL' TMlNCL S li7 r!!T, TN•NG! W »0 i/!T TO 1'01 - llfl R6 ` ` ; O! AND ORAINA CANAl1 10.1e Aq ~ lecaNenr I.0 N. NNder . caws Raea . . ~ fU1tK HEARINGS rAI M held M CaewNeltee Qlenl- - - - ~ ~ . - ~ - ber1, Reyer ?OIeeR AteMe, 2700 VlraLga Avwlw, feM • f wce, fTeelde oe Manh 11, 700?. be0wirq et 7.00 ~M er o roan thNe. aflr er, pigRlle. PURSUANT TO Seetlon ?16A10S. Merida ibtuay d e pecan deeideR ro a'pwl eny deWbe erode Mahood. a•eroi. a ceeMdiieten .dM cMp.cl ro . - - orry ewNM CeMldered era ~ . ' - nueltn• K hearlnp, M MAtI need a reead el Mu pe• oeedu,~, end dwt, fat eeeA Wrpe1M. M wey need b - encwe rho! a vefbeNw regrd d the proeNdhgs Ir wade, which reeerd - incWdw the ertllewny eed ~ - eNdenu upon WNCh the op'.et h b be batik. fIANNtNG AN0 ZONING COMMISSION - ~ ST, IUCtE COUNTY, - aaieA /S/ Shen MaeAn, CFW>fMAN hWteh, Mereh b a t ' ~Nti' ,rr r .h - 9. 'r P " ,t~+ PLANNING AND Z O NINE OMMI " I C SS ON RE VIEW: 21 3 /02 ~ _ / \~G~E COGS ,1 ti" File Numbcr RZ-02-004 ~ cf~ 1.". ME>MORANL~UM . F r,: P 0 R10 DEPARTMENT OF 'CON 1 TNITY D VE .111- (J , E LOPMENT ~ ; TO: Planning and Zoning Commission j FROM: Planning Manager DATE: March 14, 2002 SUBJECT. A lication of Charles ehe pp V , for a Chan e m Zonm " from the AG-S A cultural - g g ( 1 du/5 acr . ~ es Zonm Distnct to the RF eh i g (R , g ous Facility) Zoning Distract. LOCATION: 180 N. Header Canal Road`(east side of North Header Ganal Road, a ro im x atel 2 r ee pp y 73 f t north of the intersection of Header Canal Road and Orange Avenue Extension) ~I EXISTING ZONING: AG-5 (Agricultural ^ 1 du/5 acres) P ROPOSED ZONI NG. RF eli i (R ous Facilit g Y) i FUTURE LAND USE: AG=S (Agricultural'S) PARCEL SIZE: .84 acres PROPOSED USE: The purpose of the,. requested change in zoning is to allow the continuan ce and ex n ' a szon of the Freew' p ill Mission Church. I'~ PERMITTED USES: Section 3.01.03(Y), RF (Religious Facility identifies the designated uses which are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or ermi tted throu h the ondit' n`I p g c to a use process in the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District. Any use designated as a Conditional Use is re aired to under o further review and a royal. An use q g PP . Y not identified in the zonin district re ulations i s c nsider o edtobea g g rohibited use in that district se ' e Attachment AA P, SURROUNDING ZONING: AG-5 A 'cultural - 1 du/5 r ( gn ac es) zoning district surrounds the etitioned roe to th north oath e P e , s , ast and west. P P rtY SURROUNDING LAND USES: The properties .located to the north, south; east and west are designated with am AG-S (Agricultural - 5) future land use designation. 1~f' March 14, 2002 Petition: Charles Velie Page 2 File RZ-02-004 FIREIEMS PROTECTION: Station # 11, is located approximately 1 1/2 miles to the south. UTILITY SERVICE: On site wells will provide water service. On site sewer will be provided through a septic tank. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY " ADEQUACY: The existingright-of--way for North Header Canal Road is 53.5 feet. SCHEDULED , IMPROVEMENTS: None TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH 1[N SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural -1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to. the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District. The subject property currently contains a church (Freewill Mission Church) and a residential structure. The stated purpose of this change in zoning is to allow for the expansion of an existing church. The property is an existing nonconforming use (religious facility) and contains two nonconforming structures (single-family residence with a 16' 9" encroachment into the 20 foot side setback and the church with a 1'3" encroachment into the 20 foot side setback). The