Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05-16-2002St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3`d Floor Roger Poitras Annex May 16, 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 — April 18, 2002 Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1 Minutes of April 18, 2002, meeting AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE NO.02-002 - Future Land Use Change — Lin Indrio, Inc. Continued from April 18, 2002, Meeting. Petition of LIN INDRIO, INC. / PHOENICIAN COUNTRY CLUB for an Ordinance granting a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban). Staff comments by Dennis Murphy. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps �, + AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE NO.02-003 — Extension of the Urban Service Boundary — Lin Indrio, Inc. Continued .from April 18, 2002, Meeting. Petition of LIN INDRIO, INC. / PHOENICIAN COUNTRY CLUB for an Ordinance extending the Urban Service Boundary of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comments by Dennis Murphy. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 4: T&T LAND, LTD. - FILE NO. PA-02-003 J Petition of T&T LAND, LTD. for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from RU (Residential Urban) to IND (Industrial). Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 5: T&T LAND, LTD. - FILE NO. RZ-02-007 j Petition of T&T LAND, LTD. for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) and the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) Zoning Districts to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning.District. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #S: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps Page 1 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 6: GLASSMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP - FILE NO. RZ-02-007 1 Petition of GLASSMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP for a Change in Zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple - Family — 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Portofino Shores) Zoning District. Staff comments by Hank Flores. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #6: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 7: GULFSTREAM NATURAL GAS SYSTEM LLC. - FILE NO. CU-02-002 Continued from April 18, 2002. Petition of GULFSTREAM NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, LLC., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cross country natural gas transmission line. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended.• Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #7. Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 8: RAYMOND THOENNISSEN. - FILE NO. RZ-02-010 Petition of RAYMOND THOENNISSEN, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #8: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 9: PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE. INC. — FILE NO. RZ-02-011 `�/ Petition of PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #9: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 10: PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE. INC. — FILE NO. CU-02-005 u Petition of PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris in the U (Utilities) Zoning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended. • Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #10: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps Page 2 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 11: ORDINANCE NO.02-014 — Amend Coastal Management Element of Comp Plan r Ordinance Amending the Coastal Management Element of the St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan to Provide for the Incorporation of the Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan. Staff comments by Dennis Murphy. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #11: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 12: ORDINANCE NO. 02-015 — Amend Land Development Code — Interim Community Architectural Standards Ordinance Amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Creating Section 7.10.24, Interim Community Architectural Standards & Amend Section 10.00.04, Nonconforming Lots. Staff comments by Dennis Murphy. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #12: 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 June 20th, 2002, in Commission Chambers at the Roger Poitras Annex Building. ADJOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local 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 appear -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. Page 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Members FROM: Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary DATE: May 16, 2002 SUBJECT. P&ZAttendance Mr. Matthes and Mr. Trias will not be attending this evenings P&Z meeting. They will be out of town. Their absences are with notice. FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME —MIDDLE NAME AIv1E F BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Jones, Fred "Rudd" gt•eucie Count planning and Zoning Conmlissi MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 5409 Sunset Boulevard WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY + ❑ CITY NCOUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Fort Pierce F3 34982 NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: St. Lucie Count DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: May 16, 2002 ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 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: -9 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 miniita.- of the meetino. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) S 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 1, Fred "Rudd" ,Tones , hereby disclose that on May 16 2nm (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 employer who is doing the ork for thA Petit; oneh y 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: AGENDA ITEM 4: T&T LAND, LTD. --FILE NO. PA-02-003 - Petition of T&T Land, Ltd, for a Change in Future Land Use Classification, from RU (Residential Urban) to IND (Industrial) . (Abstained from voting for continuance). Date.filed,' r Signature IVOTICb1ND " ' VISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ON UT a UNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, �; -,= EMO AL , FSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A - Vf =1wE?t_ NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. _ EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME —MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE , Jones, Fred "Rudd" St. Lucie Count Planning and Zoning Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, OM ISSIO , AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 5409 Sunset Boulevard WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY ❑ CITY ONCOUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED St. Lucie County MY POSITION IS: May 16, 2002 0 ELECTIVE IX APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 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 itP.-, of the meeting. 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 Fred "Rudd" Jones hereby disclose that on -May 16, 2002 2GC (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 Mployer who is doing the engineering work for the Petitioner q?c 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: AGENDA ITEM 5: T&T LAND, LTD. -FILE NO. RZ-02-008 — Petition of T&T Land, Ltd, for a Change in. Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) and the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning Districts to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District. (Abstained from voting for continuance). Date Filed Signature NOTIMUND, PROVJS16Is OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE /GOONS' ITI_113 GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, SMOVAL' R SUSP NSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIy�L f?Fh(ALT.I'':�1Q,t40 EXCEED $10,000. CE F0Fk8B'Vt4-'.' 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME —MIDDLE NAME N E F BOARD, COUNCIL, CO ISS IIN, AugOR.COMM EE "'. �Luc� e County Panning ancLoningtmissi na,aan T_ _, ,-- ' -- -- MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF. CITY COUNTY Sunset Boulevard t] CITY &OUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION; Fort Pierce Fl. 34982 St. Lucie St. Lucke County DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: May 16 2002 0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 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 itsm. of the meeting. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) I 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 Fred "Rudd" Jones , hereby disclose that on May 16, 2002 (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 employer who is doing the engineering work for the Petitioner2 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: AGENDA ITEM 6c GLASSMAN DEVELOPN= 'CORP FILE NO: RZ-02-007 - Petition of Glassman Development Corp for a Change im Zoning frcm the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Con>rnercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Portofino Shores) Zoning District. Date Filed8`�.`. Signature UNDER PR OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE STI��J,11ES GIP, �'N' FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, y' AL OR TO ION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A I CE FONMIBAFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING April 18, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Akins, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. McCurdy (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner HI; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER 71 t-3VA .. 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. Since the appointed Vice -Chairman was not present he asked the Commission to appoint someone to act as the Vice -Chairman for the evening. Mr. Lounds made a motion for Mr. Merritt to perform that position. Mr. Grande seconded. Mr. Merritt stated that he had a conflict of interest with Agenda Item # 4, John Arie and therefore would recuse himself from that item. Chairman Matthes advised he did not have a conflict with that item, so that would not pose a problem. Upon a vote the motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant for Agenda Items # 2 & # 3 (Lin Indrio, Inc.) is present to request a continuance to the next Planning and Zoning Meeting. He continued that Agenda Items # 6 & # 7 (T&T Land, Ltd.) had a problem with the sign so they cannot be heard this evening and will be heard next month as well. He also stated that a copy of a letter from the applicant for Agenda Item # 8 (Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC.) has been given to each Commission member requesting they too be continued to the next meeting on May 16, 2002. 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 April 18, 2002 Page 2 i 16 AGENDA ITEM 1: March 21, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Jones moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 3 t a Ju +Cr.°t "mz' p Y °+ a R� {� 9} AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE NO.02-002 — Future Land Use Change Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were presented to the Commission at the January 17, 2002 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 May 16, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 2 & 3 both be continued until May 16th 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. Merritt stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the May 16, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to continue this Ordinance until May 16, 2002. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 4 �l. 5•aV6 F�%tV �4y�:''�pp �qy6a.,�5 ia��t}yl�gp @(}gyp ��£, r�E`.i �1 a.%e�•1 °�iU y•�4�3R AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-003 — Extension of the Urban Service Boundary: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were presented to the Commission at the January 17, 2002 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 May 16, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 2 & 3 both be continued until May 16th 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. Grande stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the May 16, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to continue this Ordinance until May 16, 2002. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 5 `Y Ei '1'1PSA e9 AGENDA ITEM 4: JOHN ARIE - FILE NO. RZ-02-005: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of John Arie for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-2 (Residential, Single -Family — 2 du/acre) Zoning District for 14.81 acres of property located on the west side of Oleander Avenue, approximately 200 feet north -of Elyse Circle. The stated purpose for the rezoning is to develop the property into 16 single-family lots. The surrounding zoning is RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) to the south and southeast. AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — ldu/care) is located to the north and I (Institutional) is located to the west. OSC (Open Space Conservation) is also to the west and within the city limits of Port St. Lucie. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Harold Melville stated he represented the petitioner. He stated that the parcel is 15 acres and is to the west of Oleander and just north of the River's Edge subdivision. He continued that the site -is vacant except for an abandoned home. He also stated that the east portion of the property is in the RU (Residential, Urban) Land Use area, which allows up to five dwelling units per acre. He stated that the westerly portion of the property is in the RS (Residential, Suburban) Land Use area and that allows up to two dwelling units per acre. He continued that based on the acreage of RU and RS Land Use and it is about six and a half acres of RU with approximately eight and a half acres of RS. The total units allowed based on land uses are about fifty. He also stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change from AR-1 to RS-2, which is compatible with both the RU and RS land uses for the purpose of developing a sixteen -unit subdivision. He continued that, the properties to the south and southeast are zoned RS4 and the assisted living facility across the street is zoned Institutional. He also stated that further north along Oleander is zoned RS-2 to the northeast and also AR-1 to the north. He stated that he felt the requested change was consistent with the patterns of the area and also consistent with quality residential subdivisions. He also stated that a site -plan application had been filed with the County which illustrated a sixteen lot subdivision with fifteen one-half acre lots and one larger lot which will be approximately one and a half acres, for a total of sixteen lots. Mr. Akins asked Mr. Melville what size the lots are in the RS4 zoned area to the south of the proposed property. Mr. Melville stated that those lots are generally smaller and most of them have fifty or seventy-five foot fronts. He continued that some of the lots have been combined and have large houses on them but most of them are approximately half -acre lots. Mr. Grande stated that generally Port St. Lucie Utilities requires either an annexation agreement or charge a premium for the water and he questioned which option the developer has chosen. Mr. Eric Zeiss, an engineer with Culpepper and Terpening, stated that Port St. Lucie Utilities does not require annexation but they charge an additional 25% on their monthly rate. Mr. Grande stated that he was under the impression it was a choice of either becoming annexed or paying the fee. Mr. Zeiss stated that Port St. Lucie does not give the developer the option to be annexed and only charge the fee. Mr. Hearn questioned if each of the home sites will be required to hook-up for sewage service. Mr. Melville stated that is correct and there will be no septic tanks. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 6 Chairman Merritt opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Herbert Beach stated he lives on Saeger Avenue, which is north of the project. He continued that River's Edge was zoned RS-4 but that the owner, Mr. Lloyd Taylor, never sold any lots in that development unless they purchased two or more together. He stated that he felt the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding developments and he asked for approval. He also stated that the Mr. Zeiss was correct that Port St. Lucie does not ask for or require annexation. He continued that all of the existing residents have to go through St. Lucie County's Utility Authority on MSBU's in order to get their water and he questioned why this development would not have to do the same. Mr. John Ferrick stated that he resides on the river and has seen it flood and was concerned with the flood hazard area on this parcel. He continued that he would not like to see a flood hazard area developed and then have their properties flooded. Mr. Jim Ross stated that he resides in River's Edge and has been told that at times the flooding has risen to his property level. He continued that it has not happened in the two years that he has been living there so he does not know first hand. He also stated that he is not opposed to the development but did have a few questions about the project. He asked Mr. Melville if he could review the proposed plan for the development. Mr.. Kelly stated that he wanted everyone to be aware that this is a hearing on the rezoning issue and that the site plan they are reviewing is not binding in any way. Mr. Trias questioned if the applicant has filed the site -plan with the County. Mr. Kelly stated that there is a site -plan in the office that is currently being reviewed but has not been finalized since they are waiting for a decision on the rezoning. Mr. Ross stated that he does not have any reason to object to this project as he sees it. Chairman Merritt asked Mr. Ross if he was on sewer and water in River's Edge. Mr. Ross stated that they have city water and a septic tank system and some also have artesian wells for their sprinkler systems and items like that. Mr. Ross asked if there were any considerations where the new developments artesian well might be. Chairman Merritt closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn asked Staff in they had any info regarding the public's concerns about flooding. Mr. Kelly stated the property's easterly front portion is very dry and that is why it was designated RU. He continued that the back of the property does get lower along the river and there is a flood plain and/or floodway area. He also stated that the drawings they have seen tend to keep most of the development out of that area and his impression is that the developer has done a good job keeping out of that flood prone area. Mr. Zeiss showed a drawing, which illustrated where the flood area is in regards to the development. He also stated that only a portion of two lots have any land within the floodway. Mr. Melville stated that he believed there was a lift station across the street that would accommodate the sewer. Mr. Zeiss stated the lift station was constructed about three or four years ago in front of the convalescent center and they have a manhole across Oleander that they propose to tie into. Mr. Akins questioned if the lift station was County or City. Mr. Melville stated he believed it was Port St. Lucie City Utilities. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during tW�Public`_`y 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 John Arie, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-2 (Residential, Single -Family — 2 du/acre) Zoning District because it is consistent with the surrounding community and provides for orderly development. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting April 18,2002 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 5: INDRIO VENTURES, LLC - FILE NO. RZ-02-006: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of Indrio Ventures, LLC for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 3.06 acres of property located at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Koblegard Road. The stated purpose for the rezoning is to develop the property into a retail store with gas pumps as an accessory use. The surrounding zoning is AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/care) to the north, south, east, and west as well. Staff notes that the parcel size of 3 acres is larger than needed for a convenience store with gas pumps. Approval of this petition would provide for approximately 2 acres of additional commercial general zoning. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Grande asked Staff if there has been any plan submitted with regards to the convenience store. Mr. Kelly stated nothing has been submitted as of yet. Mr. Lounds questioned why section H under the AG-1 zoning couldn't be used for the convenience store instead of changing to Commercial. Mr. Kelly stated that those are conditional uses under the zoning and not permitted uses so either way they would be before the Commission for a hearing. Chairman Matthes questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. Joe Friscia stated that he was the agent for the applicant and he would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Matthes stated that there was a letter submitted by Mr. Saul Klinow in regards to the petition. Mr. Klinow came up and stated he was President of the Winton Farms Corporation and that his property is directly adjacent to the subject property. He also stated that they have no objection to the zoning change but wanted to point out that Koblegard Road is a thirty-foot wide dirt road which is located to the west of the section line. He continued that he understood that the width requirement of an improved County road is sixty -feet. He stated that he believed it was normal practice to center such a road where they run between property lines on or along a section line. Therefore, he requested that the County take into account the extra thirty -feet should come off of the east side of the section line. Chairman Matthes stated that this is a rezoning hearing but that his comments could be taken under advisement by the staff. Mr. Kelly stated that they have reviewed that information and in the future it may become a larger than sixty -foot right-of- way with connections into Indian River County. He continued that if it is larger than sixty -feet it may require some right-of-way off of both sides of the road but that is a future discussion. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn asked Staff why gas pumps are considered an accessory use in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because he believed they were a permitted use. Mr. Kelly stated that gasoline stations are permitted uses but when the convenience store is added, the gas pumps become an accessory use because the food sale is considered the primary use. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 9 TO Pre 14a `�tfi'v & 70NI G sSJae° APPROVAL_:; Mr. Jones stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, 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 Indrio Ventures, LLC, for a Change in Zoning from the AG- 1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because it meets with the Future Land Use, no one had any objections, and I believe it would be an appropriate property use. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 6-1 (with Mr. Lounds voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 10 p�3u''=�*A •�'SY 9�BW AGENDA ITEM 6: T&T LAND LTD. - FILE NO. PA-02-003s Chairman Matthes stated that Agenda Items # 6 & # 7 would not be heard this evening and no action would be taken. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 11 q L "r1{� 4314� �3.ZONING A{� ZONING AGENDA ITEM 7: T&T LAND. LTD. - FILE NO. RZ-02-007:'�`'" Chairman Matthes stated that Agenda Items # 6 & # 7 would not be heard this evening and no action would be taken. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 12 ZONING APPROVAU '-."-V;fl AGENDA ITEM 8: GULFSTREAM NATURAL GAS SYSTEM - FILE NO. CU-02-002: Chairman Matthes stated that the petitioner has requested a continuation until the May 16, 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Akins stated that this petition should be continued to the May 16, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Mr. Merritt asked why the applicant was not notified in plenty of time to have representation for the meeting. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff believes they did receive adequate notice. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to continue this petition until May 16, 2002. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 13 A S i g#yCT TO ZONING AGENDA ITEM 9: ALF'S SPIRITS & WINES - FILE NO. CU-02-003: Cig�'jj;gISISiV1 eAPFRZOVAL Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 9 was the application of Alf s Spirits and Wine, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a retail liquor store in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for property located at 10875 South Ocean Drive within the Galleria Shopping Center. The surrounding zoning is CG to the south and east and HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) to the west, northeast, and southeast. Retail liquor stores are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The subject site was previously the location of a retail liquor store that went out of business. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition: Only the retail sale of liquor shall be permitted. Mr. Grande asked if this parcel is part of a mall with multiple stores. Mr. Flores stated that was correct. Mr. Grande asked if the Conditional Use Permit applied to a specific liquor store location or would it pertain to the entire parcel. Mr. Flores stated the permit would apply specifically to the store itself and not the entire shopping center. He continued that it would only apply to the individual bay where the retail store is located and that will be identified in the final resolution. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Ms. Anne Mastronardi stated she was the agent for Alf's Spirits and Wines and that her business office was located at 10873 South Ocean Drive in Jensen Beach. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County 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 Alf s Spirits and Wine, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a retail liquor store in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because it is consistent with the current surrounding uses. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. 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 of approval. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 14 ZONING AGENDA ITEM 10: MERCEDES ACADEMY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, INC. LINDA DIMSEY, AGENT) - FILE NO. CU-02-004: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 10 was the application of Mercedes Academy and Child Development, Inc. (Linda Dimsey, Agent) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow social services (day care and pre-school facility) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 2.68 acres of property located at 384 East Midway Road which is within the Port St. Lucie Church of Christ. The surrounding zoning is CG to the west and east, CO (Commercial, Office) to the south and RS-3 (Residential, Single —Family — 3 du/acre) to the north. Day care and pre-school facilities as social services are allowed as conditional uses in the I (Institutional) Zoning District subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of day care/pre-school children shall be limited to a maximum of 40. 2. The hours of operation for the child care and pre-school facility shall be from 6 A.M to 6 P.M., Monday through Friday. Mr. Merritt questioned what the traffic status was on Midway Road east of U.S. 1. Mr. Flores stated that Staff was not aware of any concurrency problems on east Midway and the level of service is C. Mr. Grande questioned Staff if the applicant Mercedes Academy and Child Development is also the land or church owner. Mr. Flores stated that he believed that Ms. Dimsey was operating a childcare center at the church. Mr. Grande stated that he assumed that a Conditional Use Permit on property would have to be applied for by the owner of a property and not a tenant. Chairman Matthes asked who came up with the hours of operations. Mr. Flores stated those are the hours of operation that were stipulated by the applicant. Mr. Akins questioned that if this Conditional Use Permit is approved, is there any control over the actual development of the site into a daycare. He continued that his concern is that there is a small strip mall and gas station on the corner, a shopping center across the street, and an auto mechanic's shop next door. He stated that he did not feel this was a particularly good area to have small children playing. Chairman Matthes asked if the applicant was present to answer some of these questions. Ms. Linda Dimsey stated that she is the applicant. Mr. George Dimsey stated that the Church does not hold enough revenue to apply and facilitate over a daycare their self. He stated that they were willing to take the risks associated with a daycare because they will be teaching the children about the Lord. He stated that his wife Linda has been in daycare and children services for quite some time. He also stated that they will be leasing the facility from the church and they will be considered to be two separate entities. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Joe Wilson, who is the pastor of the church, did sign the application and that the application is in order. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 15 Mr. Grande questioned if the conditional use permit would apply to the property or just 'fo tfie °" 5 GVAL applicant, just in case the venture does not succeed. Mr. Kelly stated that under normal circumstances a conditional use permit would run with the property not with the owner or the applicant. He also stated that if the Board or Commission had any concerns regarding this they could add a condition that it applies only the particular applicant. Chairman Matthes asked Ms. Dimsey to address the issues regarding suitability of that site for a daycare. Mr. Dimsey stated that they are not increasing traffic to the area and are just adding a service to those in need in the area already. He continued that there is a home on the west side of the church and there is a trucking company behind that house. He stated that he felt that area is mostly used as a storage area and not really as a full-time operating business. He also stated that the daycare is on the east side of the church and does not pose any hazards to the children. He continued that with the HRS requirements there would be a five to six-foot fence surrounding the daycare area and door alarms. Ms. Dimsey stated that HRS has done some preliminary inspections as well as the Fire District and have advised them of what needs to be brought to their specifications in order to open for business. Mr. Akins confirmed that the Department of Children and Families regulate the safety measures prior to the facility opening. Ms. Dimsey stated that is correct. Mr. Dimsey stated that the facility would be brought up to County codes as well as child development codes. Mr. Grande questioned if they are leasing the space from the church. Mr. and Ms. Dimsey confirmed that is correct. Mr. Grande asked Ms. Young what liability the church would have for daycare center problems. Ms. Young stated that liability would vary based on how the license is issued. She continued that they might have some liability since it is on their site and they would ultimately be responsible for the condition of the building. Mr. Grande asked Staff if issues regarding potential liability had been discussed with the church. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff did not discuss that with them and typically that would be between the applicant and the church. Ms: Dimsey stated that they had discussed these issues with the church and they will have two separate liability policies. Mr. Dimsey stated that as a separate entity the daycare would be holding at least a million dollar liability policy before the church would become responsible for any liability. Mr. Dimsey stated that as a deacon of the church, he has discussed all of these matters in great detail with the church and they too will be upgrading their minimum liability policies to satisfy everyone. Mr. Grande stated that he just wanted to be sure the church was aware of their potential liability in this situation and was consciously undertaking an increased risk. Mr. Lounds re -confirmed that Mr. Dimsey was a deacon in the church. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Herbert Beach stated that he is disturbed by the Institutional zoning because this zoning is usually given to non-profit organizations such as churches and other organizations that pay no ad-valorum tax. He questioned if the business that they will be operating, under the church, is profit or non-profit. He stated that he felt this should be denied because it is opening a can of worms allowing someone to lease a portion of land or space under a tax exemption status. He also stated that he felt his taxes paid for those non-profit organizations and he would not want someone to be able to sneak in the back door and not pay their taxes. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 16 E�tRIVAL Mr. Mike Booth stated that he owns the property to the east of the church at 382 East Midway Road and is opposed to this due to the increased traffic it may generate throughout the day. He also stated that sometimes the traffic backs up half way down Midway Road coming out of Indian River Estates and this would generate more traffic. He continued that the noise levels of structures being built and the noise overall from the children will be increased. He also stated that the property to the west of the church does have a trucking operation that have large dump trucks and semi -trucks going in and out all day and this may pose a hazard to children in the area. He stated that he felt a church should be run as a church and only a church. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Booth if his property is the Commercial, General piece or residential. Mr. Booth stated his property is zoned Commercial, General and has an insurance office on it. He also stated that he has been there for fourteen years and there is a security facility on the back of the property, which is his residence. Ms. Janet Dubois stated that she owns property at 393 East Midway Road and objects because of the traffic that already exists on Midway Road and also the emergency vehicles that run up and down Midway Road all day and all night. She continued that she could see the traffic from her kitchen window and sees that it gets backed up at night during the weekdays, especially from around four o'clock till six -thirty. Mr. Shane Bland stated that he lives at 385 East Midway Road and is directly across the street from the church. He stated that traffic is already insane on this street and adding forty more cars on that road in the morning and evening will just add to the confusion already there. He continued that the added noise to the area at six in the morning would be crazy. He also stated that he is opposed to the fact that they are part of the church which does not pay taxes and that is not right. He stated that a lot of the people he had spoken with stated they were concerned about any future expansion of the business as well as the added traffic. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande questioned if this is part of letter' i' under the conditional uses, which is educational services and facilities. Mr. Kelly stated that is not correct and a daycare as per the SIC Code is considered to be under social services. Mr. Grande questioned if a for -profit daycare would still fall under social services. Mr. Kelly stated that profit and non-profit are not sepafated under the code. Mr. Grande questioned where the fire station was in correspondence to the church. Mr. Kelly stated it was not within the range of the overhead maps. Mr. Murphy it was on Regina, which is further east than the map shows. Mr. Lounds stated he is concerned about the traffic and how the church entrance is configured. Mr. Dimsey stated that the configuration of the church is an L shape back and to the right. He stated there is a roundabout, which is part of the church, and holds approximately twenty automobiles and they also have a grassy area available. He continued that there really wouldn't be an increase in traffic of forty individual cars because the drop-off times may vary from each individual. Mr. Lounds asked approximately how large the congregation of the church was. Mr. Dimsey stated it was approximately thirty to thirty-five people. Mr. Lounds asked if the students were already lined up. Ms. Dimsey stated she does not have any lined up at this time. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 17 §a 4: Mr. Jones questioned if this is a profit or non-profit corporation. Mr. and Ms. Dimsey stated it was. a for profit organization. Mr. Jones asked what the tax situation would be for a church. Ms. Young stated that she assumed they would be tax-exempt because most of the churches in the area have applied for a tax-exempt status. Ms. Dimsey stated that she was told that the church is tax-exempt but that it would not be an issue with them. Ms. Young also stated that the Property Appraisers Office, once notified would review the use of the property but churches are allowed to have daycare centers. Mr. Jones stated that he owns a business in Martin County and is required to pay property taxes even though he doesn't own any property there. Ms. Young stated they would have to pay personal property tax and occupational license tax and those types of things even though they are on tax-exempt property. Mr. Grande asked Staff what the setback is for the church. Mr. Kelly stated he doesn't have the exact feet, but that there is a substantial amount of property in front of the church. Mr. Merritt stated that a lot of the traffic concerns on East Midway Road are generated from the elementary school on Weatherbee Road. He questioned what the time frame for DOT is for a traffic signal on Weatherbee and U.S. 1. Mr. Kelly stated he did not know and didn't believe there were any plans of putting one up there in the near future. Mr. Hearn stated that he was concerned about left turns into the church and wondered if the conditional use could be granted with the stipulation that the traffic must enter from the east and turn to the right. Chairman Matthes stated he believed that would cause an enforcement problem. Mr. Jones questioned if the drop off and pick up times would fluctuate throughout the day from six to nine in the morning. Ms. Dimsey confirmed that it would not be like a school with one standard drop-off or pick-up time and arrivals and departures would be spread out throughout the day. Mr. Akins asked Staff if the Property Appraisers Office reviews a situation where a profitable company is operating on a previously exempt property. Ms. Young stated that she believed they do review any changes in use on the property and get the information from the Community Development Department. She also stated that a daycare is a permitted use as -far as they're concerned regarding the exemption. Mr. -Grande stated that he believed that the operators would pay all of the business taxes and the churches would file their own returns and would justify this as tax-exempt income based on the lease to these people. Mr. Lounds stated that the tax issues don't really concern him but he does agree with the public's concerns regarding traffic. He stated that since Midway Road is a major corridor there would be no way to stop the increase in traffic. He also stated that he did not have a problem with the Dimsey's request for a daycare center at a religious institute. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 18 - wtJ%ir:m,s� �x.rfYt,� ZONING } CO"M I SSIO% APPROVAL Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County 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 Mercedes Academy and Child Development, Inc. (Linda Dimsey, Agent), for a Conditional Use Permit to allow social services in the I (Institutional) Zoning District, subject to Staff conditions, because of the reasons stated. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Merritt voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 19 AGENDA ITEM 11: ORDINANCE 02-005 —Property Maintenance Code JSis.: fe ° i3:4dnA Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney, advised that Agenda Item # 11 is to consider Ordinance 02-005 (previously Ordinance 01-006) amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to create Section 13.09.00, Existing Property Maintenance Code, to provide for adoption of Chapter 3, General Requirements, of the 2000 International .Property Maintenance Code with certain revisions. A copy of Chapter 3, as modified, is attached to the ordinance and will be maintained in the Public Works Department — Code Compliance Division pursuant to the ordinance if adopted. During the January 17, 2002 public hearing on the proposed ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency directed staff to delete Section 302.2 (Grading and Drainage), as well as language from Section 303.02 regarding removal of oxidation stains. Staff was further directed to all language to Section 302.9 regarding securing property following damage and to clarify Section 302.2 (Rodent Harborage) to exempt agricultural property and exclude squirrels from the definition of "rodent". Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward proposed Ordinance No. 02-005 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Hearn stated that he feels that AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) should not be included in the exempt zones listed in Section 302.2 (Rodent harborage) because it is a residential district for single-family homes and not agricultural. Chairman Matthes confirmed that he agreed with Mr. Hearn that AR-1 should not be excluded from Section 302.2 (Rodent harborage). Mr. Hearn also stated that in Section 301.3 (Vacant structures and land) he would like to see the words "or vacant land" removed because he doesn't feel it is necessary to include that. He also stated that he would like the word "clean" stricken from the entire section because it is open to interpretation. He also stated that he would like the words "take such steps and perform such acts as may be required of him from time to time to" in the fourth line be removed because it is not necessary. He continued that there should be some sort of definition of "good" because that too is open to interpretation. Mr. Lounds asked if the words "structurally sound" could be used to replace the word "good". Ms. Young stated "structurally sound and operational" could be used. Mr. Hearn asked if the sections regarding Motor Vehicles and Rubbish and Garbage clearly and thoroughly covered in the present code. Ms. Young stated that there are sections regarding both abandoned and non -serviceable vehicles and trash and debris in the existing Code of Ordinances. Mr. -Jones stated that he felt there are enough rules and regulations already but there is a need for this. He continued that from what he has heard, it seems the problems are mostly with rental properties, not privately owned residential property. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Hearn's comments but would prefer that this ordinance only apply to rental properties. Mr. Grande stated that he believes that the area of concern that caused this ordinance request was in fact a private property owner on North Hutchinson Island, not a rental. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Grande continued that there is a typo in Section 303.2 (Protective treatment) and it'shoulcl V read "water tight" not "ater tight". Ms. Young confirmed that was a typo that would be corrected. Mr. Trias stated that with older communities, this type of ordinance is necessary to maintain the upkeep of these types of areas and he supports this ordinance. Mr. Lounds stated Code Enforcement might need to become more active and not be so passive. He also stated that there are rules and regulations on the books that cover most of this already. He continued that for this type of ordinance to be effective the Code Enforcement Department really need to make an effort to not be static and become more proactive. He also stated that he really wants the Board of County Commissioners to encourage the Code Enforcement Department to become more active and not passive. Mr. Lounds verified with Staff that Section 302.4 (Weeds) is being deleted because there is an ordinance already existing that deals with those matters. Ms. Young stated that Mr. Murphy does not believe there is one specific to that already. Mr. Lounds asked why that section had been deleted. Mr. Murphy stated that Staff has not been instructed by the Board to establish, what in essence would be, a lot mowing regulation because of the wide variety of situations the County has to deal with. Mr. Lounds asked if there might be areas that have a deed restriction regarding yard maintenance. Mr. Murphy stated that might be the case, but the County does not enforce private deed restrictions. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Grande if South Hutchinson Island has any regulations in place regarding yard maintenance restrictions. Mr. Grande stated they do not have anything in place due to the lack of volunteers to enforce it. He continued that many of the condominiums are gated and have their own requirements and are enforced by their associations. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. John Ferrick stated he would like to read a letter from the North Fork Property Owners. He continued that the Homeowners Association still has a problem with #3, 303.2, line 5 (peeling, flaking and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted). They feel that line should be eliminated because it could place a hardship on people who are on a fixed income and the elderly might have to give up medicine or food. He also stated it can be quite expensive to hire a contractor to take care of this type of a problem and it is not always a priority job. If folks do not have family in the vicinity, it could be cost prohibitive. He questioned who would determine how much peeling, flaking or chipped paint it will take to cite a homeowner. He stated they did not feel this was reasonable and could be unrealistic. Mr. Herbert Beach stated that he has been reviewing this ordinance and it's changes since it was first brought before the Commission because of his activities in the community. He continued that he felt that Section 302.4 (Weeds) should be left in the ordinance to regulate the many communities that are not deed restricted. He also stated that he felt if this section of the ordinance was left in the County right-of-ways might be maintained better. He advised that he felt that Section 303.2, regarding peeling, flaking and chipped paint needed to be fine-tuned. Ms. Shirley Burlingham from North Beach stated that Hutchinson Island is not the only area in need of this type of ordinance. When you enter North Beach from Fort Pierce there are 18 buildings, with 3 units each (54 apartments) where four are owner occupied and each have 2 additional tenants. Three are out of state owners (CA, WV, MI) and one person who is living in Coral Cove owns five. Two are owned by a corporation in Vero Beach and Stuart and most likely are rentals. A painting company in Vero Beach owns one unit and there are three owned P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 21 _ j � ; v;1jyl bpsgp by residents of North Beach of Fort Pierce. The gentleman living in Coral Cove owns the five properties that are in the worst condition. She continued that she believed that area is supposed to be designated as a scenic highway and they are all working very hard to maintain the beauty of the area but this area is of concern. She also pointed out that Mr. Hearn's question about the word "good" reads "good repair" later in that section and maybe replacing the word "condition" with the word "repair" would help. She then questioned why Section 304 (Interior Structure) is being removed from the ordinance. She stated that she is aware of two instances where this type of code would have been helpful regarding the interior upkeep of the triplexes and they are very concerned about these types of residences. Ms. Young stated that a copy of a letter from Arlene Goodman was given to each of the Commission members stating that her concerns are basically the same as those expressed by Mr. Ferrick regarding deleting the section regarding peeling, flaking and chipping of paint due to the hardship it might impose on elderly. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt the word "excessive" added before the words peeling, flaking and chipped paint might address some of the concerns. Mr. Grande stated he did not agree with adding that word because this ordinance is intended to be a cosmetic type of ordinance, not health related. He continued that he felt that if there is a problem with regulating peeling and chipping paint, then you should not vote for the ordinance. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Trias what the City's regulations are regarding the paint on buildings. Mr. Trias stated it is almost the same as that being presented to the Commission tonight. He continued that it is impossible to have a code that is perfectly worded in all areas.. He also stated that he felt these ordinances are imperfect and are to be implemented by professionals who use their judgment. He recommended that the ordinance just be voted on now. Mr. Trias stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to Ordinance 02-005 with the following revisions: 1. In Section 301.3 (Vacant structures and land) the words "or vacant land" removed; the word "clean" stricken from the entire section; the words "take such steps and perform such acts as may be required of him from time to time to" in the fourth line be removed. 2. In Section 302.2 (Rodent harborage) AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) should not be included in the exempt zones listed. 3. In Section 303.2 replace the word "good" with "structurally sound" and add a "w" to'later" in the sixth line down. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn (with discussion). Mr. Hearn stated that the only reason he offered the suggestion of adding the word excessive was to avoid removing that section all together. He also stated that the Comp Plan Study Group had proactive Code Enforcement in the new Comprehensive Plan but somehow that was taken out. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 22 "PRO VA j ` �^� y, ♦I d "M & ZONING T AL He continued that they had requested it be modified to on the major corridors, but th ig' not added either. He stated that he fully supports Mr. Lounds request for proactive Code Enforcement in St. Lucie County. Mr. Lounds asked Staff if Section 302.4 could be added back into the ordinance but be restricted to areas within the Urban Service Area. Ms. Young stated that if the Commission requests that be done, they might be able to word it similar to the wording in the rodent harborage section. Mr. Lounds continued that he felt that lawn maintenance is as important to the look of the County as peeling and chipping paint especially in the more dense residential areas of the County. Mr. Murphy stated it would be better to specify defined zoning districts. Mr. Trias questioned if using the term urban developed land would work. Mr. Murphy stated that is too ambiguous and it should be more defined to a list of zoning districts or to properties east of the Urban Service Boundary. Mr. Trias stated that he agreed a list of specific zoning districts might be more appropriate. Mr. Hearn stated there are two major problems with having a mowing ordinance. The first is the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods program that the State of Florida promotes and the second is the St. Lucie County Vegetation Removal program, which discourages clearing lots in specific area within the Urban Service Boundary. He continued that he feels that should not be dealt with at this time. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Murphy if the Board had requesting that lot mowing be reviewed. Mr. Murphy stated they were not asked to add in issues regarding lot mowing into the property maintenance ordinance. Mr. Grande stated that he felt they should vote one way or the other on the ordinance with regards to how it is currently written and possibly address adding lot mowing at a later date. Mr. Merritt stated that he felt this was a feel good ordinance that won't accomplish any more than what is currently on the books and he wanted his strenuous objection to this ordinance noted in the minutes. Mr. Jones asked if the Board of County Commissioners will be reviewing all of the wording or is the Planning and Zoning Commission trying to send them a document that it ready to be voted upon. Mr. Murphy explained that he felt they would be reviewing the final text structure of the document before making any final decisions. Mr. Jones stated that there is some wording that he is not comfortable within this ordinance but feels it should be voted on and forwarded to the Board for their review and comments. Mr. Murphy advised that the Board would receive detailed minutes regarding discussion of this ordinance for their review. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 6-2 (with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Jones voting against) and will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 23 '3 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: 7 4 Next scheduled meeting will be May 16, 2002. Aa A "'14 AL ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Lounds and seconded by Mr. Matthes. Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Approved by: Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 24 �Jc�6 Cosy COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT co Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission Members FROM: David P. Kelly, Planning Manager DATE: May 9, 2002 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 02-002 and Ordinance No. 02-003 Agenda Items # 2 and # 3 are the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. / Phoenician Country Club for a Change in Land Use and an Extension to the Urban Service Boundary. Staff recommends continuing these items until the June 20, 2002 Meeting. We will re - advertise, notify adjacent property owners and change the existing signs on these two petitions. MELVILLE & Sowyou , P.L. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LAUREL PROFESSIONAL PARK 2940 SOUTH 25TH STREET FORT PIERcx, FtonimL 34m-36o3 HAPOLD O. MELVILLE, P.A.• OAVIO N. SOWERM', P,L." '®DARE) CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER ANO SOARO CERTIFIED 3VSINCS9 LITIGATION LAWT9R 'BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATC LAWYER NIA,FA!QSI:MILL TRANSMISSION Mr, David k:elly, Planning Mgr. Planning and Zoning Department St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 TELEPHONE (561) 494-7900 FAX (561) 464-822O April 16, 2002 vfA Re: AWYjcation for Land -Use ChAn a and Rezoning --T & T Land. Ltd. Dear Mr, Kelly; On behalf of T & T Land, Ltd. we are hereby requesting that the hearing on both the requested Land Use Change and the Rezoning Application be postponed from the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on Thursday, May 16, 2002 until the hearing in July. Z understand that the hearing in July will be on July 18, 2002. T & T Land, Ltd. is requesting this later date for the hearing so that we can have sufficient time to obtain additional materials and documentation to submit to the County in connection with the requested land use change and rezoning. Thank you very much. ly, 0. Melville HGWdjh i May 8, 2002 Subject: Portofino Shores — PUD F/K/A Silver Lake - PUD Page 3 File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed change in zoning and petition for preliminary Planned Unit Development is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. This Planned Unit Development will result in a lower gross residential density than that which would be allowed under the current zoning designation of RM-5. There are a total of 521 units proposed in this development to be built in 6 phases. If the subject property were developed at its maximum residential density for those areas zoned RM-5, 735 units would be possible. The site plan that is submitted as a part of this rezoning to PUD is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The proposed Portofino Shores - PUD is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of this Code, the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.1.1 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes maximum residential densities for the RU (Residential Urban) Future Land Use Category as 5 dwelling units per 1 acre. The proposed project is to be developed with a maximum residential density of 2.79 units per acre, therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 1.1.9.4 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes regulations providing that existing on -site native upland habitat be incorporated into required site plans as a part of open space areas, required landscaping, or as a part of minimum yard areas as is practicable is maintained. The proposed project has 156.10 acres of native upland habitat, the site plan proposes to preserve 15.3 percent (23.90 acres) of this native upland habitat on -site. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed change in zoning to PUD is for the purpose of allowing the construction of a single-family residential development, is consistent with the surrounding uses in the area of single-family and mobile home development. The gross density of the proposed PUD development is 2.79 du/acre, which is consistent with the future land use designation in this area for all of the adjacent developed areas. With the exception of the North Savannahs area northeast of this site (approximately % mile northeast of the site) all of the surrounding properties are developed for residential uses. May 8, 2002 Page 4 Subject: Portofino Shores — PUD F/K/A Silver Lake - PUD File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; The petitioned parcel is the last remaining large undeveloped parcel that is available in the Lakewood Park/Holiday Pines area suitable for development of the type proposed. The site is serviced by adequate utility and roadway services, subject to the conditions outlined below. 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 proposed site plan, which is tied to this rezoning is not expected to create additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Water and sewer service is available and will be provided by the St. Lucie County Utilities Department. Roadway capacities in the area are adequate to meet the needs of the development. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed change in zoning and development of this site as a residential planned unit development is not expected to result in any unaddressable environmental impact. As part of the planned unit development review process an environmental impact report has been submitted for review. The majority of the site is dominated by pine flatwood habitat (156.10 acres), a -large open body of water that was created as a result of sand mining activities (16.5 acres), and a small amount of wetlands (7.21 acres). The proposed development plan calls for the preservation of 23.90 acres of the upland habitat (15.3% of habitat type) and the establishment of 9.45 acres of landscape area along with the preservation/restoration of 6.16 acres of the on -site wetlands. Prior to the issuance of any final planned development plan approvals, the development or authorization to proceed with construction will be required to have obtained all required agency permits. In addition to the general habitat reviews of this site, the developers of the project have conducted the required listed species review. Approximately 36 active gopher tortoise burrows were located on this site. However, prior to the petitioners filing their application for development with the county, the developers received permission from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to relocate the tortoises to a suitable off -site location. No on -site burrows were retained as part of the development submission. ,err -. •v,':~l ua. v This petition meets the standards' Cotlnty An, Development" Cotle:"a the St Lucie County'C6mpre iehSK nr¢;; cc: County Admnistratot °; County Attorney # say A.' Walter I File l � i 4 l l i�f f- �y �f� ,i Sugge§fed, m i 1441 '4W NINAZONINMsL TH?A- LUCIEFTHATTHPLANG COUNTY BOARD OF , COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANTz , APPROVAL TO THE %t APPLICATION OF GLASSMAN4 DEVELORMI5NT CORPUR/�TION, FOR A CHANGE ' IN , 77 'ZONING,FROM THE RM 5 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY 5 �U/AC), IX (INpUSTRIAL, , EXTRACTION), 'AND bh (COMMERCIAL`, NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING . DISTRICTS TO THE PUD' (PLANNED `;UNIT DEVELOPMENT'; PORTOFINO SHORE$) ZONING` DISTRICT AND { SITE E Pl AN APPROVAL FOR THE FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1h ; # RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS PORTOFINO SHORES PUD sty � Y [CITE: REASONS] WHY �; PLEASE BE SPECIFi'C]. - �� ��', , TI , a 1 MOTION TO DEf.' s pf { l r . AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THEPt1BLIC HEARING; ' INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS., AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET `.IN z , .FORTH SECTION 11 06:03, ST 1LU'CIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, HEREBY MOVE. THAT THE PLANNING' ANDZONING COMMISSION' RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY . THE - APPLICATION OF -GLASSMAN DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION, FORA CHANGE IN ZONING ,FROM THE ' RM-S (RESIDENTIAL,_MULTIPLE-Fr4MILY 5bWAC), IX (INDUSTRIAL, EXTRACTION), AND CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOO), 7nNINt DISTRICTS,TO THE pUD (PiANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - PQRTOFINO, SHORES) ZONING DISTRICT' AND FOR PRELIMINARY ,. PLANNED ; UNIT DEVELOPMENT SITE .PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ';'RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS PORTOFINO SHORES - PUD, BECAUSE:...' [CITE REASONS] WHY'- 'PLEASE, BE SPECIFIC]. 1 - z D i n. be r .4 0rt IA A4 4 M , A » f_ �� �y •� �""* "'Y � •t � - i �"�ti �'� � ` �: t �,..� .� RA �'.�" � r'.. ,s `� ®� m3 s a �gkqvr #y 5. ✓ t Yj,< ¢ >fl � ,.,� rv...:at � - �'�,�9 tS •� � �; � � �%.�,�i ?��-„ � `.^ti' s �''i �<. a & � � ��4 F'�+ �&�'� � �'"'� rt'¢ � � 6 r P r .�' `'Ri � { d`r F I✓'V� 1'h't� '} Y ) it.... l`�1 A'i 5 � � i �. t� PK }r SSrr',,�° A '6+.2 �, ,w, ca - ;� ��. � s-a•'r z � � a sriy � t r1 en-s 3,, 4�1,"`r' a � :. wS • � � _ .. _o. •,rJ f � � � � w® : � i � � � .p.� �> 1 � Y i � �, "'� � � � � d d art_. �a r .� c R�a'�nj ra:s.. 3 % s. Q k� aa,J R/• e o LA Y t ,a. - [ 4, e; to L WWI IV.'�.. 'v J e�✓ 4 � � t�. SIFT" � x 4 � � C r' / p/ k -' � i d - � -- •' R Y � � f �,. im .&" ¢.`l ra � yam` �..-' �3� a�i �j,'�." ',� �/°."a xai� � � `� �''•rx ��,,. is a '� °",� .: -• f' {` ¢ � > ew€�t'x r r�,r shy �� r; d����r.. � y "'; as ��-_ '`��',.�a..�,.3 ✓'`�#'�b/ �.'' `{.- �v z ^`K. 'fig; ¢ Y #"`r`�`S�i'�� t= 3 ski a `iS� e,$ � ✓r � ' -' `� / � k `" '�a`T�'S9'�t� � ' , t ky9 c� s, $ ry .• 5e,Jf §� OW 3 dr £" ii° �$ g1 y'�s'• 3�° �' > � ,Y r', s s � �w t r �� g £ �# .-r�,x Y'?t,� 'v � at f. ' sr'�' . a,� 4 P � > tj. ,� r `.5 y �d„gy�• � � �.ti� 'ri � �'� 'z� 9X� �A� .'ay J f �rAt }`r.'-. �°8- t r, b l' •,s; F,!�'.• '.��' Ir ,�� "fir ,,� g ilk rd _ir 4'=�n, : �'' , „� atE�P,A• `, _ '°/'°� i� =1 7'�"ir�- , i i -// ,.Y `� a �.J, _� F 4a � '� •' '�'�'�-`�� 6.ad � 3.d..,a� S� � � � - � [ Z r` � � � � y °' `` �� s �� i?. L..� K"�`� r`. 3' 1 ,ate �f, „ �� 1 "�' -,,,, '!.� R `a.�� � � s,� _ �p � yi�•35� �' �' r i r � ,.. 1.9'1 : j% -• =r.as r f s°s ✓E r S a't° , t .>, tr ,f. v a �e�p >7 t "' t •' 41 3..i ,�.,, dJ +..: L.i'. r' 4 ,g�rJt�` a r i a 1 '� -; � � 4•� .y` a a .i � -f {¢°fJ .. �, e�T � r J � i � � 'i i x T - ��� a S �. 4'� � a r .,z i $ Aw / , >.' �' t d '� , '�� ice,,,,.. � ✓ ;�,� i...kt� m R,�.� � � 'r+rA2 � �� r ~> � A �'ti � "` ,..� � Sa � rrn .a>e�- � a a.• ';"`% .b�Al . �t �.��tf7 .�"y'.ai� �# i�.w� ,, �4 T� �. � � 4t"�^•a"fir ys ,� } .-� g�� � � � . v� �.. � '� i s� e ?:�xi . .,--� r .fl. u -rrma ,.., s v, .. .- `✓� ;':�^a aY '.,P., ... air ,. s. � . � ;"9e' f [iY• ®®®Q®n ®_ ' �� t> y .. ,,..�f �i��^i�u�wwtt�g earn toentit�ea\us� corresponds to the SfC code reference described in SechonThe number99 applies, 13 r a en defined; untler the SIC;co�le tiut may be furt err efined tnx Secton 2 00 00 of ti is dole 2 Pertnittetl lJses- a Community, residential homes subject to the provisions of Section, 7 1 07 '" Q tsssi b �aamI y day cdre fyprnes-(sss), Pa fit AV r c Family residential homes provided that such homes shah not be located withtn a radwsf off one thousand (10l)0) feet of another existing sUrrh'farnity residential homg anc pCoiilqe ih y' C the sponsoring agency or the ;Department cif t{eatth Arid Rehabilitative Services (l IRS) notifes the Boardof County Commissioners et the t�tnefof home occupancy that the home , ` ns is liceedfby HRSsq ',,h : sR e� d Multiple family dwellings (3 or more units)' t e Single family datached duveliingsj f � Two familydweihng Pr c 3 Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be ih accord nce' with $actionM 4: Oirtter "a ERe�gulations • g,r Oimerjsional requirements shalt 6e m .accordance with Section 7.04.00. 3 -5• Off street Parking Regwrements h ;Off streetparking reguirementsshall be in accordance f with Section 7,06.60. 6; iartdscaping Requirements' ` Lands ping requirements shall be.in accordance with;Section 7.09.00. 7: Conditional Uses a Family residential homes located within a raiiitis of one thousand (1000.) feet Of another such family;tesideittial home: c b. Telecommunication towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23" (999) t 8• Accessory Uses Accessory' uses "are subject to the requirements of Section 8A0:00. Adopted August 1, 1990 - 109, ! Revised Through.08/01/00 L+'�t: 4. The' u x p rQose of this district is to. provide and protect an} envl�oh " ent slltable foi the e'` natural resources: front tTa ground together :With such otheh uses a . "' xtraction of , ems; s ri�ay tie necepsary tti and compatiblO.with tndustnal`extra�tton sufrOUndings Thenumb r ii; O foliowin' e ch i` ertt corresponds to the SIC code reference'descriti'd tri S`= 1 `n' 't}" .3 =g.' d _ t ifieii use,„i V. ecdo 01 02�6) The�ltumber 999 applies to hi a use not defined under the SIC code tint may b� furthtsr defied to Section 2 00 00 of th'fs code s 2 Permitted lJses� r 1 f r a Mtriing snd quarrying of nonnietallid niit erals ezcepY b Mobile food �rendors tsesi� 3 Lot Size n i Requtrements s r w y a t Lot stze requtremetrits shall be to acxFordance.wtth S�ectson 7 04 00AM 4• Dtmensionel `aegulattons G Dtmansionai requtrernents Khali be in accordance with Sechorr; T 04 tl0 j xi7 5: Off street Parking and LoadtRg Requirements 4 yY Oe Off sheet parking anti toatling"requtrernents are subject`,totSeciton 7 06 00 r� r, , 6; Lands-aping,Requirements , L( ntlscaping"requirements ore subject to Section -T 09.00 7. Conditional Uses F r a Telecotnmuncatton towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10,23 r., 8• AccessoryUsesiF ; Accessory uses aresubtect to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and.include the following. a; Detached single 4,amily dwelling unit or mobile home, foron=site securit y Purposes: t1 Adopted August 1, 1990 - 129 Revised Through 08/01/00 ' <a , v, y ��c�yl�uv��J�VVUS-11e r1U1TJDef In�.'(� touowtr1g each tdenttfied use corresponds * � f to the SIC code reference desertbed m Secttonhe, nu(.n -r 999 applies to` a use`not gg y \ defined under the SIC code but"`may be'furthecdefined in Secttorl 2`00 00 of thiscode: 2 Permuted Uses a Beauty and barber services ti' izhi 9.n S , r b Ctvtc social and fraternal associationsaesapy ,l , r c . Deposttory tnstttutlons tso�r r ' �a�tl d Laundenng and dryclearing (self service) tTzls� z e Real estate 16s1 (1.) Electrical repair.;goi (2) Shoe repairs (nst R (3) Watch, vie We 'Ymc , and iscai instrument repair: cst,i • 3 9s Rctail trade (aacl building shall° be less than 6,00t) square fee( gross "flooAnd UsIve r area all uses . ,k (1) Antiques cs�z1 (2), Apparel an. accessanes tssl �� (3) Books at�d station cry (s96?/s�{3) (4) Carfleraa and.photographic suppl�es:.rssast �E'' and proprietary ts9uj v� �afhg plgces_rsslii, Florists ts9sil (8) Food stores lul r� t, (9) /. Gifts novelties. and souvenirs. ts94>� (10.) Hobby, toy apd game shops (ssds) ;�- (11):� HOpsehold ;appliances is zr { ; (12) Jewelry,tss q (13) Newspapers"and magazines, isseai (14) Optical goods is94si (15) Nursenes; lawn and garden,stipPlies: rszsi } (1Ei) Radios IV's, consumer electronics and music,supplies rsni, (17)" ,Sporting goods and bicycles. (s941. (18)r Tobacco products.