existing church facility was built on the subject property in 1947, and therefore considered a nonconforming grandfathered use. The applicant has indicated that they desire to enlarge the existing religious facility. According to Section 10.00.02(C) of the St. Lucie County band Development Code nonconforming uses cannot be expanded. In order for the applicant to - - complete the renovations to the existing facility, a rezoning to either RF (Religious Facility) or I (Institutional) is required to be approved. The subject property is located on the east side of North Header Canal Road, approximately 732 feet north of the intersection of North Header Canal Road and Orange Avenue. The proposed lot is 36,355 square feet in size. As such, it is Staff s opinion that the site is too small to be designated with I (Institutional) zoning. The RF (Religious Facility) zoning designation is more appropriate to this site. As such, the Religious Facility zoning district will permit the continuance of the existing church as - M~~ ~ Kj t ~t ~(l .F ~F~ March 14, 2002 Petition: Charles Velie; 4 Page 3 File RZ-02-004` . ~a. well as the single-family;~residential structure and pillow for the existing ruia(charactcrto remain in this area. The approval of this zoning desi~na~ion would bring the~iumconfonning use'into compliance with. the zoning code. t As`'previously mentioned, the~Religious Facility zoning districthas been. determined to more compatible"and consistent with the surrounding rieighburhood quality and character. The Religious Facility zoning district will allow the existing"church and residential unit to remain as a conforming use: 2. Whether the proposed amendmentis consistenEwith all elements of the St. Lucie County Compre~?ensive Plan; Table 1.6 of the Future Land Use Element, Data and °Analysi ,indicates those zoning classifications allowed under the AG-5 (Agricultural - 55) Future Land Use Designation: According to` Phis table, the:I (Institutional) and RF (Religious Facility)`Zonirig Districts aze considered to be acceptable within the areas designated witl~a Future Laud Use Classification of AG-S (Agriculturah= 5). Based upon the:. surrounding uses and rural,. character of'ahe area, in conjunction, with the small size of the proposed lot (,84 acres), many of the permitted and conditional uses allowed within the institutional zoning district aze inconsistent and would negatively ;impact the surrounding area: Therefore, the I (Institutional) zoning district is considered to be not consistent with the Comprehensive Flan. Amore appropriate zoning designation would be RF (Religious Facility). This zoning district is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Flan and would provide a more consistent development pattern in he azea: 3. Whether `and the extent to which .the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existimg and proposed land uses; The ro osed zonin district is considered tote inconsistent with existin and ro osed future land I'~ p p g g p p usedesignations in the area: The surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are all II being utilized as citrus groves. Overall, the RF (Religious Facility) zoning district, if approved, would eliminate the nonconforming status of the existing religious facility and still be consistent with the !I rural chazacter of the azea. The'uses permitted within the RF (Religious Facility) zoning district aze consistent within the area. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have changed so as xo require an amendment. In 1947, the Freewill Mission Church was constructed. In 1989, the County designated the subject property with a Future Land Use Designation of AG-5 (Agricultural -`5) and a zoning classification of AG-S (Agricultural -1 du/5 acres). Under the permitted uses found in the AG-5 Zoning Classification, a religious .facility is not'listed and therefore not permitted. This results in a grandfathered nonconforming use status for the church: As previously mentioned, the St. Lucie County Land:Development Code does not allow expansions to existing nonconforming uses. The applicant has indicated a desire to expand the existing church, During discussions with the applicant; Staff .recommended- that the property be rezoned to an appropriate zoning district. Staff is recommending that the property be rezoned to the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District. a.: t. ~ 'a 1 March 14, 2002. Petition: Charles Velie , Page 4. File RZ-02-004 ~ Y 5. ~ Whether and the extent to which the proposed au~endntent would result in demands on public ~ ~ ~ facilities, `and whether~or to the cxtrnt to .which the t~roposed amendment-would exceed the capacity of such' public facilities, including~but not Limited to transportationfaeilities, sewage facilities; ,water` supply j parks, drainage, schools, solid . waste,, mass `irausit and emergency medical facilities; The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create~;significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Since 1947, the subject property has been utilized as a church. At the, time that the project was constructed,- zoning. and land ~use~. were -not in effect. Upon the' County ` undergoing the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning efforts in 1989, the subject property's use became nonconforming. The granting of a rezoning for fhe subject property will eliminate the nonconforming use status. ' 6. Whether and he extent to which the proposed amendment would result insignificant adverse impacts on the natural'environment The proposed amendment is nor anticipated to create adverse impacts on, he natural environment The existing use of the property is a 1,080 square foot.single-family residential structure and a 2,628 square foot church. The applicandproperty owner will be required to comply with all federal,. state, and local environmental regulations as pelt of any submitted development,plans for modifications'to ` th `si e te. i 7 he er n W t d the ex n to hi h h a tot w e the o se a en met u u n r I and o d d n wo 1 res It m a der r m o d P P. y logical development pattern speciifically identifying any'negative affects of such patterns; An orderly and logical development pattern will occur with this change in zoning. The subject property is currently utilized as a church, which is a nonconforming use within the AG-5 (Agricultural. _ . -:1 du/S acres) Zoning District. 'I'he rezoning of the property to the RF (Rehgtous Facility) distiYCt will. alleviate any_nonconformingnse issue. 8. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in ` harmon `.with` the ur ose and intent of this Code• ` ~t y P P The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public -interest and is in harmony-with the ~ purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.. The Land Development Code provides provisions for the elimination of nonconforming uses and structures. The rezoning of this property will eliminate the nonconforming use status. COMMENTS The petitioner,. Charles Velie, has requested this change in zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural -1 du/Sacres) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District in order to continue'and expand a nonconforming religious facility on a .84 acre parcel of land located at 180 N. Header Canal Road (east side of Header Canal ~M: March 14, 2002 Petition: Charles Velie Page 5 File RZ-02-004 Road, approximately 732 feet north of the intersection of Header Canal Road and Orange Avenue Extension). The indicated purpose of this change in zoning is to allow for expansion of an existing nonconforming use and structure. The subject property is in an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being compatible with the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District. \ A review of the uses permitted as use-by-right and conditional uses within the institutional zoning district indicates that this designation is appropriate due to the size of the subject parcel. The uses permitted asuse-by- right and conditional use permit are more in keeping with the existing religious use. The single-family residential structure is permitted as an accessory use to the primary religious facility. Attached is a copy of Section 3.01.03(Y) - RF (Religious Facilities) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, which delineates the permitted, accessory and conditional uses allowed in the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District. If the change in zoning request is approved, the applicant, by right, would be allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses section. Any use under the Accessory Uses section would be allowed only if one or more of the permitted uses exists on the subject property. Any use under the Conditional Uses section could only be allowed if it first receives approval through the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the Standazds Of Review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Boazd of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, which is more in keeping with the surrounding azeas, eliminates the nonconforming use issue and would not impact future expansion of the church. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. ~s cc: Chazles Velie File H:\wp\rewning\VeGetfrpt.wpd ~ ~p ~ ~ { - ~ f r~ , t ~,4d - ~ rr Suggested,motion to recommend approval/denial ofrths requested change' in zoning.; ~ ~ v 1 ~ ~ MOTION TO APPROVE: ~ ' AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, i INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN ~ ' SECTION 11:06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE -THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT>THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT AFPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF CHARLES VELIE, FOR A CHANGE IN, ZONING FROlVi THE AG-5 (AGRICULTURAL = 1 DU/5 .<ACRES) ZONING DISTRICT TO THF~ RF (RELIGIOUS FACILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE.:... C ERE S N A IT A O WHY - PLE SE BE SPECIFIC [ _ ~ MOTION TO DENY: ~i AFT R O S E G E C N ID RIN THE TE TIMONY P S D G P LIC HE G S RE ENTED URIN THE UB AKIN , i 'I~ INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE. THAT THE PLANNIlVGAND ZONING COMIVIISSIONRECO MMENDTHATTHE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. DENY THE APPLICATION.. OF ~ CHARLES VELIE, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-S (AGRICULTURAL - 1 DU/5 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RF (RELIGIOUS FACILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE..... Ii [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE;BE SPECIFIC]. i j_, Se ction 3 .01.03 - z n' o in District Use Re ul 9 anon s ~ ~ 9 , ( $ - I, C. AG-5 AGRICULTURAL - 5 i 1. Purpose _ , - . The purpose of this district is to' provide and protect an environment suitable for .productive c ommercial a ric It u ur e to e , th 9 g er with such other uses as ma be necessa to and com' atible` ' y with _ rY P : . roductive a ncultural surr P 9 _ oundm s. Residenfial g densities are restricted to a maximum of ,one dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres. The number in "O" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01~.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use- not I defined under the SIC code bt.it may be further defined in Section:2.00.00'of thiscode. 