�tsss31 h. Video tape rental (7ee) 3 Lot Side Requirements P, Lot., size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 47' Dimensional Regulations _ Otmensonal requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00 J Adopted August 1; 1990 114 Revised Through 08101/60_ t ec Stton 3 f t 0 Zoning Qistd6i Use Regulatio ;, A: s " 5 Off -,street Loading Requirements; }� 24 c Offrstreet parking_ and loading"requirerients are subject to Section 7'06.00. , 6: Landscaping Requirements d S _ Y ` Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. ` { Aye i�1�}� 7 Conditional Uses l b� ,_ a Car Washes (Self Service Only) "subject to the provisions of Section 7.10 22. �s99i Day care = adult, ie3zz) child teasli c Postal seiuices..(4311) �+ d " Retdil trade. ." - } (1),`; Gasolrne'services accessory`to retail food"stores i.nder SIC 54"11. (999) Undistilled alcoholic beverages accessory to retail of fbad4 : i=xcepl .sale iS921, (prrp i e Telecommunication towers -subject to `the standardsot? Section l 7,10.23 B. Accessory.Uses t xx ,X t >; Accessory uses are subjeet to the requirements - -of 3ectio� 8,00 00 and include the foliowin �. $ g. a Drinking piaces.(undistQled alcoholic beveragtss) accessory to:an eating b ., ` place: t�9i ' One dwelling unit co�tatned,within the comitterciai building; for on-Sitt securyty puiposes. ts9s� 3 r �r / 14 4' t ` 1 \ \ Adopted August 1, 1990 - 115 Revised Through o&01/00 thereby Iq., Or pur dd — 1 er t costs; 4g C : allow desigh options; that encourage an environment of stable character, compatible with surrounding i ` { u an rises, and. } , 71, �t D. permit the enhancement of neighborhoods through the preservation:of natural featitresthe provision s r ' of underground utilities, aril the provision'of recreation areas and open space; h� ' 7.01.OZ;' AUTHORIZED USES ;'USES' APFRM" ITTI Dgo ' Any Qermitted, conditional or accessory_ use in the Agnculturl-1 AG -'I) Agricultural 2.5 (AG 2,5), Agricultural-5.(AG 5)Residential/Conservation,inaheAgricultura� 1(qG 1);Agricultural 2.5(AG-2.5), Agricultural 5° (AG-5), Residential/Conservation '(RC);. Residenh0l, Estate-1 (�tE-1'}; Residential, estate-' (R}2), ResidentiW, 8ingle-Family-2 (RS-2), ; Residential.. Single-Family-3 (RS,=3);, Residential, Single Family- Q0,8 4) Residential,. MU(tipl'e-Family-5Residential, Mobile Home= (RMHzS�, Residential, Multiple Family-7 (FtM 7 Residential Multiple-Family-9 (RM49); Residential; Multiple Family 11,( M I ):and Residential, Multiple-Family'.i 5 (RM-15) zoning districts of this Code may be permitted in a Planned Unit Development District subject to"complying with the residential . densities described in Section, .0103(Bj. Adopted August •1;,1990 3T5 * Revised Thrbugh'08%01%00 "one (1)-; r .__ � ,i at�giea 10 feet'X 1$k feet x�� ; � � � hantltcapped(parallei) 12{fget XY g3 feet; hanciicapped�angldd), 12 felt X j,14,18feet �_ t'£ - b Handicapped parking spaces shall be approptately t l K, 4 ; c Access for ether en fire vehicles shall be tR accordance with NEpA standards; 9- cY d No mare than fifteen (15) parktg spaces shall be permitted iri a„conttniaous row without being interuptetl! by a minimum landscape ara of'60 s4uai a feet G. LIGHTING All Ilghttng facthbes shall be,arranged to such a mannerso as fo regent direct fare p g ha rtlaus r{ -or interference bf any,kind to adlQinfing stKees or ro ernes, P P •� „ , wRES Jt, H <LAN SCAPING AND NATURAL FEAT 1 Native trees and vegetatipn and -other, natural features stall be preserved, to the extent ' practicable:' 2 Ali senstttde'environmentat vegefatton,`- trees areas shalhbe "to the •and: preserved extent practicable Adopted 'August 1, 1990 379. Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development requirements of this Code. SETBACKS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND Planned Unit Developments adjacent to land used for agricultural purposes, or designated for agricultural use on the Future Land Use Map of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, shall provide setbacks from the agricultural land sufficient to protect the function and operation of those uses from the encroachment of Urban activities or uses. K. PHASING A Planned Unit Development may be developed in more than one stage or phase. 2. If a Final Development Site Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners is to be developed in stages or phases, each successive phase shall be constructed and developed in a reasonably continuous fashion. No more than two (2) years shall elapse between the completion of any stage or phase, and the final stage or phase shall be completed within ten (10) years of the date of Final Development Site Plan approval. Extensions of the above requirements are subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Unless otherwise amended by the Board of County Commissioners through the Final Development Site Plan review process, the following sequence of development must be adhered to: a. One or more major recreation facilities and other major amenities, planned to serve the entire development, shall be completed or adequate security posted prior to the issuance of building or mobile home permits of more than forty (40) percent, or other percentage as determined by the Board to be appropriate based on circumstances that include the size of the project and the proposed phasing schedule, of the total number of authorized dwelling units. Recreation facilities or facilities and other amenities planned to serve one (1) phase of a multi -phased development shall be completed or appropriate security posted prior to issuance of Building or mobile home permits or the recording of any final plat within that phase J. No commercial facility shall be permitted prior to the completion of at least forty (40) percent of the total number of authorized dwelling units; and, C. For Planned Unit Developments to be constructed in stages or phases, the net density of an individual stage or phase may vary from the approved Final Site Plan subject to the requirements in Section 11.02.05. Adopted August 1, 1990 381 Revised Through 08/01/00 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS May 6, 2002 Rlbi COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that GLASSMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change of Zoning from the RM- 5 (Residential, Multiple -Family — 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction) and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Portofino Shores) Zoning District. Location: West side of the Turnpike Feeder Road, directly south of Spanish Lakes Country Club Village. 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, May 16, 2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia 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. If 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 a date -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 5611462-1582if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number RZ-02-007. Sincerely, ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING CONMUSSION Gf�c� Stefan atthes, C airman JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 - PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 • CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (561) 462-1590 • Planning: (561) 462-2822 GIS/Technicol Services: (561) 462-1553 Economic Development: (561) 462-1550 Fax: (561) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (561) 462-1529 • Fax: (561) 462-2132 ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLK HEARING AGENDA .. y -.Mar 16.20D2 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: MOM Isb..by Rlwn M aaa 1—wfth S.akn 11.00.03 dIM SL LW. Caary Land D.wbpme, Code Doti dw pwHsbm of EM St. LIIci. Cotndy Compr.l Mo Plva'dw bKawirq appTicaet how r w. W Mal Rw St. Lucl. C• ,try Planllnq and Zaaoq Col► misdcn wawa their folbwbp regomte - .. . 1. TBT LAND, LTD. br a Chapr hi Floe Lad Lly CW.T. bn Iran RU (RweeNd U,bon) to IND 0adabb0 fa the foil EI g desalbW proprtr.. THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE NW V. OF THE HE Y.OF THE SW Y. OF SECANT I TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, St UFOE COUNTY,FLORIDA AND - - THE NORTH M OF THE NW V, OF THE SW A, OF SECTION T, TOWNSHIP 35 RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA: - Lomdal: Emt 0& of Khps HO-Y, oppm k Wy 2.5W lea tadh ofAARI. Road. 2.T&ANK L,LTD,faaChap.NZm1nq from Rw AG-1 WR'AB•d^I&f..*ad Rm AR 1 (ApkiMuia: Rylderd'wi-1 du/Dory ZoMlp DLIt1ct. b RI. R. (Mdaddol, t1gM Z.kV OWdd far Lim fallowing desmT»d proprtyl - -. THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE NW Yr OF THE HE V. OF THE SW Y. OF SECTION T TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE NORTH 16 OF THE NW '/.OF THELSW '% OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP35 SOUTF RANGE 39 EAST, ST.. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA -' Lwm 1, l Emt aids d Khps MghwW appo .W* UW fW ta91h dAngl. Rood 3. RAYMOND THOENNISSEN, fw a Chap. in ZoNnq Iran Rm AR-1 (ApkVMurd, . RnyWtat - 1 d./oo.) ZWnq 01t 6d b lb. CG (Co d,,l Cwmrd) ZorAw Dbmd._ _ for th. /olbwinq d. ibed popery: - THE NORTH 171.76 FEET OF THE EAST 256.15 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL - ME - ME SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25. TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH RANGE 39 EAST, LYING AND BEING IN ST. 5. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC. fa a CadM..l U. Pe iI b allow tW hnbllolbn and apealon d m AM Carbhe lntlrwrda.In RI. U LLI 044 Zoabp DWHd Ia tMbllowlrpdwlbad popery: - A PARCEL:OFILAND LYING' 0 THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER (%q Of SECTION S,I TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH RANGE 37 EAST, 57, 11KlE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTK'UTARIY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION S; THENCE SOUTH EASEMENT FORTNGRESS AND EGtM AND PUBLIC UTILITY AND TIC-1a —THFRFF%_ - ' CONW;JMNG 9,"0-ACRES; MORE OR LESS. Lecabm Nash tW. of Olap. Am%% appal-Wy 515 mIW rat of MLX%Maid RML - - 6: GIASSMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION for a Chmpe b Zoltlgfrow Wm RM.5 (Rald'WK Mu81p44-Ay-5du/cI-LAOnd kK EhWi.Rand CCNN (Commrdal N.Vballlood) ZadnR DWdI t b dw KID 0om.d UTA 0-A IpmW - faddkm Shay ZmI;IR DbhlGlor dr bBawRlRdwrL.d praP.IM .. - . BEING ALL THAT PART OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 17. TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. ST.-LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA, TYING NORTH OF THE TURNPIKE FEEDER ROAD, AND ALL. THAT PART Of THE WEST ONE -QUARTER Of SECTION'? TOWNSHIP 34SOUTH, RANGE /0 EAST;LYING HORRLOF SAID TURINIgF RE FEEDER ROAD; LESS ;;6D'-EXCEPFMGAPPROXIMATELY -THEREFROM A PARCEL OF APPROXATELY 19 ACRES pESCRISED AS A PART OF. THE WEST 166: 3/ FEET OF THE'SOUTHEAST ON& lQUSECTION I2, TOWNSHIP N SOUTH, RANGE.39 EAST,)ESCRIBED AS OLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH-SOUM ONE -QUARTER SEG .TION LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE LMIe—IT, eWXIUFM I—unAI--Lrvlua nrvu .vnu nlcanl yr Tynr ,v.a LESS PARCEL CONVEYED TO FIORIDA STATE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY. RECORDED IN I : ALSO INCLUDING ANY AND ALL RIGHT, TIRE AND INTEREST IN A CERTAIN EASE-, DEED BOOK 215, PAGE 103, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA .� MENT DATED OCTOBER 27, 1970, FILED NOVEMBER 16. 1970 AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 907, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200969, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS; EASEMENT ,SO, iEiS THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND: i -DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, At O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 908, CLERK'S FILE NO. 2D0990, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECEDS; AND EASEMENT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1970,-1 til THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING, BEING AND 51TUATE IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH. RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 696-897, CLERK'S FILE NO.' 20D987, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS. AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EXCEPTING THEREFROM A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST; THENCE NORTH 00 06'46' EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS OF $AID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 2655.28 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH COMMENCING AT THE OF THE NORTN-SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE 8i 43'39' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 70.98 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EAST RIGHT OF WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY WAY LINE OF KINGS HIGHWAY SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF ME HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT; HENCE NORM 00 Ol'IS' EAST, ALONG THE FEEDER ROUTE, WHICH POINT I$ Bbbl FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QAARTER OF SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID KINGS HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 2/214 FEET SECTION 12,. TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 3/ EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY TO A IOMT, THENCE NORTH 89 e6'12' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 406.15 FEET TO A ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FQ•NT; THENCE NORTH 00 01'15' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 429.00 FEET TO A POINT, FEEDER ROUTE A DISTANCE OF 205.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE THENCE NORTH 89 e6'12' EAST, A DISTANCE OF $50.55 FEET. TO A POINT; TRACT HEREBY DESCRIBED. THENCE SOUTH 00 01'Ib- WEST A DISTANCE a 670.20 FEET TO A POINT; T-ENCE SOUTH 89 4339' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 12S6.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF E.-GINNING. (O.R.B. 1175 PAGE 1 FIB) FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING RUN NORTHEASTERLY MONO THE RIGHT-Of- WAY OF SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION .... on. 3250 Nam Kl�pt H'ph.+oy. LINE TO A POINT THAT WOULD BE INTERSECTED BY A LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST FROM A POINT ON SAID NORTH -SOUTH GNE-QUARTER SECTION LINE THAT IS A. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC. fa a Chm In Zminq bom 8H AG-5 1901.72 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE. IA•, icalbral - I du/5 —1) Z-i, Dbeia b It,. U IUlililkd Zonbp Dlltrkl la Nw QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12, THENCE WEST Idb•+irp d—ited popery: ALONG SAID LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST TO A POINT THAT IS WE NORTH OF ME A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER ('A) OF SECTION 5, POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE SOUTH AND PARALLEL WITH SAID ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 847.8e FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, St. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING BEGINNING. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH OVERALL PARCEL CONTAINS 185.91 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 8r57,45' WEST, AS A BASIS OF BEARINGS, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE Of SAID L—I—.. WM tide d Poe Twlplte feeder Rapti, r—*, -A ci SP-'m LA. Ca-1 SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 2612.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID CNb Vlll p . SOUTHEASE ONE QUARTER (V0 OF SECTION 5; THENCE NORTH 00e27'I5- EAST - - ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER (Y.) OF SECTION $, A PUBLIC HEARINGS w l h, held k Comntlrtbn C6omb- Rope PoMm Ar 2300 DISTANCE OF:694.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUE VRghl, Aw Fat FWClori A Florida m May 16.2D02, btpbM nbpd 7A0 Pa m tam NORM 00-22'S EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE Of 656.10 FEET, Rler.a(Hra Fo lba _ THENCE SOUTH 89e19.16- EAST, DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 65:70 -FEET' THENCE SOUTH-00°27'15' WEST, A DISTAWCF•OF• 656.70 f Tt ';111NIC�-NORTH DISTANCE a 656J0 FEET TO THE POIIIT CIF - MFRSU{INT T'O SIidIM 286.0105, f" SrohR.A if a petm daW.R 10'Itpp.of any h,1p - - B9•IYId' WEST, A �CQBA�BRO. ..i t - ` .. •.. :..,i.. _ dodUxo model by a board ogwy; aT.laAn:ltdm t n.d 1*myAn� caaldrtl a a m.mRp'a NWTIp h. KRI ,-d a I d d IB( Brame aM V. Fm LISUUECTt0ANEASEMENTTORINGRESSANDEGRESS AND PIIBIIt UfAIIY AHD ' =MmaFMdb.nnX. RidamtrbolN.randaE poordnpb wI rNd d Adn Br roslklony ad «IMIa Wa..dIRB Ewappwl H b b 6a.d. ' DRAINAGE OVER THE WEST 25 FEET THEREOF. - CONTAINING 9.900 ACRES. MORE OR IESS. I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Stelan -111 4 OIMRMAN Location: Nn�n. I�He nI F1.�.ne ^ ••w•. ,.�, a..n., eIy 515 m+Lev r.Mt d Mirw+e M 4 PUM-SII DAIf: Mny M1, 7at2 Road. 2e273511 U � O.N. M,Dby�e/}1 NN N M fM`1 M N N aVT'! eh} yh eh� �/1 W M M M oO0 O M N .r .ti O N e} N V1 VI + a N h vl lry °y� b °y� M M. ^+ e°}� M M N N N M N N M N N N N N N I N N M M M to M M q °� °� 1� T (I h °� .-. N i j �a v�,wl%lal.0 ¢a' i k4 C>' t��w C4 f� a¢�¢a¢a¢ial¢I >I> > > >�>I> > >(k4j+�f ! i+�.�k�If��viU�w��f E-Ha¢ ,) I I OJI wi �, � vI �l'� E� �� I 54 34 �I �j ��x ��� vI ' I :a :2 4 O v °ai£a 4) N C 3s p Uw°w°wlu°w°w°w°a°w°w°»»>>>Qa'>>I>w°w°Oaaw w3ww°w°c7aaaazw°C ww°C w°C I, NNji'li! Ili L'a• ' i la it i �M i tiM i• I I,( i U aA j ; aaa iI l awaaxx I i Iv ¢i v � j xxxr$¢ i � > I l i! i t i � I b I b a y65�, 3v,v� > etlpy �pappa3a�p,�ap3y�prppapl�op0�apt�wp�opC�wp�cpOOO�Nr O b O �D N M N '•f �O `O �O �D �nnD �D �O �O pNp N M_ O O b O °NN '-' O aC�v� Vy h Vry V1 in b a z a 6>43 z A A QQ a^ awi v d ai a; ai u a .. CIS z �x tiz°3333333 °xiaax,»ura� V -^ ; � 1°1i� G a N o �a UUUUVCJUuu aQaaaas I U UAAAAA AAAAAA 0 0 y N ;;x33wwwwww�w d d yvy I Ib3 w UUUU w3�, o z>aaaeaa"ec�3333333�� aaw�c°ac��R !9c°a3aaaa����t°��., A Wp opG ap0 Aw c 2 aQaaaaP� � Qyg gg � ai zGU UCgUUUUUUU°UUUt3UC3AAAAA � � N A A aAAAAAA w 8-'py Raa 8QM 8pcnp .BQ-�h8aN 8�pQppp(48Q 00O 0080 8QM~ 880 Qpp�{{ Qp8p�aQp}y{ 8Np oM8Mpq 8QN 8aN Qppe}{�pQ °p� QQp�ppp8888N .Qp} 8pQy SS�888Q 8h ep}8 qpa 88�88� 888Q�npQ QyppQy B8/188880880 00 .pQppp 8N �/l M Ci ,W O v1 O vl O v� O V� O p�C b Oa O V1 M a8� t+i �}{ 'O vl V1 v1 �° b �° M b b M Q `7 �_O N �° enM M O 8 N O� 00 pM N b �O M �1 N_ _N Epp N~ N~ O~ N� �pMp rpm �cpp1 �pMp �pAp p�p O _b O N N N O O O O O pMp pO O O< �pMp �pMp �pMp 1pMp �pMp pMp 'Q � •N. .N. O O oO t� �pMp Q A� Ey M M of M M M M M M M it Q 'Q �t '7 R M M M M M M M M M Q M M M V V Q Q M M M M M a w 0 N 040 a :I i �- -� 1 .. mmim_ OMMMEEMMMMMMW C s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 5/16/02: mber CU-02-002 FileNift cn- MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO.: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning. Manager f g ,. . DATE: May 8, 2002' SUBJECT: Application of Gulfstream Natural "Gas Systems, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a Segment of a' natural gas pipeline; to be known as Gulfstream Gas Pipeline, in the U (Utilities) Zoning District.; LOCATION: From the Okeechobee%St. Lucie Countyline along the FEC Railway right-of-way north to the L-95/Midway Road FPL Substation. SITE DES_ CRIPTON: A segment of an 'interstate natural gas pipeline " to transport 1. l billion cubic feet.ofhatural gas per day to the State of Florida.'The proposed pipeline is 74 .;miles long'and will originate'onshore in Mississippi and, Alabama, cross;the, Gulf of `Mexico; andmake landfall in. Manatee: CountyFlorida, extending across the state. The s project is designed °primarily to serve Florida utilities and power - generation facilities .that will use high -efficiency, natural gas turbines to meet the incremental demand for electric energy. The natural gas pipeline will enter St. Lucie County at the Martin/St. Lucie Countyjurisdictional 'line. There will be two phases of construction within St. Lucie County; the first phase will be from the .St. Lucie County/Martin county line along" the FEC Railroad right-of-way traveling, north to the Midway Roam/ 95 Corridor (FPU Substation). The second phase "will require an additional conditional use and will travel north along .the FPL easement into Indian " River County. Only Phase 1 is being considered through this Conditional Use Permit: The proposed pipeline will cross three, roadways within St. Lucie County: Glades Cut -Off Road, Range Line Road and Commerce . . Center Drive. The applicant applied for and received a permit from the Engineering Department allowingthe installation to cross these roadways:' ZONING DESIGNATION-- U (Utilities)= . 1 4 l L { 4 � yy JJJ Hf" May 8, 2002 Petition:: Octlfstrem Pipe Line Page 2. File No.: CU=02-002 , LAND USE DESIGNATION: T/U (Transpoitation/Utilities) PROPOSED USE: A segment of a 744-mile interstate at: gas pipeline: SURROUNDING LAND USES: The priryusesarearltral.nnaure with some residential and industrial uses. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: N/A .` SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS:. N/A TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Certificate of Capacity. This petition is fora combination of Conditional U9e:Permit Approval. As such, itJs'required to satisfy the standards of review found `in Section 11.07.03 of the County's LandDevelopment Code. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11:07:03; ST. LUCIE COUNTY 'LAIND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflicfwith any applicable portions of the St, Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use has been determined to not be in conflict with any applicable. provision of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(W)(7),. U (Utilities) Zoning District, allows gas pipeline rights -of way and. natural or manufactured gas storage and distribution points as conditional uses. 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on. nearby properties; The proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The proposed site is located within an area zoned for utilities. The proposed natural gas line will be installedwithin a'50-foot corridor following the FEC Railroad north to the FP&L easement from the' Martin/St. Lucie County Line,north to the Intersection of I-95 and Midway Road. The applicant has I i Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. 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 11.07.03, 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 GULFSTREAM NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A SEGMENT OF A NATURAL GAS LINE FROM THE ST. LUCIE /MARTIN COUNTY LINE NORTH TO THE MIDWAY ROAD/I-95 INTERSECTON IN THE U (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) 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 SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, 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 GULFSTREAM NATURAL GAS SYTEMS, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE INSTALLATION OF A SEGMENT OF A NATURAL GAS LINE FROM THE ST. LUCIE I • ; _ _i_� • i 1�1__ � • C M* • �I�I_ �I_I• � : C • •�• /�' . hMM_ C __ M • � 1` .1_ (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] Section 16 03 4 Zoning District Use. Regulations W. U UTILITIES 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for utilities, transportation, and communication facilities, together with such other uses as maybe compatible with utility, transportation, and communication facility 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 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. Air; transportation services j451,4s2) b. Agriculture, including farms, groves, and ranches: (01.02) c. Communication. (4s) d. Electric services (491) e. Electric transmission rights -of -way. 491) f. Gas pipeline rights -of -way. '(49z) g. Gas production and distribution (492) h. Industrial wastewater,disposai t999i i. Railroad, rapid rail transit, & street railway transportation. (4o.4l) j. Sanitary services 49si k. Transportation services (47) I. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (s99) M. Water supply andirrigation systems. t494,497i n. Water transportation (44) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations i Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a.. Airports. t45ei b. Electric generation plants. t491i C. Gas production plants.; (492) I d. Land clearing and yard trash' recycling operations- subject to the provisions of Section Adopted August 1, 1990 130 Revised Through 08/01/00 i , v°c vex ---------------- t ' ie � `j 0 t O t t 1 t y � � � 1 t QwtNWA'. t t , ' f t tdilL� t M tntw,s PH t a pu � 1 ' . � ow t'•ss Ca / . t co ' t t wlw -w-n C t ON 1� d '- t --w .. ottW w-Vo t / - #;�Io 0�3 -, t i - 1 t 1 1 1 , I --___-------------- --- -------------_---_-_ __-_____-- ___--_--____-__--________----_____ _ Alunoo aagouna@Ao ----- ------------------------ __-_ --_ HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS April 5, 2002 In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that GULFSTREAM NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, LLC. have petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cross country natural gas transmission line for the following described property: Location: Follow the FEC Railroad, K Branch/Glades Cut -Off Road from SW Corner of the St. Lucie/Okeechobee County Line to I-95 and Midway Road. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The first public hearing on the pelilion will be held at 7.00 P.M, or as soon thereafter as possible, on Thursday, April 18, 2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, S& Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia 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. If 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 a date -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 5611462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number CU-02-002. Sincerely, ST. UCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Stefan( 4-Atthes, Chairman JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 - DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 - PAULA A. LEWIS. District No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 - CLIFF BARNES. District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue - Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (561) 462-1590 - Planning: (561) 462-2822 G15/Technical Services: (561) 462-1553 Economic Development: (561) 462-1550 Fax: (561) 462-1581 T...,.l�r//.......-...«..,.. /G/_AN ALn AL'nn - I —.--. r PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA April 18 2002 TO WHOM.IT MAY CONCERN NOTICE is.. ygi4eri' in accordance with Section " - 1-1.00.03 of -the St:-Ltide'County Lana, Olevelopm0nt Code. 'and the, e St. Lucie County.Comprehepsive Plan, the following applicants have requested that 16e'St. • - • - Lucie. County Planning and Zoning Commission consider. 4. LINDA DIMSEY, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow - their following requests:' social services (day care facility) in the I (Institutional) Zon- ing District for the following described property: - 1. INDRIO VENTURES, LLC, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - I du/acrej Zoning District to the WHITE CITY S/D 03 36 40 LOT 26-L ESS E 120 FT AND 1 CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the follow. I LESS N 50 FT FO R DR DITCH AND LESS RD R/W ing described property: (2.68 AC) (MAP 34/03N I • - THE WEST 400 FEET OF, THE SOUTH 547.96 FEET OF Location: 384 East Midway Road. - THEEASTI/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECT. 16, TWN 34S, R 39E, LESS 1.95 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED 5: GULFSTREAM NATURAL .GAS SYSTEM, LLC; for a IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 233, PAGE 2209, PUBLIC Conditional Use Permit to allow o cross country natural - RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE CO, FLORIDA AND LESS gas transmission line for the following described property: - - - INDRIO ROAD AND CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID - - LAND LYING AND BEING IN ST LUCIE COUNTY, FOLLOW THE FEC RAILROAD, K BRANCH/GLADES' FLORIDA CUT-OFF ROAD FROM SW CORNER OF THE ST. LUCIE/ OKEECHOBEE COUNTY LINE TO 1-95 AND MIDWAY Location: Northeast corner of Indrio Road and Koble- ROAD. gard Road. 6. T&T-LAND,LTD., for a Change in Land Use from RU 2. IOHN ARIE, for a Change in Zoning from the • Urban) to (Industrial) for the following - (Agricultural, Residential — J du/acre) Zoning District to .(Residential - described property- - - the RS-2 (Residential, Single -Family — 2 du/acre).Zoning t - District for the following described property: THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1 /4 OF THE SW 1 /4 OF SECTION 1, -TOWNSHIP 35 BEING A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 16, SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, ST. LUCIE ! FLORIDA . COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AND COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID THE NORTH. 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16; THENCE NORTH, ALONG THE EAST LINE SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH,: RANGE 39 EAST, OF SECTION 16, A DISTANCE OF 1334.05 FEET TO ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE POINT OF BEGINNING_OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: Location:: East side of Kings Highway :approximately fed so of Angie Road th THENCE S 89"40'00" W, A DISTANCE OP647.13 FEET THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 62.18 FEET; THENCE 7-;T&T LAND, LTD, for a Change in Zoning from the AGA S 72°28'A0` W; A DISTANCE OFA00 FEET, MORE OR ' (Agricultural -:1 du/acre) and the AR-1 .(Agricultural, Red - LESS TO. THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE' OF THE 5T de"hal — I du/curie) Toning the it (Industrial, LUCIE RIVER; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID flowing de pety. Light) Zoning District for the following described property. MEAN HIGH "WATER>LINE `TO THE 'INTERSECTION WITHALINE 46075FEE NORTH OF ANDMEASUREO (E•yVEST TEN :ACRES OF, THE NW 1/4.OF.THE NE AT RIGHT ANGLES, AND PARALLEL WITH. THE- SOUTH1/4 OF THE ;SW T/40F'SECTION 1, TOWNSAIP-35 LINE OF THE NORTHEASTONE-QUARTER"OF THE -SAID SOUTH RANGE 39: EAST ST. - LUCIE COUNTY, SECTION'16;`THENCE EASTERLY ALONG LASTLY. SAID :FLORIDA LINE, A DISTANCE'OF 1706 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE'SAID'EAST LINE OF AND - SECTION d 6,. THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION .I6 A`DISTANCE OFd60.7S FEET10 THE a NORTH 1 J2 OF THE NW 1 4 OF THE SW. 1/4 OF - ts �: s s + ROINT OF BEGINNING"LESS THE EkST 23 t)D FEET FOR SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH; RANGE `39 EAST, GOAD RIGHT -.OF WAY__.ST. LUCIE:COU ITY, FLORIDA.. {ocahon West sidwal Oleander Avenue- approximately Location: East side of Kings Highway approximately, 200 feet north`of Elyse Circle 2 500 feet south of Angle Road. 3. ALF'S SPIRITS .AND WINES INC;, for a Conditional Use Berm t to allow.a retail liquor store In the CG'(Com- PUBLIC HEARINQS will be held in Commission Chambers, mercial, General). Zoning Distrid=for the following Roger Poitras Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce,. described property:. , Florida on.April 98, 2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M or as soon tfieicwfter as possible; PARCEL 1:. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, ALL OF THAT AREA DESCRIBED AND SHOWN AS PAR- rd, person decides appeal any decision made by a board, CEL NO 2. ON THE PLAT OF WINDMILL -VILLAGE BY .to aged a-rommission with*respect to any matter oonsid- I N THE SEA' A`REPLAT;OF ITS-1 *AND 1-A, ACCORD- aed at a meeting or. hearing, he. will need a record of the ING TO .THE PLAT' THEREOF, AS RECORDED 1N PLAT -proceedings, -and Hint, for such purposes, he _may need to BO.OK 16 PAGE 6 P. IC. RECORDS`;OF'ST--LUCIE ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, COUNTY, FLORIDA, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon I which the appeal is to be based. PARCEL 2: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER'OF'WINDMILL VILLAGE BY THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SEA UNIT -TWO, AS' RECORDED. IN PLAT BOOK -16; /S/'StefartMatthes,CHAIRMAN PUBLISH DATE: April'S, 2002 PAGE 3I_ QF: THE PUBLIC :RECORDS OFF ST.. LUCIE 2395868 COUNTY, FLORIDA- THENCE RUN SOUTH 89-56.22" WEST ALONG THE: NORTH -LINE QF•SAID•PLAT.'.A DISTANCE'OF" 27:84: FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°03'38" EAST,; PARALLEL WITH :THE .EAST LINE:O0 SAID PLAT, A DISTANZ EOF`f 11.82 FEET;'THENCE RUN NORTH 89°56'22"•EAST,`A DISTANCE OF 247:09 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION' WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-- OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD AIA AS NOW LAID OUT AND IN USE; THENCE RUN NORTH 23°4931" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, A DISTANCE OF 122.21 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°56'22" WEST ALONG A LINE THAT IS AN EASTERLY PROJECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WINDMILL VILLAGE BY THE SEA, UNIT TWO,'A DISTANCE OF 170.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. - SAID LANDS SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE - COUNTY, FLORIDA. - - - Location:- 10875• South Ocean Drive. (Gallerio -Shopping Center) TO: FROM: DATE: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 5/16/02 File Number RZ-02-010 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager n�V 4/ May 8, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of Raymond C. Thoennissen II, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural Residential — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District. LOCATION: 3250 North Kings Highway Road. EXISTING ZONING: AR-1 (Agricultural Residential —1 du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING: CG (Commercial General) FUTURE LAND USE: MXD Airport (COMAND) PARCEL SIZE: 1 acre PROPOSED USE: The purpose of the requested change in zoning is to allow the expansion of the existing Airport Storage facility. PERMITTED USES: Section 3.01.03(S), CG (Commercial General) identifies the designated uses, which are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted through the conditional use process in the CG (Commercial General) 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 and east and CG (Commercial General) zoning district surrounds the petitioned property to the west and south. May 8, 2002 Page 2 Petition: Raymond Thoennissien File RZ-02-010 SURROUNDING LAND USES: The existing Airport Storage facility is located to the west of the subject property and Pippin Tractor is located to the south of the subject property and existing citrus groves are located to the north, and east of the subject property. The surrounding properties are designated with MXD — Airport future land use designation. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: UTILITY SERVICE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: SCHEDULED Station # 4, is located approximately 3 miles to the east. The subject property is located within the FPUA service delivery area. The existing right-of-way for Kings Highway is 60 feet. IMPROVEMENTS: North Kings Highway is tentatively scheduled for resurfacing in FY 1998-99. Widening of this roadway is not programmed as part of the State FDOT work program. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN 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: I. 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 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. The area in which the subject property is located is designated MXD-AIRPORT on the future land use map of the County Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.1.7.4, Figure 1-10D, limits the uses within the MXD-Airport Mixed Use Development Area, to those uses that are allowed in the Commercial, Industrial, T/U, or P/F land use designations. r a r Ma 8 2002 ' ���D"A� Pet�twn� Raymond Thoenmssle� , Y w Page3 t , r File Fi102 Q10 2' Whether the proposed ,.amendment .is consastg�it with' alFklements of the St rt t f � Comprehensive Plan;: , ;; ' � � Thd re uestin e from the�AtR I A Residential (1� applicant is a Chan m zontn ncultural, q g�(g} du/acre) Zoning ;District to' the CG; (Com ne�raial-' General) �Zomng,District Tie area in which theesub�ect property is located is design tedi x , ° AIRP,0xf on the future land' use J map of the County Conprehensxve`Plan 'Polioy`1 174 states "Mixed Use activity areas� shall be developed as indicated in`the following sub area Mixed Use activity areas plans, as}4 t �3H Tl depicted in Figure'1=1Qa thru<1 10�." According to Figure ` 1 l0I), the . subject property is located in` area° designated as f Commercial/Industnals. This area isrestrictedFto those uses that would be equi'ualent to the comal,TUF ationsIri t .: ­,z% .. The proposed change in zoning is consistent,with all .elements of the St Lucie County JCompreliensive elan. The 1VIXD-Atrpbrt Land Use r`equues either a Cyr (Commerciaal General); IL (Industrial; Light); or IH'(Industrial; Htgh)Zonirig lJistnct.: Y 1 3: Whether and the exfent to wlueh the proposedonwg�s mcorisiste»t with the existing an C' p co osedland uses ; - ,p . The propo.sed�zt�nin- is consistent wftli exishng; and proposed land uses, in the area. The #, general use of the trnimedtte surrounding.'area.of:the si%b�ect,p`rbperty is as_follows;'! ` Surrounding Use Land Use Zoning ,4 North- Agricultural, Grove MXD Asrport Ail-1 South Pipptri Tractor U AMAi ort rp; CG ., 'AR t East Agricultural, Grove ' M. M Airport i W Est A.irort EStprage, MXD Ai ort rp" CG . The area under consideration has been designated within the CorYipreherisive Plan with an MXp-Airport Land Use, and an established zoning criteria,tl at emphasizes. Commercial General or Industrial uses. C. Whether there have been changed conditions that require, an amendment; x The'land conditions of the area have not changed so, as to require an amendment. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing Airport Storage facility to the east. They have. currently outgr6wnn their existing'facility. May 7, 2002 Page 4 Petition: Raymond Thoennissen File RZ-02-010 S. 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 rezoning of the property is not expected to create significant additional demands on any ,public facilities in this area. The subject property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes (a grove). Prior to the approval of any expansion to the existing facility, the applicant will need to provide documentation verifying that sufficient facilities are in place to support the new development. 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 applicant will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local environmental regulations. The site does not contain any known unique or threatened habitat. 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 surrounding parcels of property are designated for uses as required within the MXD-Airport land uses. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area under consideration with a Commercial/Industrial land use and further requires either a Commercial General or Industrial Zoning classification. In order for the subject property to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the rezoning would have to take place. In addition, the development patterns along this segment of Kings Highway have taken on a more urbanized (commercial and industrial) pattern. 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. COMMENTS The petitioner, Raymond Thoennissen, has requested this change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District in order to expand the existing Airport Vehicular Storage facility on the subject property. May 7, 2002 Petition: Raymond Thoennissen Page 5 File RZ-02-010 The subject property is in an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial or Industrial Uses. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. cs cc: Raymond Thoennissien File H:\wp\rezoning\Thoennissen\fnl.srp.wpd 5 kk= Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial 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,) HEREBY. MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE` COUNTY BOARD , OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT 'APPROVAL TO THE _ APPLICATION OF RAYMOND THOENNISSIEN, FOR A CHANGEIN ZONING FROM THE AR-4 (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) 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 SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LANUDEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE, APPLICATION OF. RAYMOND THOENNISSIEN, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AR-1 (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO ' THE CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) ZONING;DISTRICT, BECAUSE..... [CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. Section 3.01.03 , Zoning District Use Regulations E. AR-1 AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL - 1 1. Purpose 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 as may be necessary for and compatible with very low density rural residential surroundings. The number in "()" 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 defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Family day care homes. (999) 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 provided that the sponsoring agency or 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. (9") C. Single-family detached dwellings. (9w) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be.in accordance with Table 1 in Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking Requirements Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. h.. 6. Conditional Uses a. Crop services (o72) b. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another such family residential home. (m) C. Industrial wastewater disposal. (9s9) d. Kennels - completely enclosed. (0752) e. Landscaping & horticultural services (078) f. Retail: (1) Fruits and Vegetables. (543) g. Riding stables. (7999) 11 h. Veterinary services. (074) i Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 7. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: Adopted August 1, 1990 101 Revised Through 08/01/00 f��Y t} l \ Af - _ � k fgr�lS.l p :Section Zonin�b.-�} DiUse Regulations _ { 1 t C � a. Agriculture (farms and ranches accessory toOingle-family detach d dw,eiling). (o,ro2} w � b.. -9 Animals; st�blectao the requirements of Section 7.10 03 (999} _._; F c. Guesthouse -subject to, the requirements of Section? 10 04 tr d: css9)�.t} Mob lb subject to the requirements of Section 7 10.05 A F e. (999) Retail and wholesale trade subordinate to the primary, authorized use or activity. f$r X�p .110 IN ", J 1 r ! } .1 i - 1. '. Adopted August 1, 1990 102 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations S. CG COMMERCIAL, GENERAL Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for a wide variety of commercial uses intended to serve a population over a large market area, which do not impose undesirable noise, vibration, odor, dust, or offensive effects on the surrounding area, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with general commercial surroundings. The number in "()" 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 defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Adjustment/collection & credit reporting services (732) b. Advertising (731) C. Amphitheaters (999) d. Amusements & recreation services -except stadiums, arenas, race tracks, amusement parks and bingo parlors (79) e. Apparel & accessory stores (se) f. Automobile dealers (ss) g. Automotive rental, repairs & serv. (except body repairs) (751.753.754) h. Beauty and barber services (723a24) _ i. Building materials, hardware and garden supply cs2) Cleaning services 7349) k. Commercial printing (999) I. Communications - except towers (<e) M. Computer programming, data processing & other computer serv. (737) n. Contract construction serv. (office & interior storage only) (,5 iw7) o. Cultural activities and nature exhibitions (999) p. Duplicating, mailing, commercial art/photo. & stenog. seer. (733) q. Eating places (set) r. Educational services - except public schools (e2) S. Engineering, accounting, research, management & related services (er) t. Equipment rental and leasing services (73s) U. Executive, legislative, and judicial functions (9v9ZV3194i9sMN7) V. Farm labor and management services (oze) W. Financial, insurance, and real estate.(6=1X2ie3iea/ss/s7) X. Food stores (sa) y. Funeral and crematory services (72e) Z. Gasoline service stations (ssal) aa. General merchandise stores (53) bb. Health services (eo) CC. Home furniture and furnishings (s7) dd. Landscape & horticultural services (ode) ee. Laundry, cleaning and garment services (721) ff. Membership organizations - except for religious organizations as provided in Section 8.02.01(H) of this code (ee) gg. Miscellaneous retail (see SIC Code Major Group 59): (1) Drug stores (s91) Adopted August 1, 1990 118 Revised Through 08/01/00 3. Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations (2) Used merchandise stores (593) (3) Sporting goods (5941) (4) Book & stationary (5942/5943) (5) Jewelry (5944) (6) Hobby, toy and games (5945) (7) Camera & photographic supplies (5946) (8) Gifts, novelty and souvenir (5947) (9) Luggage & leather goods (s948) (10) Fabric and mill products (5949) (11) Catalog, mail order and direct selling (5961/5963) (12) Liquified petroleum gas (propane) (5994) (13) Florists (5992) (14) Tobacco (5993) (15) News dealers/newsstands (5994) (16) Optical goods (5995) (17) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (s999) hh. Miscellaneous personal services (see SIC Code Major Group 72): (1) Tax return services (7291) (2) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (7m) ii. Miscellaneous business services (see SIC Code Major Group 73): (1) Detective, guard and armored car services (7381) (2) Security system services (73e2) (3) News syndicate (73e3) (4) Photofinishing laboratories (73s4) (5) Business services - misc. (7389) jj. Mobile home dealers (527) kk. Mobile food vendors (eating places, fruits& vegetables -retail) (ss9) II. Motion pictures pe) mm. Motor vehicle parking - commercial parking & vehicle storage. (752) nn. Museums, galleries and gardens (e4) oo. Personnel supply services (7ie) pp. Photo finishing services (7394) qq. Photographic services (722) rr. Postal services (43) ss. Recreation facilities (999) tt. Repair services (7e) uu. Retail trade -indoor display and sales only, except as provided in Section 7.00.00. (999) vv. Social services: (1) Individual & family social services (832/839) (2) Child care services (e35) (3) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services (a33) ww. Travel agencies (4724) xx. Veterinary services (074) Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. Adopted August 1, 1990 119 Revised Through 08/01/00 4 Dimensional Regulations , ©imensional requirements shali,be in accordance w{tt,Sectia e 5:. Off"street Parking=and Loading Requirements _ ` T mil f 4 0. Off{street parking:and loading requirements are sublent to St<ciion 7;.06 00 ` aR ' ` , 6. Landscaping Requirernents;� t f Landscaping requirements are subject to SectionVoR 7. conditionalUses �t a Adult establishments sultect�to requirements ofec,:7 10 10 (east' Drinkm laces alcoholic bevera es -free skandin g (se,3 � c. Disinfecting &pest controt services n�az i ., d. - Amusement parkS.,(psss) e.: Go=cart;tra'cks (lees) f Hetels & motelsolj _ j g: household goods,warehousing anti storage-tntni�warehouses (99sj h..' Marina - odreatignal boats oily.; (4493) r `- i; Motor vehicle repair services body"reRatr 1 Spbrting acid r : eci'eationai camps t,93z> l ' k _' <. Retail trade (1.) Liquor sfores,'ts92j k.. Stadiurtis, arenas; and race tracks. a. ' (7s4j` ." Telscommuntcatiorrtowers -subject to the sfcndards ofSection"7.10.23 ssj 8: Accessory Uses, Accessory°uses are�subject to the requirements of 8ectiorr$.00.00, and.include.th'e following: a , Drinking places (alcoholic beverages as an accessory use to a restaurant and/C)r, civic, social, and fraternal organizations). b. One single-family dwelling .unit `contained within,the`commercial building, or'a detached single-family dwelling or. mobile home, (for on -site security purposes). c. Retail trade: (1) Undistili d alcoholic beverages (accessory to retalll sale of food). Adopted August'1, 1990 120 - Revised Through 08/01/00 t r N CO CO � O a z 0 U Z H Q A Petition of Raymond Thoennissen for a change in zoning from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential-1 uniVacre) to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. d- 0 z c CY Cy n Li vi RZ 02-010 This pattern indicates Map prepared April12, 2002 subject parcel ,M b.b., �� f..P.4 P�- %iA v Oww ban —& b Pwe m — ." .mnle ".m Pam.RY not h-*A 1.— u • wo-ey W-'%q Coamat Raymond Thoennissen RZ 02-010 This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared April 12. 2002 � baan ­pW 6, g-1pW—V Wlie way al b— m W W.&,% ft ki=wfkn Po bb. k Is M k—dad for u r , legffy bkaV Zoning Raymond Thoennissen AR-1 0 z 0 a � c -� 0 U AG-1 CO CG IL AR-1 CG RZ 02-010 q -41 This pattern indicates Map prepared April 12,2002 subjectparcel ,. �a., �Q—WO—VW—I-"—�. kk.,.d- P..k W. Mb—it� W— r . IpeRy dnQnp EoarM. 3 vsr�}�s $,"9 i M �i�`e_�i�x� } qA.. C' �z % s 3' �. (q } -. s n(��, `; }�, ai- +'`•, e�t"J �.n, �' ," >'� `r � 3 �` 2a 3 v 5.- P ;_Y �3 zr-,9i;,A 3 �;�n�w>' xs}�,'s°., vi>" 33�zfi5 .r z. •.��4bi� I¢. cf. ate.;. ��. a. M � p; 2 mY" $ try I Yi'1 -Ys`-i1P"r€�K ,r.`�n.-x''.'. ✓' "�°^s � Ef p t F 3 rx"� i ks A.fe �a f I; +. ,� - �r g■+ _-„ �, 9� -x �r, �. -t a. J x� t 3 ' � , �vv',, -r °� `s'-' A `K" IV t$s,471, at�' AV — ts..? w.w�4.m9Y 3,Ta§) - z°$ye'h'�,�"�%'h •Q4�('Y :, x � sw' .XS.� .i '�3''1 ,.m f ,� . �` `� � -: � -.r..* �,.i ...,� - mb � '.^:✓ s tam s _ Y '4i } A f "z - lt '.9 r Qy 4 use t 's, '' 1ra,.€ s •"��, _ « k' �•n �'. � q r'+���,,*' i�,,.is:,.8: �...ara �����: � { # � ; .".v"�� s� � .� ��� 4�` � ,az �,�",�a�.: 'z �� �..�� �'�a� �h`� s �.s I n� _mzt.Rl-w � ..`�t {7J.id ✓ f-,s , yP:gf'°"ey, ,fir. . iF"""r zi b t� ? ' �'., ;vrk .�.»+' �.� 3tia °�,''gg gss;*;-m' mow,..' xaawia*yg �'a R3xw sm?`, at f. e k � ; r� >P •.:.,-�.i>�' Ste^ 1 ^^- <.,,,o w . � s A� ` � � �'a"' � x �. sf a�+r «.«�«��,�,'N "x,., ��ss^� s "-%5�. ���aG'v'�',"'a��zt� F�� � r�}�L a" �-,• '�-,a.+".Z�` • �,-���t„�.aw�rm..�z.^�. '' t � f atl � ,,.�e.� ^^:5>a..+a-�� ". �..� +��y � t �" c 1 7...m �t r s" ros.�r, t "a�€i+a.�r' `gym ri"V'x'A- .rs� d-P �r .... .. ..a.x.as-vu �✓4�``s3�`�",r�d.'.�?a��. S•i1 ,, 9i�'�bd'tr-i�d-axi6,�3,� tr^ �zu..e�a+any n.�i'r .'v� 3�� r GF,{:'sa1.`A`ra.� �s-"�Kr� 1.�:1.. Y. ZYjF� ..i ��a��,e3,w¢Ir. soL,ismd. t AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY16, 2002 7. 00 P.M. RAYMOND THOENNISSEN, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 3250 North Kings Highway. 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 May 6, 2002. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on May 6, 2002. File No. RZ-02-010 ST. LUTE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION -- PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA .. .. .. - May 142002 .. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, NOTICEI. 0iwn a oaad-wfthSsdan 11.00.03 d Ke St. tuala CoMRy Lad D.Al w va Cods ad Hu p-40.. d tM St. Ludo Caney Comp h-.Iw Pko IM fdbwkp applkanH how raaamled tlpt Ilr SL L.e Couroy Plami,p ad Za.rp Gas M Won acrnlder 111dr Fdlo-k'R ragiuK . I. w LAND, tTD- b a Chaps ki Fw_ tad Ur Clmd -m. fran RU PWdWW Urban) b IND P',d sI WQ far 0, kola-Snp dumbed wopedy, THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE NW ''A OF THE NE %OF THE SW Y. OF SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE NORTH.h OF THE NW V.OF THE SW Y.Of SECTION I TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH RANGE 99 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. - lemllorc Eop Ride d Khp, Miphray, opprodnaNly 2500 faM tiuNr d Anp4 toad. 2. T3T LINO, LTD, b a Chaps H Zonklp boot YM AGI (Aakvllurd-1 dv/aaN and Hr AR-1 (A9rRLAAkat takeNial-1 du/sere) Zonirp DaeWR b Rw • Pldu,kaL Lipp ZoNny DDkld b Ilr Iola-k'0 duoibd prepMY. ' THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE NW 'A OF THE HE'V. OF THE SW V. OF SECTION T TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND.... v THE NORTH''A OF THE NW Y. OF THE SW Y.OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUR RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. looeMm Ea# dda of KhW Hlphray, opwWnxrWy 2,500 feet WA of Anp1a Road 3. RAYMOND THOENNISSEN, Fa a Chape.N ZoNop Mae Hra AR•1 (Ary....L Ra WN l - 1 dr/o ) ZmkV DMdd b RM CG (Commercial Ga�waA ZmRV DW&I for Hn Wlortrp dumbed p opady. THE NORTH 17t.76 FEET OF THE EAST 256.15 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING AND BEING IN 57. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS DRAINAGE CNALS AND ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND LESS PARCEL CONVEYED TO FLORIDA STATE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 215, PAGE 103. PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORID& ALSO, LESS THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND: All THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING, BEING AND SITUATE IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST; THENCE NORTH 00 06'A8' EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 2655.28 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89 A3,39. EAST, A DISTANCE OF 70.98 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KINGS HIGHWAY SAID POINT BEING THE POINT Of BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT; THENCE NORTH 00 01-IS' EAST, AIONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID KINGS HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 242.14 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 89 46'12' EAST, A DISTANCE OF AD6.15 FEET TO A PONT. THENCE NORTH 00 01'I5' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 429.00 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 09 4612' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 85OS5 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00 01'16' WEST A DISTANCE OF 670.20 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE SOUTH B9 AT' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1256.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (O.R.8. 1175 PAGE IAIB) Lorafron: 3250.-1, Ks,p, High- . A. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC. fa a Chonpe in Zonkp from de AG-5 (Agrkvlfaal - 1 da/5 arnl Zooi,p OHhid Io 0,e U (LBilifiu) Zo lw DiWh fa IM folb-kp described wopi.h, A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER I%) OF SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 87°57'45' WEST, AS A BASIS OF BEARINGS, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE Of SAID SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 2672.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER P141 OF SECTION 3, THENCE NORTH 00.27-15' EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER (YQ Of SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 189A.32 FEET TO THE PONT OF BEGINNING THENCE CONTINUE NOIITH 00°2TI3' EASE ALONG SAID WEST TINE, A DISTANCE OF 656.)0 FEET, THEtACE SOUTH 89°I916' EAST, DEPARTING $AD WEST UNE, A DISTANCE OF ":6S67p {PET`t THENCE SOLID/ 00.2T15' WESL A DISTANCE-OF.656.70-FEETF .THENCY NORfM B9•IW16• WEST,'& DISTANCE q 63670 FEET TO THE Po1NT OF BIDRAINA TO'AN EASEMENT TOR MITRESAND EGRESS AND PUBLIC I/fR1TY AND ' DRALNAGE OVER THE WEST 25 FEET THEREOF. CONTAINING 9.900 ACRES. MOPE OR LESS. , 5 75 mile, - 11 of M- , e -id Rood. 5. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC., for a ClMie l Uu PIWI IR altar Ha h,lalloli n aM opao I on Ai,C_b kM,wR Ln fha U ZUWIX ) Zonkp Dbkkt Iv H. follo-kp d-llxd wop-,. A PARCEL'OF,LAND LYING114 THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER VN OF SECTION S. TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAD SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 87°5T45'. WEST, AS A BASIS OF BEARINGS, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION S A DISTANCE OF 2672.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER PA) OF SECTION S. THENCE NORTH 00°2TIS EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAD SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER V14 OF SECTION S. A DISTANCE OF 1894.32 FEET TO'THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 00°27`15' EAST ALONG SAID WEST UNE, A DISTANCE OF 656.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'19'16' EAST, DEPARTING SLID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 65670'---FEET, THENCE SOUTH 00°2TIS- WEST, A DISTANCE OF 6%704FEET, THENCE NORTH 89°19'16' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 6WO FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING SURIECr TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRANAGE OVER THE WEST 25 FEETTHEREOF.- CONTAINING 9,900 ACRES,'MORE OR LESS. '- Locvlioa' Nod, dds d lope A -A appra -Wy 575 ,n8u wat d Mh Abed 6: GIASSMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION b a Chaps In ZaAnpTram.IM P.M-5 PasHe+laL AWIHph-F-Aly- 5 dr/a 4IX P-V*1 � b&a WO ad CN (Colmwtb� Nelphborheod) Z-kV DlarMa to Iba PUD P'lo.W UM Da Wqy - PofNfia SAaeQ Zadry DWHdbllr feBvwYp dswR+ad prapedyr .. _ ,. _ BEING'ALL THAT►ART OF THE EAST ONEJLALF-OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOLFTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING NORTH OF THE TURNPIKE FEEDER ROAD, AND ALL THAT PART OF THE WESiONE-O{IARTER OF SECf10N'7, TOWNSHIP 3.1'SOUI/I, RANGE t0 FAST, 1. NORTH; OF SAD TURNPKE FEEDER ROAD, LESS.:L1D� EXCEPTINGAPPROXIMATELY ' THEREFROM A PARCEL OF APPROXATELY 2.9 ACRES DESCRIBED AS A PART OF THE WEST I44 34 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION I Z TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 FAST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SEC.I TION UNE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID ONE -QUARTER SECTION UNEE A DISTANCE OF-988.34 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO INCLUDING ANY AND ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN A CERTAIN EASE- MENT DATED OCTOBER 27. 1970, FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1970 AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 907, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200989. ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS; EASEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 908, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200990, ST. LUCIE COUNTY REC&DS; AND EASEMENT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1970, FILED NOVEMBER 16. 1970. AT O.R. BOOK 188. PAGE 89&897. CLERKS FILE NO. 200987. ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE OF THE NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE WHICH POINT IS $6,61 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH RANGE 34 EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE A DISTANCE OF 205.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEONNING OF THE TRACT HEREBY DESCRIBED. FROM SAID POINT OF BEONNING RUN NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE RIONT-OF- WAY OF SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONE.GUARTER SECTION LINE TO A POINT THAT WOULD BE INTERSECTED BY A LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST FROM A POINT ON SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONEOUARTER SECTION LINE THAT IS 901.72 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE- OUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE.OUARTER OF SAD SECTION 12; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST TO A POINT THAT IS DUE NORTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH AND PARALLEL WITH SAID ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 847.04 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. OVERALL PARCEL CONTAINS 18591 ACRES,MORE OR LESS localbn: WM sMe d fM T,erpAa feeds. Rood, dkxdY WA d SPonld lake, Cc CRA Vllbpa. PUBLIC HEARINGS Iff M held M Ca Il lb Chambe Ropy Polka, A"n Vkgk" AwneA fad PI -A Fkd& aA May 16. 2002, bpkn g d 7,00 PAL a a H,eredla u poxhlA I � . PURSUANT TO Sidlon 2860105, Pbdda SaRM11,116 Lp�wedw dadd(aXRgll4 w. awe w okj a h wh,ai �p, I.M yeud a rmd d ihf �RwAagf� ad MaF, Per pApRM, M -b may need b e,wwa Rd a dk,I rKad d Rw wonedY,pl li:wad► raeard R.,IM Iuanw ad M-you.IM aped b b ba bowd PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /5/SI f.. Moilr,, CHAIRMAN PUBIISHDATI -. M.,6,7M12 2.223W PLANNING AND ZONING CONMSSION REVIEW: 5/16/02 File Number RZ-02-011 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager DATE: May 8, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District. LOCATION: North side of Orange Avenue, approximately 5 3/4 miles west of Minute Maid Road and north one mile from the entrance to Wynne Ranch. EXISTING ZONING: AG-5 (Agricultural —1 du/5 acres) PROPOSED ZONING: FUTURE LAND USE: U (Utilities) AG-5 (Agricultural - 5) PARCEL SIZE: Parent Parcel 671.32 acres Petitioned Parcel 9.9 acres PROPOSED USE: The purpose of the requested change in zoning is to allow the operation of an air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris. PERMITTED USES: Section 3.01.03(W), U (Utilities) identifies the designated uses, which are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted through the conditional use process in the "U" (Utilities) Zoning District. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further review and approval before that use may be commenced on the property. Any use not identified in the zoning district regulations is considered to be a prohibited use in that district (see Attachment "AA"). In this case the proposed use, the operation of an air curtain incinerator, will require a Conditional Use Permit. This Conditional Use Permit may only be reviewed after the petition for change in zoning has been approved. May 7, 2002 Petition: Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. Page 2 File RZ-02-011 SURROUNDING ZONING: AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) zoning district surrounds the petitioned property to the north, south, east and west. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The existing uses in this are agricultural in nature. The Wynne Ranch is located to the north, south and west of the subject property and citrus groves are located to the east of the subject property. The surrounding properties are designated with an AG — 5 (Agricultural —1 du/5 acres) future land use designation. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: UTILITY SERVICE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Station # 11, is located approximately 8 miles to the east. On site wells will provide water service. On site sewer will be provided through a septic tank system. The existing right-of-way for Orange Avenue is 200 feet. None Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN 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 U (Utilities) Zoning District. The area in which the subject property is located is currently zoned AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) and being utilized as citrus groves and cattle ranches. The stated purpose of this change in zoning is to allow for development of an air curtain incinerator operation for the disposal of land clearing debris collected from various construction sites throughout St. Lucie County and the surrounding area. The U (Utilities) Zoning District has been determined to be an acceptable zoning district for the establishment of this type of operation, subject to further site specific review as part of the Conditional Use process. May 7, 2002 Page 3 Petition: Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. File RZ-02-011 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 AG-5 land use designation. According to this table, those activities allowed within the U (Utilities) Zoning District are considered to be acceptable within the areas designated with a Future Land Use Classification of AG-5 (Agricultural — 5). Policy 6B.1.2.1 of the Solid Waste Sub -element of the County's Comprehensive Plan, Infrastructure Element states that the County will implement the most cost effective alternative solid waste management practices that would extend the useful life of the landfill. These alternative include, but are not limited to: resource recovery, volume reductions by solid waste generators, volume reduction at transfer stations, separation of solid wastes at the source, composting recycling centers, public information programs, and operational changes that could improve efficiency. The petitioner is proposing a procedure that would separate the land clearing debris at the source, and instead of stockpiling it or disbursing it to the County's landfill operation they would placing it into the air curtain incinerator and burn the materials, thereby, eliminating the source from the landfill. 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 area. The surrounding properties are being used as either citrus groves or cattle ranches. The permitted uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning District are not expected to unduly impact the surrounding area or uses. Any other use in the U (Utilities) Zoning District would be subject to Conditional Use review, prior to any final authorizations being granted. There are no residential structures adjacent to the subject property. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; No specific conditions have occurred in the area to warrant this specific change other than the desire of the county to permit these types of incinerator operations in unpopulated areas of the community. 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 rezoning of the property is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Public utilities have not been installed this far west in the county. The subject property is currently be utilized for agricultural purposes as citrus groves. Prior to the approval of any final development plans on the subject property, the applicant will need to provide documentation verifying that sufficient facilities are in place to support the use. N May 7, 2002 Petition: Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. Page 4 File RZ-02-011 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed change in zoning itself is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The applicant/property owner will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local environmental regulations, as part of any submitted development pants for this site. The site does not contain any known unique or threatened habitat. The petitioned property is currently being used as a citrus grove. 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; The subject property is currently being utilized as a citrus grove. The reclassification of this property to a limited use zoning district such as U (Utilities) Zoning District would not result in the introduction of incompatible land uses or activities with the surrounding low density agriculture activities. 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. COMMENTS The petitioner, Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc., has requested this change in zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District for property located north of Orange Avenue, approximately 5 3/4 miles west of Minute Maid Road and then north one mule from the entrance to Wynne Ranch. The indicated purpose of this change in zoning is to allow for the submission of an application for a conditional use permit to operate an air curtain incinerator on the subject property. The subject property is in an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being compatible with or for the U (Utilities) Zoning District. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. cs cc: Port ST. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. Rickey L. Farrell, Attorney File HA%vp\rezoniug\Port St. Lucie Tracot\fnl.srp.wpd Section 3 01.03' Zoning District Use Regulations C. AG-5 AGRICULTURAL - 5 Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for productive commercial agriculture, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with productive agricultural surroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a maximum of one dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres. The number in "()" 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 defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. Permitted Uses a. Agricultural production - crops (w) b. Agricultural production - livestock & animal specialties (02) C. Agricultural services (o7) d. Family day care homes. (999) e. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or 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. (999) f. Fishing, hunting & trapping (og) g. Forestry (oe) h. Kennels. (0752) i. Research Facilities, Noncommercial (e733) j. Riding stables. (is) k. Single-family detached dwellings. (m) j. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. M� 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping Requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00 Conditional Uses a. Agricultural labor housing. (999) b. Aircraft storage and equipment maintenance. (4591) Adopted August 1, 1990 98 Revised Through 08/01/00 1.1 Section 3.0.1 03 Zoning District Use Regulations t, 1 C. Airports and flying, landing, and take -off fields. (4581) d. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such family residential home. (999) e. Farm products warehousing and storage. (422114222) f. Gasoline service stations. (ssal) g. Industrial wastewater disposal. (999) h. Manufacturing: (1) Agricultural chemicals (287) (2) Food & kindred products (20) (3) Lumber & wood products, except furniture (24) i. Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels (14) j. Retail trade: (1) Farm equipment and related accessories (999) (2) Apparel & accessory stores (56) k. Sewage disposal subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.13 (999) I. Camps - sporting and recreational (7032) M. Off -Road Vehicle Parks, except go-cart raceway operation or rentals (7999), subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.21 (999) n. Outdoor shooting ranges, providing site plan approval is obtained according to the provisions of Sections 11.02.07 through 11.02.09 and Section 7.10.19 of this Code. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Mobile homes subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. b. Retail trade and wholesale trade - subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity. C. Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. (999) Adopted August 1, 1990 99 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section.3.01.03 t Zoning District Use Regulations 7.10.12. (999) e Natural or manufactured gas storage and distribution points. (492) f. Protective functions and their related activities - Correctional institutions (9223) g. Solid waste disposal. (4953) h. Outdoor shooting ranges, providing site plan approval is obtained according to the provisions of Sections 11.02.07 through 11.02.09 and Section 7.10.19 of this Code. (999) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00 and include the following: a. Automobile and truck rental services. b. Restaurants. (Including the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption only.) (999) 4 Adopted August 1, 1990 131 Revised Through 08/01/00 U N .5 U r n F.0 Z n O U Z F= cc Q Pnrt -qt I i irio Trartnr .qP-rxfirP Inc: w AG-5 S.R. No. 68 Oronge Avenue RZ 02-011 may: This pattern indicates e 1 Map prapard A'n119, 2002 subject parcel M,twrw P�YIY� Y iaf4,41 4 r � � Yp�( YMQ 6»„�t x mI i6 S Ng e ee n fi. ti �, ��.a?+&I�s��k� Fk3r ~i�&' Sr £i•3 H aP�n a 4. ►J;s t i�a �f l;+� ^i'� j[[j jf 1I4 r£c �+� t � ' # -£ x +. rg r.�. � � ,F��°' "s,.'"`� "RKa' w�.,,a '.r=� + �.{r+t �, }fyf ' r �` � Ir:r dsLl '� { ip��'��j +J!•. apy?s F< r jjja FI jF F 4£ ! n � Y+€i -71 Y jca lm'ane .at..V 4n 'r�rob ).:. 4�3w4 %, I ! ! (' + I 1 •i I 1 1 1 �^ �: t F 1 �4 lit }i, iI rpI{s a + t t "�+ i P� III s�i; Ts!§: j t it t� air F �r pit �- it b i €r. F.. ilir Sk i,i 1 + 1 1+ lFr{ I' S .I 1n�.�ii Iii`13-rl Alit! l,!'t' ji ,li x III III + Ia i t � , { I F £ - - E l r" t #'1 1 Fi I t S-,, pl b, {yro ft i.. i '� 1 ii r 1 1 +rlri is le rs�Fn y {. i �'a°I '£ ��.�' i'11 i^• 1�i rfl �i( i•1i1�' a ' 7'+'j �.iie' a Zre ( i7ItI.Ii �1 iI Y �' E F� 1 {.,.e'.-.6t.ni �$`i s LL � . . . . . . f. . . . k;F t 1 m:.,as p' +'.s.r'.I, r"a.3f"-.VA,....., "`"-.x.`::,T.m'. i ..«.:+:...r_�..:,...:.r..^ {t (tyl E.�jl� t�j 1p,�t Hit � i ,..r ,e'tfi....Ft.l t°I.i!{��;; -1:f� �1913,e I i� fl3il.,.�lii1f1 :i: ��!�{! , f>i►!I�+l� it it l:l H,1, '111 ,1 AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 7. 00 P.M. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - I du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: North side of Orange Avenue, approximately 5.75 miles west of Minute Maid 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 May 6, 2002. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on May 6, 2002. File No. RZ-02-011 �4- cl C-4 464. Ne � J'l ono: '80 lu a K:14 0"0( tivvo '72 V: CV <:N OV All M. A cd A. U, u U�u ZI > oso co c N N LZI 4 C4 to %0 t- �A_ — c� (D en CD 'ON c� oo c) . (_ c> oo c� Cr C> CD 0 c> �o C> 0 c' C�l 0 (:5 CD en.^ CD 0 /':' cl c c eqC QO 0% C cq c L I en 22 4c Elm 0, cof ul C7%1— ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA - '- ,. - Moy 16, 2002 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE bhoCo ol•en M awwdann Whh SIdim I LOOM fft S. Luds Cower Land DeYRlapnwd Cods -A N w-blwa d Me St Lod. C-Ay Caa "S—hR PlA IM idbwMp epplkaM Ives rmF -W R,d IM SE tl,d. Cwliey Plomkq 614 Z-ft C_ m.ddn aomlde(IheM rono..kq rgaalc I, TOT LAND, LTD, br 6 C -9. Li FNws lard U7s CbsA ,.If. ham RU (R.W." Urbanl b IND BrdAe Q Fm des W6wkp du ibW p"oly;. THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE NW V. OF THE HE V" THE SW u OF SECTON 1 TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTN, RANGE39 EAST,ST. LUOE COUNTY, FLORIDA , AND THE NORTH N OF THE NW V. OF THE SW V, OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH RANGE,a9 EAST, ST. LUQE COUNTY, FLORIDA.. - - lowAlaR •Eml.ds d I]npf Hglneoy, eppwlmably 2.500 feel emAh dArpM Raed 2. TOT LAND, LID ,Tor u Q.V. M Z.;ft Tom to. Arm pq&, Nd- T d,/met and Nr AR-1.(AOriarM:al, ReWkdbl -1 &/-* Z"V DW*b b 0. l QM.I K US" ZoAMB DItlrW for llw foRonk.R daWbad PraWFY, ',.' THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE -POW 'V.. OF THE NE Y. OF THE SW H OF SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORID,! AND . .. THE NORTH N OF THE NW V. OF THE.SW V. OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTF RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA laoldbrti Eo,t eWe d Ki;p. HiRlway, opproxlnbMy 2,500 /«I wldh d Alph Rea4 3. RAYMOND:THOENNISSEN, for a Churps.M ZwhQ frws ft AR-1. Vpriwft%aL R.Wwool - I do/ a* Zonkp DWM I. du CO (Cwmle "G-4 ZoMng Dbtrld Iw dm Fdl.w d-&W property. THE NORTH 171.76 FEET OF THE EAST 256,15 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS DRAINAGE CNALSAND ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND LESS PARCEL CONVEYED TO FLORIDA STATE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY. RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 215. PAGE 103, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALSO, LESS THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING, BEING AND. SITUATE IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3e SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 2S, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH. RANGE 39 EAST, THENCE NORTH 00 06'e8' EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 2655.28 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 89 e3'39' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 70.98 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE KINGS HIGHWAY SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OFBEGINNINGOF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT, THENCE NORTH 00 01'15' EAST, ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID KINGS HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 2421e FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 89 46'12' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 406.15 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 00 0145- EAST, A DISTANCE OF e29.00 FEET TO A POINT. THENCE NORTH 69 e6'12' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 050.55 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE SOUTH 00 01'16' WEST A DISTANCE OF 670.20 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE SOUTH 89 e3'39- WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1256.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, (O.R.B. 1175 PAGE 14181 Locw , 3250 Nwth Ki, g, Hgh..ay e. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC. fw a Cho:ge M Zmmq Tom 0m AG-5 (AVkaiNral - I d./5 ocra,) Z-1.9 Dl.r to Me U (ILM11 e,) Ia i, DhhM Iw d,e foil-" d-itN propn,y, A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER (V..) OF SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: S. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC. Iw a Cwdt b l Use Pe h b allow 8u iwblkdbn and oparalbn.d an AY C-I. Iricklrab.M ba U NfflM ) ZonMB Dhkkl fw d,e folbwkp detwibad Wop-r. - - A PARCEL'OP LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER ('/.I OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION-5j THENCE SOUTH 07e57Y5- WEST, AS A BASIS OF BEARING;' ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5; A DISTANCE OF 2672A0'FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER C14 OF SECTION 5, THENCE NORTH 00°2T15' EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER C14 OF SECTION 5. A DISTANCE OF 1894.32 FEET T01HE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUE NORTH We2T15' EAST ALONG SAID WEST UNE A DISTANCE OF 65670 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89'1 VIP EAST, DEPARTING SAID WEST UNE A -DISTANCE OF 656J0'FEET, THENCE SOUTH o ins, WEST, A DISTANCE -OF 65670; FEET, THENCE NORTH 89°19',16- WES1;.A DISTANCE OF 656J0 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. . t . SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PUBLIC UINTY AND .DRAINAGE OVER THE WEST 25 FEETTHEREOF. - - - CONTAINING 9,"0 ACRES; MORE OR LESS.- - L-S., Noft.Ne d;Gr q. Awnas, appwi!uddy 5.75.0. Waf d MkwN Mad Road" 6: GLASSMAN DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION for a CMmpe M ZanlnR-Tom IM RM-S (R-Wi.A Mahiph-F-Ily.- 5 d,,/-Al /-A IX NA,* Edradiard and CN KommerabL NelphbodNodl Zm4q DIALdE b IM PUD- O'Jwmid Urlk Dn+lopm!+ - PaeM4a . Sh--4ZaNnB OElkkl brlM laOowFq dsicWH p,operry: . SONG ALL THAT PART OFTHEEAST ONE-HALF OF.SECTION IZ TOWNSHIP 3e SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, tY1NG NORM OF THE TURNPIKEFEEDERROAD, AND ALL.THAT PART OF THE WEST'ONI.pUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 3e .SOUTH, RANGE 40 FAST, LYING'. NORTH: OF SAID . TURNPIKE FEEDER ROAD, LESS,AND,EKCEPTING THEREFROM A PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES TH DESCRIBED A& A PART OF THE WEST 116. 34 FEET OF E SOUTHEAST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION I TOWNSHIP N SOUTH. RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORMSOUTH ONE -QUARTER SEG 36 POINT OF BEGINNING I ALSO INCLUDING ANY AND ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN A CERTAIN EASE. I MENT DATED OCTOBER 27, 1970, FILED NOVEMBER ib, 1970 AT O.R. BOOK 108, PAGE 907, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200989, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS, EASEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 908, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200990, ST. LUCIE COUNTY REC&DS, AND EASEMENT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1970, FILED NOVEMBER 16. 1970. AT O.R. BOOK 188. PAGE 896-897, CLERK'S TILE NO.' 200987, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE OF THE NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE WHICH POINT IS 86.61 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-GUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 3e EAST, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE A DISTANCE OF 20SA2 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREBY DESCRIBED; FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING RUN NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE RIGHT-OF- WAY Of SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE TO A POINT THAT WOULD BE INTERSECTED BY A LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST FROM A POINT ON SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE THAT 15 90172 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12, THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST TO A POINT THAT IS DUE NORTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH AND PARALLEL WITH SAID ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE , A DISTANCE OF 847.84 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. OVERALL PARCEL CONTAINS 185.91 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, THENCE SOUTH 87'57'15- WEST, AS A BASIS OF BEARINGS, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID lom,bm Wm, ,Ne d Hr 1,I,e Feeder Rood, dke* TWAT of SPa I h Lakes Cmwy SECTION S. A DISTANCE OF 2672.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER Of SAID C61, V`." 9 . PUBLIC HEARINGS w be h.W M Cm ,.4.n Chawb- R.W P.N- Am 2300 Vkglnb Av fad Pier brida Fm Eby 16, 2002, bepk.N d7A0 PM w m won liYL' d dV.;NT TO S. b 28 "IOW Fulda ilaMk(-R a dicWM Eq appeal aby 4HIon nadl IN b bawd,. *Rl • �1MLMRMfdait iXll�b alry mmTdMRd d e neelkq b hkwMR. M YdN peed a redRd d R1� fro vh pwpo t M ma :z ro fnwrs RIRe a __, ehkh MrRf pia fib. bm ad.l Whld record Mtkdn IM iwnmmy and `Adw:ts.gon WAId 1M oppd h b b bnod PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION St. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /5/ Srdrm Mnnhe,. CIIAIRMAN PUBHSII DATE-. M, 6, 7MX7 - 2422350 THE POINT O SAID WEST I. DEPARTING T FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTIL17Y ANI CONTAINING 9,9W ACRES, MORE OR LESS. , Ivor NnrA• ,Ae nl Qrnn9e A.e tee, nPMo.mu105.15 m1., wets d Roodpn NORTH FORK PROPERTY OWNERS 2630 RAINBOW DRIVE FORT PIERCE, FLA. 34981 St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Board 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Fla. - till L MAY 15 20 Dear Planning & Zoning Board: Re: RZ 02-011 & File 02-005 The Forth Fork Property Owners is writing this letter in regards to the above referenced changes. We support the zoning change requested by Port St. Lucie Tractor service and the conditional use requested. The property appears to be located far enough away from residential property. We suggest that when burning toxic exotics, that conditions apply such as wind currents, under the direction Department of Forestry. We note in Staffs comments that neither the zoning change nor the conditional use will, "adversely impact the surrounding properties." That the increased combustion time and the turbulence of the air curtain incinerator operation results in the complete combustion of the loaded land clearing debris. The protective curtain created by the rotating air significantly reduces emissions from this incinerator. Etc. Due to indiscriminant burning of exotic's namely Brazilian Pepper trees which are a member of the Poison Ivy family, and which greatly effect sensitive individuals with allergies and breathing problems. We would further _request_ that this board institute a requirement when clearing land east of I-95, that all materials be hauled to a facility such as this one to eliminate burning materials that impact homeowners, and cause upper respiratory problems to sensitive individuals. Attached please fine a copy of information put out by the University on Brazilian Peppers. Although there are mechanisms in place to shut down a burn that is affecting the health and welfare of individuals. ie. Fla. Statutes 125.275 (3). Fla. Administrative code 62-256.200 (2) & (16) & Section 2-9-1 Chapter 2-9 St. Lucie Code of Ordinances. Ultin„ately_,this debris must be burned because property owners can be code cited for letting the exotics sit on site. Developers and speculators buy property in our area; never mow the property then decide to clear the exotics in order to sell the property, and create problems for those living nearby. Therefore again we support this change. Sincerely, C�I North Fork Property Owners. C. Jackson, Sect./Treasurer. P. A. Ferrick, Governmental Rep. 0 C� N m gLo U a 8 X >-, w i>% LL $� Bow ec co oaf ; �hg�j lei"" RM�. NNW AIM kA3 y�h CA tt d a r`a �pN 7 Y n V±�) a000 OI omou LpOQ1 h Q a o• cl: ! PWAI so 0CIO wab�.� I r mk-" AWAMJ KA'NUM I INL, I I;e 4b I t)d f4 m ADAMS RANCH, Inct POSIONO Box 12M - Fort Pierce, Flofid&34979-2M Telephone (561) 481-6321 - FaX461-074 FAX TRANSHISSXON SHEET Date: 5-9-02 TO: David P. Kelly At FAX # 772-462-1581 FROM: Alto & Cynthia Adams At FAX # 1 1-7?2.7461-6874 REGARDING: May 16 Planing and Zoning hearing. Total Pages: 3 Comments: J'"UJ-4w.d 1 VJ : Zomwo r KLAvJ KHI\A Jrl J IM- / / 6 401 0614 1•1. G -25305 Orange Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34946 May 8, 2002 Mr. David Kelly Planning Manager St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 In Re: Pat St. Lucie Tractor zoning change Wynne Ranch - Orange Avenue Extension Dear Mr. Kelly: The purpose of this letter is to advise you and the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, that we as residents of Orange Avenue Extension, are opposing the zoning change from AG to Utility for the above named business at the above addresss scheduled for hearing on May 16, 2002. St. Lucie County has already granted a permit for an air curtain incinerator operated by Treasure Coast Tractor on Orange Avenue Extension that has consistently been out of compliance. We live approximately two miles west of the present'Utility' change and when the prevailing wms are out of the southeast we are subject to haze and the sickening smell of smoke. On some mornings, Orange Avenue from Sneed Road west to the Cow Creek Swamp in Okeechobee County has a very thick smoke fog, wherein areas to the east and west on this highway do not. The trucks that haul land debris on Orange Avenue are either uncovered or not covered property over ninety percent of the time. As a result of the above, we have had many sore throats as well as burning eyes, terrible driving conditions and chipped windshields and paint on .our automobiles. How can the residents of Orange Avenue Extension.be assured that this present request for a zoning Change won't bring the same health hazards and safety concerns that the present `Utility' change has already be uS? Who will monitor what these private businesses are hauling in to be burned in these incfierators? Who monitors what county his debris is coming from? Should our highway (which ently can not take more traffic) be over burdened by land debris from Martin or In tan River County? We have numerous documented complaints with the Division of Forestry, the St. Lucie County Fire Department, the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department, the St. Lucie County Public Works Department and a few of our County Commissioners. The air curtain Incineration principle as we understand it, should only emit smoke (and very little) when the combustion fire Is first started. There Is always visible smoke being emitted from the present `Utility' site on Orange Avenue. if you approve this zoning change, there has to be a way that these companies can be held accountable for any smoke emissions. In other words, the proper size Incinerator for the tonnage of debris Involved. Mr. Kelly, we do not want our public safety and our health jeopardized. We do not believe that this zoning change for this area of St. Lucie County will be beneficial at this time. Please leave this area zoned Agriculture. There are many other areas in this county already zoned for this purpose. They provide a much better highway system for these trucks. Not only could the trucks be monitored better, any smoke and noncompliance concerning debris could be better monitored. If we had known that the present zoning change would be affecting us as it has proven, we would have fought it when it came before you in May 2000. Sincerely, Al_s, 11 Cynthia C. Adams oc., Frank H. Fee, III, Esq. Fred Vaughn, Deputy Chief, SAC Fire District Joseph Spataro, Forest Area Supervisor, Division of Forestry St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners AY I/� _ 9Soo2 J,3f / PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVHSSION REVIEW: 05/16/02 File Number CU-02-005 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning FROM: Commission Planning Manager DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Application of Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris in the U (Utilities) Zoning District. LOCATION: North side of Orange Avenue, approximately 5 3/4 miles west of Minute Maid Road and north one mile from the entrance to Wynne Ranch (Tax ID# 2105-111-0001-000/6) EXISTING ZONING: FUTURE LAND USE: PARCEL SIZE: U (Utilities) (See RZ 02-011) AG-5 (Agricultural — 5) Parent Parcel 671.32 acres Petitioned Area 9.9 acres PROPOSED USE: The purpose of the requested Conditional Use Permit is to allow the operation of an air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris. This use would be authorized under the provisions of Section 3.01.03(W)(7)(g), Solid Waste Disposal. SURROUNDING ZONING: AG-5 (Agricultural — 1 du/5 acres) surrounds the petitioned property to the north, south, east and west. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The existing uses in this area are agriculture in nature. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station 11 (3501 Shinn Road), is located approximately 8 miles to the southeast. UTILITY SERVICE: On site wells will provide water service. On site sewer will be provided through a septic tank. May 8, 2002 Petition: Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. Page 2 File No.: CU-02-005 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for Orange Avenue is 200 feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portion of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(U)(7)(g), U (Utilities) Zoning District, allows the operation of an air curtain incinerator as a conditional use, under the general heading of solid waste disposal. The petitioner is proposing to operate a permanent trench air curtain incinerator that would be located on the subject, land parcel. Prior to commencing any operation of this incinerator, the incinerator is required to be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as St. Lucie County. The petitioner, a land clearing contractor, is seeking to operate this proposed air curtain incinerator as an alternative to the open burning of debris resulting from the clearing of land. An air curtain incinerator as defined by Chapter 17.256, F.A.C., is a portable or stationary combustion device that directs a plane of high velocity forced draft air through a manifold head into a pit with vertical walls in such a manner as to maintain a curtain of air over the surface of the pit and a recirculating motion of air under the curtain. The air curtain incinerator is designed to destroy trees, brush and stumps in a safe controlled burning process. Staffs research into air curtain incinerators is incorporated into the response to question number 4. May 8, 2002 Page 3 Petition: Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. File No.: CU-02-005 Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on nearby properties; The proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The increased combustion time and turbulence of the air curtain incinerator operation results in the complete combustion of the loaded land clearing debris. The protective curtain created by the rotating air significantly reduces emissions from this incinerator. The likelihood of sparks escaping into the atmosphere and igniting other material outside the pit is very remote. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit; There are no public facilities servicing the proposed area. The subject property is located outside the urban service boundary. This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. The subject property will be serviced water and sewer thorough an on -site well and septic sewer system. Orange Avenue in this area is a two-lane facility, with sufficient capacity to support the proposed use. The area surrounding the subject property is primarily citrus groves. 