2. Permitted Uses a: ,Agricultural production -crops ~oi~ b; Agricultural production -:livestock & animal specialties roe> c. Agricultural services roi> d. Family day care homes. t~s;' li e. Family residential homes provided that such. homes shall not be located within a radius of on e thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or Departmenf of Health and Rehabilitative Services HRS notif ( ) ies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by HRS,'r9ss> ~i f. Fishing, hunting & trapping toss g: Forestry roes - ~ h Kennels. (orsz~ ~ r' " i•- Research Facilities, Noncommercial'~e»~ j. Riding stables. ~ssst k. Single-family detached dwellings. tss9~ j. Telecommunication towers - ubject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 t999~ 3. LotSize Requirements .Lot size re ui reme nt s sh all be i q n ac Gordan ce wit h Secf ion 7.04 .00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensl 0 al r n e uir em ents shall b ' q e to actor dance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off- . str eet Parking and Loadin Re uirem 9 q ents . Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00_ 6. Lan dsca ' t n Re ' Uf i ements P 9 q Landscaping Requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00 7. Conditional Uses a Agricultural labor housing. tss9i b. Aircraft stora e and a ui merit mainte 9 Hance a q P sei t t Il Adopted August 1, 1990 98 Revised Throu 08/01/00 i i k h u~ t . . , h #h' t.. i , . 4+. r. . ~ 'z'- r~ v Section 3.01.03 ,,~c,,. Zoning Distract Use Regulat,ons 1. yl. ( c'' I ` t, r c, Airports and flying, landing, and take-off fields. tase,i .~z ~A . ' d ;Fami resi de ti n al homes located within ' Y a radius of one thousand (1,000),feet of another such , ~f f amity residential home. tsss~ e.: Farm products warehousing and storage. ~azzuanz~ ~ , . , f: Gas i of ne se rvice stations. tssa,~ a`;. g, Industrial wastewaterdis 'i h_ Manufacturing ~ (1) .Agricultural chemicals tze» ' (2) Food & kindred roducts zo c P ~ (3) Lumber & wood products, exce t furniture- za P c~ i:. ' Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels t,a> ~ . j. Retail trade: ` 'I 1 O Farm equi ment and related accessories. 9se P t ~ (2) Apparel & accessory stores,~ss> k. ' Sewage disposal subject to the requirements of Section 7,10.13 sss t ~ I. Camps s oitin and recreational o' ~i P _,9 asz m. :Off-Road Vehicle P a ks r ,.except go-cart raceway operation or rentals ~sss>, subject to the' -`re quirements of Section 7:1 0.21 tessi , , r n. Outdoor hooting ranges, p{~oviding site plan,approYal is obtained according to the provisions of Sections 1'1.02.07 through 11.02,09 and Section 7.10.19 of this Code: ~ ~ <; ~'I 8. Accessory Uses;... , Accessory uses are subjectta the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the.following: a. Mobile fiomes sub ect to the r uire men is J of Sectio n 7.10. eq 05. b. Retail trade and wholesale trade -subordinate to;the primary authorized use or activity. c. Guest house subject o the re uirements of Section 7.10.04. s~ 4 t ~ i ~ , ICI( i i Adopted August 1, 1990 99 Revised Through 08/01/00 I I I - ~ s Section 3.0.1.03 ~ ~`~N' Zonin District Use Re uiations ' r"~~; g g a ; < ti:~ t` Y. RF RELIGIOUS FACILITI ES Y,{:k ~n S- 1. _ Purpose ,1. The purpose of this District is to provide and protect an environment suitable: for the establishment and operation of churches, synagogues, temples, and similar uses. The number in"O" following each t identified use corresponds to ,the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(8). The number 999 applies to a use.. not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2:00.00 of this-code. 2. Permitted U ses a. Churches, synagogues, temples, grid similar uses. esssi 3. Lot Size Requirements i Lot size re uirements shall b ~n e i accor q dance. with Section 7.04.00.. 4. Dimensional Regulations ' Di men ' signal r e uir eme is sh n all b ` e in acc ~r o da q nce with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements ' Ili ~ Off-streetparking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06:00. - ~ ~ 6. Landscaping Requirements.. L andsca i p ng requirements are, subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a. Day care facilities, associated and operated by the principal religious use located on that prq a .This would include the o erati P ?~Y p on of a day care facility during the normal business week, as licensed by the State of Florida,- as-well as during any religious function ot• assoc' sated activity..: c9s91 b. Educational services, associated'with and operated by the principal religious use located on that property. This would include the o' eration of an educat' p tonal facility providing general I academic and/or special training from grades K to 12, and asiicensed by the State of Florida. (999) c. Telecommunication towers =subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 t9~r I' 8. Accessory Uses II Accessory rases are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Parking lots & parking areas, together with. related. circulation elements. 6. Enclosed storage structures. c. Playgrounds and athletic fields (no artificial lights) provided that no activity area shall be permitted within twenty-five (25) feet of the erimeter of the roe rty P P P Adopted August 1, 1990 134. Revised Through 08/01/00 - ~ r ~ } Section 3'01.03 , Zoning District Use Regulations ' r d. Private, water and sewage _utility services' rovided that. the are for the, sole use of P Y _ the particular private development, are-not intended to be a sub-regional system, and do not F,~ involve industrial wasfewate~ as defned. e. Single family dwelling (detached or as art of the pr'inci al structure . P P ) h 'I ; {1) Private swimming pool accessory to the single; family dwelling provided that the swimming pools shall be walled or fenced to prevent uncontrolled access.. to such swimming pool from the street or``from ad~acent J ..properties. A (2) Non-commercial garages accessory to the single family: dwelling. i I. i t III' II, I~' !I Adopted August 1, 1990 135 Revised Through 08/01/00 1 ~ s ~ V N VVVVO m n~•N ~ ~ O a~~" ~ I ~ a n 4 U ~ N va a ~ `z~ 4 ~ ~ tea W A N ~,a or y!, ~ ~S L£ aH ~nN` a ~ ' ~ a ~ 3 saJ~pa S ~ ~acr+`s0" ~s r. ~ ao 5 Q ~w p • ~ ~ ~3 W P t 0E~'p, W P p ~ a e J C a or r ~ 9 3N awar is ~ E3 P f aq Otl i e w 4 .Q i ilr ~ L q YiI~ L a A W W [6 n Ia n1 S as rea i 'br c s } a ~ F- rod ar]~n Z O ~ roa aiwsr]oae aroa naxs p oroa 3w~ 3oara U ~ ra+ ea i ~ = aroa ~rnr] a3ar3a ~ - ~ w W Z W , i Oa ]NOlOa 1r30 w s ~ ~ 5 Orotl 033N5 Oroa a01~ar] ~ Z' Q~.. Kq 71NR Z +J O U - - - ~ ~ ~ O ~ .-I ` W W g o< S K l S S£ 1 S 9i 1 l.1Nf100 ~380H033~10 o, i ss#'i ii A Petition of Charles~Velie, fora change in zoning from `.the AG--S (Agricultural, 1 du~5 acres) Zoning District to he I (Institutional) Zoning District 0 0 Z o_ \ vi c° 0 vU 0 oo d ~ ~ ~ ~ o o~ o a J ~ U N ~ ` ~ ~ d > ~ O O (j N: Z N:S.L.R.D.D. Canal No.: ,63 Drange Avenue RZ 02-004 This atern indicates p Map prepared February. l8, 2002 subject parcel ~ ~ . Wlie sary alfert has bean maaa a VoNae ma mon anal ane acaRaa Neirtaeon-Pasble.ik MMleneeE for use ae • kgaey b+Wq Ooarriarl Charles Vet e .Land Use 0 z AG-5 o o 00 Q- a o~ o \ o' o~ v ~ N `z , o ~L l i ' ) i I ICI ~ _ ~ 1 ~ NSa.R.D.D. Canal No. 63 Orange Avenue A~ 5 ~ - _ RZ 02=004 - s~-~.,~t~ ~~rz ~ cis: This atern indicates p Map prepared February 18,.2002 m. peen w n.. h~.a ~pi.a ae~.ip.~.~a nuaae. a+,. subject parcel N Martetfoiipoea6b,th-nd HerdeA br uee ualepe~ybtWp tloc nbit - i Zonin Charles Velie 9 0 0 AG-5 ~o 0 ~ U ~ d O 0 ~ 'D ~ O C ~ ~ J U N ~ N ~ Z ~ o 'D a ~ 2 N.S.L.R.D.D. Canol No. 63 Orange Avenue AG-5 RZ 02-004 ~r{~Z This patern indicates Map prepared February 18, 2002 subject parcel ,~~~~o~~~.~~e<«~~~ N vmie e~y engine, Been made a novae me moat ourere erW ecwrate Harmetlon pmai)19, t b nd McMea br uee ae a bpely ana~7 ao~,merk Charles Vel ie ~ ,~f.µ~w+~,ir+r~NYh.~+•w,v,rnv.h..~n~ww•.w.., .lM~1wY%wvw ~ ~ nv,K«~rjv.•Nf/.,.v...Aro+•t W7 y,yt, ~~.ry+.v ,'r!tq:.a!~4 ~ ~1 M ~ ~ w. A•.; M ~.N':v. •.~i'a.'~!N C• "1S`t l+rf;.,SGi af.'it i1~~ r` ~ s ~ ~.~irhh.ea..7i.:v:~ wrr.w, ~ w..w,M•v.rF. r. ? #~J~ '.~Viab~J7iwi.~ais~• y~ h u auk 1',. W1JL~ ~ ' -~'uMt~?Mtwr~!!MNM L '+t.: 7~i't.M: °~`vw~ a tWt'[i'.~:V ~ } iC K..., t~ 71~Y.4 t ~ aMA 4Lk i ~ ~ ~ T'om' i ire ~s rj~~ :ir ,n' ~ ` _ t _ , f t ~4 F yam; V 2. F ~ ~ ~b I" yy i 1 ~ K•. ~ t _ ~ ~ y fR ,n •t a ti a ~ r r ..r _ n 9 ewe . _K ~ w.~ _ . e. ~ ~ _ r ~ F . i _ ,,c . .~Y.= j ~4~, ;F '~i~ • . ~ i a5y ;~'i,Ai III ~ ~•a I ~i RZ 02-004 ~ G(Sm This patern indicates Map prepared February 18, 2002 i subject parcel N . i : K~ ror ~ ~ a ~y w,~o aoamaa. ,`r CU,.h P i i k d i AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ ~1G~E CpG THURSDAY MARCH 2l 2002 I I 7:00 P.M. ~ R,~Q ~!i CHARLES D. VELIE, has petctioned St. Lucie County for a_Change in Zoning from the AG- S (Agricultural,- 1 dulSacres) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: I80 N. Header. Canal Road. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded - If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at .such meeting o>• hearing,. he will need a° record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure. that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based Upon the requestof any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying., during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to`the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testi in Burin a hearin u on re est. ~ fy g g _g p qu Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered ~I Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners I~'f March 8, 2002. .Legal. notice was published in The News on March 6, 2002 and The Tribune, ~ newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on March 11, 2002. C _ '~f File No. RZ-02-004 ~ , - _ _ 3 JL~~ ~~G QOARD OF COUNTY. ~ I~ y COMMUNITY- ~ ~~I,, i~'" ~ MMISSIONERS DEVELOPMENT CO DLRECTOR > ~ORI~Q` March 8, 2Q02 In accordance. with the St. Lucie County Land Development'Code, you are hereby advised that Charles D. Velie has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 .(Agricultural - 1 du/Sacres) Zoning District to the RF (1Zeligious Facilities) Zoning' District Location: 180N. Header Canal Road. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The first public hearing on the petition willbe held at .7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on `Thursday, March 2l, 2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Brcilding ` Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to h t i e ed. be earl at tha time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be cons d r Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Divi i n a 1 t 3 t s o teas da s n r o a sch dul he 'n . o e an ed Y P g County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at- a public hearing, or provide written comments for the.record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded.. If a person decides to ~4 , appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission withrespect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a records of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure hat a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon .which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- I examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. >f it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to adate-certain. ~i :'Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (561) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (561) 462-1428. ~ff you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new :owner. Please ca11561/462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number .RZ-02-004: .Sincerely, ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING CODJIlVIISSION Stef atthes, Chairman - ~ , - i JOHN D. [3RUHN; District No. 1 DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 PAULA A. LEW.IS~Disrricr No. 3 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 CLIFF [3ARNES; District No. 5 County Administroroc- Douglos M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue Forr.Pierce, FL 34982-5b52 Administration: (561) 462-1590 Planning: (561.) 462-2822 • GIS/Technicol Services (561) 462-1553 Economic Development: (5610 462-1550 • Fox: (561) 462-1--581 Tourist/Convention: (561) 462-1529 • Fax: (561).462-2132 ~ ~Y N N 00 O ~ O f O O I'n ~ v1 ~ O~ O I N N~Ni~/') M M M N~ ~ i v~ ~ ~n ! ~n ' oo i oo j I ~n ~t I NN o•llrnlrnrn~~r'Oirn~rn~rn ,rn- ii j:r ~cY~ch~~-M M,~l';cYl~i tom' : N M M M M M M,M~MI ~_Myi ~i It I~ ~ ~ i ? aaaaa..a;,-aa'aa v1 wwwww~ww~w~w,w; a~ ~ :-°~b I) v v. ~~:.cl'b~ vE v; al v. ,i ~ ~ If of of o ~ 0 0 0 0~ o) o ~U, ww~w;au..~w w~w w w~ i II I ~ o ¢C~U~U~~U,d oq a`"i a`i cxc ~ ~ a`i ~ ono ~ q ~ y A «f ai d' ~ of y ~oxxzz~~xAo ~ b ~zz~o~~z,~~ ~ ~ ~ N M O ~ ~ O ~ O N N h M N N M N a L", O CeS ~ w ~ w ~ ~ ~ ° ~ Z ~ H U •rr M o Z W ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ N a ~ ~A p. ~ v, o .C ~ ~ .o-~ ~ o v ~ U fz U~~3ti C7U~ A w ~ ~ o o ~ ~ „ ~AA o w; ~ ~ z a~wc~c~~zz~>3 0 U O ot~~nv rn~oooov o'«~ oooo~ooooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ 0 0 O_ _O N O O~ O ~ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N i', ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ A O O O O O O N O N O ~ ,y F~1 M M M M~ N M M M ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N AI-. H N N N N N N N N N N . . . I nAearaNC.AND . . ~ IONWG • . ~ COhuWSStON M/bIIC NEARlNC AGENOA \ ~ i Mmch 71.4009 i0 WNOM Ir rnAY CC1NCfRNc NOTIC! It h•nby plwn M occadona rrllh S•cllon 11.00.0] d rh• St, tuN• Covnlr tend DawbpT•re Cad• and IM pwhrom d M 4r, luc4 Cernry CoT- pr•Mnuw Ilon, rh• roNew. In0 eOOlltoett hor• rR4rnt•d rhW th• S., tak Count'y fknnin• and Ian• Ny Ceminptkn <emlda HrIr1a11whgregyR•4~ 1, •o`ul /e41, for e Ghep• M 2mteryy han IM M•1 wlhrel, Rutd•n• tNl - f du/otn9 ZNlhq - Dhtn•1 re rha RM-6 IRed• 0•nNol. MuMple.Pon+Iy- d du/~ Zaeln• ObN1A br tlq fNle•rlnp deurlbed PNP~M tCtri 1, • AND 1 Of - . RIOGK 1 Or MOOlt - r: r<. . lANO COM?ANP'S _ SU/DfigelON taallee 7W Canw el dr Md•tNtlloe d K C~ lood ed !~•eerell t. CtwN• 0. wa., to e M 2eNn• Ire~n R» uyrloawrel - 1 a~ .w tenrlo olrtlc+ felbale0 b•trlberl vrov~hl ; r e!G AT 7w CCIR Or NW ra or 1w ra or Nw towhlenlr sovTK RAMC! 0• LAST. RUN N . 1J9 r!!T. TMlNCE t 770 iEEi,' THlNC! S 17Z , f!!T, iHRNG! W 770 _ . fllr TO ra - tEfl RD ANO ORAINAO! CANAL7 IO.Oe AQ _ N• LacaNenr t R0 NNder C«wd Road ' rU1lIC HEARINGS r'Rl lw - Mk M CoaMuWn CheM- UM, Rger Iolret Anw•, 7700 VI?ank Awnw, ren !•I•rcS t e~ Merth . ~ 21, 7002. tipwtnq st r.00 pM w e• •oon thRte. o11a ai ieuRlla - - rURSUANT TO S•tllon 2RbA10d, fbrlde. Sratrh•, d e pawn d.ew.• ro epp.ol enf deWbn node bf a boon, aR•nq, er - ~ ~ - - co•wniwlan ri11A rppett ro ~ _ n arno a ~Malna. h..lN e••d a raeerd of Mr pe• - ~ ~ e••dHR4 end rla1, ier •reh ~ - wTeur. M r+ay o••d a •grre thol a rerbattr• r•mrd of rM proc••dhps Ir wad•, vAith t•tord . MclydN IM 1wMagnr Md •Mdenc• upon ..Nth Na opp.el h ro be bated: rtANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Si, tUUE COUNtr, ftORIOA /S/ Shan Mnrrh•s. ctweMAN fvbll•M Maeh b