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The air curtain incinerator is to be permitted thorough the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The air curtain system process works to eliminate the potential for harmful emission's being released within the atmosphere. Further, the likelihood of a spark being released from the pit and causing damage to the surrounding environment is very remote The proposed unit to be located on this site has been represented to staff as a being powered by a 6- cylinder diesel engine that drives a 20,000 CFM centrifugal fan. Air is forced out of restricted outlets on a 35-foot manifold. Air speed can be adjusted up to 150 MPH at the blower head. The air is forced across the top and down into the trench. The curtain of air acts as a top for the incinerator and provides oxygen, which will produce a hotter flame. The normal temperature produced by the air curtain incinerator falls between 2,000' and 2,800' Fahrenheit. The oxygen flow coupled with the 360 degree rotation of the air in the trench creates an after burner effect. By recirculating the air under the curtain, residence time is increased long enough for almost all organic compounds to be destroyed with very little smoke or ash. The extremely high temperatures coupled with the fast airflow directed into the trench at the proper angle enables the unit to meet or exceed all State and Federal Environmental regulations. Pit emissions are typically less than 20% opacity and under two pounds of particulate for each ton loaded. The standard pit size is 7 to 12 feet deep x 10 to 12 feet wide x 50 to 60 feet long. The pit should be placed to give the greatest clearance on the downwind side of the pit. The chances of a spark escaping into the atmosphere and igniting other material outside the pit are considered to be remote. May 8, 2002: Petition: Port St. Lucie Tractor Services; Inc. Page 4 File No.: CU-02-005 The petitioner, Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc., currently hauls Approximately 18 t loads of -land clearing debris to the County's landfill per day. Each load weighs approximately 10 to 12 Ions. This results' in approximately 5,400`tons of land clearing debiis'being'disposed of in the landfill each month. The operation ofthis private air curtain incinerator to dispose of this land clearing debris will greatly reduce the amount of materials being disposed of in the landfill. •. v4 The air curtain incinerator residue (specifically wood' ash) can be recycled as a very useful'soil additive that can`be marketed to plant nurseries, farms, etc., as a potting soil additive. `4 ` COMMENTS The petitioner, Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc., has applied for die requested Conditional Use Permit in order io operate an" air.curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris on a 9.9 acres of land located on the north side of Orange Avenue, approximately 5 3/4 miles west of Minute Maid:Road;and north one mile from the entrance.,to Wynne Ranch. This operation" would be located in an area zoned U (Utilities), as previously addressed. by this Board in petition RZ-•02-011. This particular use would be authorized under the provisions of Section 3.0l:.03(W)(7)(g),>Solid'Waste Disposal An air curtain incinera"tor as defined by Chapter 17,256, F.A.C:, is a portable or stationary combustion device that directs a -plane of high velocity forced draft air through a manifold,head into a'pit with vertical walls in j such ,a manner as to maintain a curtain of air over the surface of"the pit and a recirculating motion of air under the curtain: -The air curtain incinerator is designed to destroy trees, 'brush and stumps in a safe controlled burning process. , j The proposed unit is to be powered by a 64cylinder diesel engine that drives a 20,000 CFM centrifugal fan: Air j is forced out restricted outlets of the 35-foot manifold. The airflow is forced across the top and down into the trench or pit. The curtain of air acts as atop for the incinerator and provides oxygen, which produces a fire j that maintains an average temperature.between 2,000' to 2,8000 Fahrenheit: The,oxygen-flow coupled with ` i the 360 degree rotation of>the air in the trench or pit.creates an afterburner effect. By recirculating the air under the curtain, residence time is increased long enough for almost all organic compounds to be destroyed with very little smoke or ash escaping. The chances of a spark escaping into the atmosphere from the trench or pit and igniting other material outside the pit are remote: The petitioner has indicated that the hours of operation for the air curtain incinerator will be from 7:00 a.m. to. 5:00 p.m. According to the Florida Department of Environmental regulations outlined in Chapter, 62-156, .\ F.A.C., the land clearing debris cannot be ignited before 9:00 a.m. and must be extinguished one hour before sunset. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward -this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with arecommendation =of approval, subject to the following conditions: j I j i I I i wk a May 8, 2002 Petition: Port St Lucie Tractor Services, Inc." Page 5 File No.: CU-02-005 1. The business operation. authorized under this conditional use permit Section shall be limited to'the short term storage, processing. and burning of land clearing debris generated from land clearing operations as defined below: a. Land Clearing Debris means uprooted or cleared :vegetation resulting from a land clearing operation. b. Land Clearing Operation means the uprooting or. Blearing of vegetation in connection with construction for buildings and rights -of -way, residential or, industrial development, mineral operations, or the clearing of vegetation to enhance property value and aesthetics. The removal and destruction of shade trees due to storm or insect damage is included as a land clearing operation. The business operation authorized under this conditional use permit is specifically prohibited from engaging in the business of land clearing and yard trash recycling unless and until a new conditional use permit is granted and the site is determined to be in. compliance with the provisions of Section 7,,10.12(C) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2. The.total site area devoted to the processing, storage and combustion of the collected land clearing debris shall be limited to 10 acres. 3. The hours .of operation' will be from 7:00 a.m. to 500 p:m. Monday — Friday. The ignition, of the combustion ` fires may not occur. before 9:00 a.m. and must be extinguished one hour before sunset { 4. Tha xocessiri ard, including all productreceivin areas, shall 6e surrounded b a fence, wall ,or opaque P gY g P g Y vegetative screening eight (8) feet in height. Such, fence or wall shall be of similar composition, construction, and color throughout and shall be.constructed without openings except,for one entrance and one exit; the entrance and exit shall be equipped with unpierced gates. Such gates shall be closed and securely locked at all times, except during business hours. If vegetative screening is to be substituted for a fence or wall, plans for such vegetative screening shall be submitted with the application for conditional use approval. Such vegetative screening shall consist of a greenbelt strip at least twenty (20);feet in width adjoining all adjacent lot lines, and a greenbelt strip at least fifteen (15) feet in width adjoining any street line. The greenbeltshall be composed of at least one (1) row of deciduous or evergreen trees and one (1) or two"(2) rows of shrubs. . Maintenance of the fence, wall, or opaque vegetative screening shall be the responsibility of the property owner consistent with the other provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.. 5 All sides of each Individual debris storage (stockpile) areas shall be accessible by means of fire lanes. Fire lanes shall be a minimum of 1 V2 .times the height of the pile, but in no case shall the fire lane beless than 20 feet in width. A minimum 100 foot wide clear space shall be provided between every two debris storage piles and there shall be a 100 foot wide fire lane at the end of each storage or stockpile, regardless of overall length. h Figure 7-29'as, found in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. generally depicts the layout of the debris ?, storage stockpile areas. The maximum length of an individual debris storage stockpile shall not exceed 500 feet. The maximum width of an individual debris; storage stockpile shall not exceed 100 feet. The maximum height of anyone storage pile shall` not exceed thirty 30 feet. 6. An area equal to 15% of the total area occupied by the debris storage areas (stockpiles) shall be reserved for the .' j emergency relocation of the stored materials should it be necessary for fire fighting purposes. This emergency . May 8, 2002 Page 6 Petition: Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. File No.: CU-02-005 storage area may not include any of the required minimum setbacks or separation corridors for the debris storage areas (stockpiles). This emergency storage area shall be adequately served with access to fire suppression resources, consistent with this code. 7. The total site area that may be covered with the debris storage areas (stockpiles), excluding the emergency stockpile area, shall not exceed 60% of the gross area of the project site. 8. Individual stockpiles shall be located at least one hundred (100) feet from any brush or tree line and shall be no closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line or street right-of-way line. 9. All materials received into this combustion facility shall be rotated through the combustion process within 2 months of its acceptance and deposition in the combustion yard. 10. The petitioner shall, prior to the issuance any final zoning compliance, which is required for this conditional use permit to be fully executed, shall submit a copy of Fire Prevention Plan for the combustion operation that has been approved by the St. Lucie County Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau. This fire prevention plan shall, at a minimum, address all requirements and recommendations of NFPA 46, Recommended Safe Practice for Storage of Forest Products, 11. The petitioner, including any assigns, shall submit to an annual fire prevention inspection to be conducted, upon reasonable notice, by the St. Lucie County Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau. 12. All stockpiles shall be constructed and located so as to afford the opportunity to measure the internal temperatures of the land clearing materials in the stockpile in order to monitor fire hazard. 13. All vehicles used on the stockpile shall be of a type that minimizes the compaction of the stockpile. 14. .Prior to the issuance any final zoning compliance, which is required for this conditional use permit to be fully executed, the petitioner shall provide St. Lucie County a cash security fund, bond or provide the County with an irrevocable letter of credit based on the schedule below, to secure the cost of removing of all accumulated land clearing and yard trash debris from the site if it has been determined by the County Commission, following a duly noticed public hearing, combustion facility approved under this conditional ase permit has been abandoned or combustion operations have ceased for period in excess of six months, or of the Conditional Use Permit is revoked for any reason. 15. The Environmental Control Hearing Board, shall be the responsible enforcement board assuring compliance with the provisions of this Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Control Officer, in consultation with the Community Development Director and the County Health Director, determines that the Environmental Control Hearing Board process would be an inadequate response to a given violation(s), the Environmental Control Officer may institute appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the violation(s) as provided by laws. Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. 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 11.07.03, 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 PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF AN AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR IN THE U (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) 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 SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, 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 PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE OPERATION OF AN AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR IN THE U (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] c. Application of asphalt, water, oil, chemicals or other dust suppressants to unpaved roads, yards, open stock piles and similar activities. d. Removal of particulate matter from roads and other paved areas under the control of the owner or operator of the facility to prevent reentrainment, and from buildings or work areas to prevent particulate from becoming airborne. e. Landscaping or planting of vegetation. f. Use of hoods, fans, filters, and similar equipment to contain, capture and/or vent particulate matter. g. Confining abrasive blasting where possible. h. Enclosure or covering of conveyor systems. 4. In determining what constitutes reasonable precautions for a particular facility, the Department shall consider the cost of the control technique or work practice, the environmental impacts of the technique or practice, and the degree of reduction of emissions expected from a particular technique or practice. Specific Authority 403.061 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.031, 403.061, 403.087 FS. History —Formerly 17-2.620, 17-296.320, Amended 1-1-96, Amended 3-13-96. 62-296.401 Incinerators. (1) Any incinerator with a charging rate of less than 50 tons per day. (a) No visible emission (5 percent opacity) except that visible emissions not exceeding 20 percent opacity are allowed for up to three minutes in any one hour period. (b) No objectionable odor allowed. (c) Test Methods and Procedures. All emissions tests performed pursuant to the requirements of this rule shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The test method for visible emissions shall be DEP Method 9, incorporated in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 2. Test procedures shall meet all applicable requirements of Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. (2) Existing incinerators, other than those which are operated or utilized for the disposal or treatment of biological waste, with a charging rate equal to or greater than 50 tons per day. (a) Particulate matter — 0.1 grains per standard cubic foot dry gas corrected to 50 percent excess air. (b) No objectionable odor allowed. (c) Test Methods and Procedures. All emissions tests performed pursuant to the requirements of this rule shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The test method for particulate emissions shall be EPA Method 5, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. The minimum sample volume shall be 30 dry standard cubic feet. EPA Method 3 or 3A, using Orsat analysis is required for percent excess air correction. 2. Test procedures shall meet all applicable requirements of Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. (d) Calculations Correcting Concentrations to 50% Excess Air (EA), EPA Method 3, Section 1.2. When correcting a pollutant emission concentration to 50% excess air, pursuant to this rule, the following equation shall be used: Cs50 = Cs (100 + %EA) 150 Equation 296.401-1 where: Cs50 is the pollutant concentration at 50% excess air; Cs is the pollutant concentration computed at standard conditions on a dry basis; and %EA is calculated by equation 296.401-2: %EA = (%02 - 0.5%CO) x 100 0.2640/.N2 - (%02 - 0.5%CO) Equation 296.401-2 (3) New incinerators, other than those which are operated or utilized for the disposal or treatment of biological waste, with a charging rate equal to or greater than 50 tons per day. (a) Particulate matter — .08 grains per standard cubic foot dry gas corrected to 50 percent excess air. (b) No objectionable odor allowed. (c) Test Methods and Procedures. All emissions tests performed pursuant to the requirements of this rule shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The test method for particulate emissions shall be EPA Method 5, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. The minimum sample volume shall be 30 dry standard cubic feet. EPA Method 3 or 3A, using Orsat analysis is required for percent excess air correction. 2. Test procedures shall meet all applicable requirements of Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. (d) Calculations Correcting Concentrations to 50% Excess Air (EA), EPA Method 3, Section 1.2. When correcting a pollutant emission concentration to 50% excess air, pursuant to this rule, the following equation shall be used: Cs50 = Cs (,100 +%EA) 150 - 327 Equation 296.401-1 where: Cs50 is the pollutant concentration at 50% excess air; Cs is the pollutant concentration computed at standard conditions on a dry basis; and %EA is calculated by equation 296.401-2: %EA = (%02 - 0.5%CO) x 100 0.264%N2 - (%02 - 0.5%CO Equation 296.401-2 (4) Biological Waste Incineration Facilities. The following requirements apply to all biological waste incineration facilities. This rule does not apply to facilities licensed under the provisions of Chapter 470, F.S., which cremate human remains for which a Department of Health death certificate has been issued or fetal remains in circumstances when a fetal death certificate is not issued under Chapter 382, F.S. This rule also does not apply to animal crematories as defined in Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C. (a) Facilities with a capacity equal to or less than 500 pounds per hour. 1. Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.100 grains per dry standard cubic foot of flue gas, corrected to 7% 02. 2. Hydrochloric acid (HCI) emissions shall not exceed 4.0 pounds per hour. (b) Facilities with a capacity greater than 500 pounds per hour, but less than or equal to 2,000 pounds per hour. 1. Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.030 grains per dry standard cubic foot of flue gas, corrected to 7% 02. 2. Hydrochloric acid (HCI) emissions shall not exceed 4.0 pounds per hour; or shall be reduced by 90% by weight on an hourly average basis. (c) Facilities with a capacity greater than 2000 pounds per hour. 1. Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.020 grains per dry standard cubic foot of flue gas, corrected to 7% 02. 2. Hydrochloric acid (HCI) emissions shall not exceed 50 parts per million by volume, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02 on a three hour average basis; or shall be reduced by 90% by weight on an hourly average basis. (d) All facilities unless otherwise noted are subject to the following design, operating, monitoring and operator training requirements. 1. Any incinerator subject to Rule 62-296.401(4), F.A.C., shall operate with a combustion zone design temperature of no less than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for at least a 1.0 second gas residence time, in the secondary (or last) combustion chamber. Primary chamber and stack shall not be utilized in calculating this residence time. 2. Mechanically fed facilities shall incorporate an air lock system to prevent opening the incinerator to the room environment. The volume of the loading system shall.be designed to prevent overcharging thereby assuring complete combustion of the waste. 3. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions shall not exceed 100 parts per million by volume, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02 on an hourly average basis. 4. Incineration or ignition of waste shall not begin until the secondary (or last) combustion chamber temperature requirement is attained. All air pollution control and continuous emission monitoring equipment shall be operational and functioning properly prior to the incineration or ignition of waste and until all the wastes are -incinerated. The secondary (or last) combustion chamber temperature requirement shall be maintained until the wastes are completely combusted. 5. Radioactive waste may not be burned in an incinerator subject to this rule unless the incinerator has been issued a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) license to incinerate radioactive waste or the waste is of such quantity to be exempt in accordance with DHRS Rule 1 OD-91 or 1 OD-104.003, F.A.C. 6. Hazardous waste may not be burned in an incinerator subject to this rule unless the incinerator has been issued a hazardous waste pemmt by the Department or the waste is of such quantity to be exempt in accordance with Chapter 62-730, F.A.C. 7. Any operator of an incinerator subject to Rule 62-296.401(4), F.A.C., shall be trained by the equipment manufacturer's representative or an equivalent organization using a state -approved training program. a. The content of the training program shall be submitted to the Department for approval. Construction permit applicants shall submit a training program, or reference a previously submitted training program, with the construction permit application. The training shall provide a basic understanding of the principles of the combustion process, provide instruction on proper operating practices and procedures, and increase awareness of regulation requirements and safety concerns. Training programs shall be a minimum of 16 hours of instruction. The Department shall approve training programs which meet, at a minimum, the criteria set forth in the EPA Medical Waste Incinerator Operator Training Program Course Handbook EPA 453/13-93-018 and Instructor's Guide EPA 453/13-93-019. b. A copy of the training certificate for each operator having satisfactorily completed the Department -approved training program must be submitted to the Department within 15 days of training. If the incinerator is modified to the extent that a Department construction permit is required, the operators shall be retrained to operate the modified incinerator. Owners of new and - modified incinerators shall submit copies of the operator training certificates within 15 days after completion of the initial compliance test. c. An operator's certificate must be kept on file at the facility for the duration of the operator's employment and for an additional two years after termination of employment. The owner shall not allow the incinerator to be operated unless it is operated by an operator who has satisfactorily completed the required training program. - 328 (e) Test Methods and Procedures. All emissions tests performed pursuant to the requirements of this rule shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The test method for visible emissions shall be DEP Method 9, incorporated in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 2. The test method for carbon monoxide shall be EPA Method 10, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 3. The test method for oxygen shall be EPA Method 3 or 3A, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 4. The test method for particulate emissions shall be EPA Method 5 or 26A, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. The minimum sample volume shall be 30 dry standard cubic feet. 5. The test method for hydrochloric acid shall be EPA Method 26 or 26A, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 6. Test procedures shall meet all applicable requirements of Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. (f) Frequency of Testing. 1. Facilities with a capacity equal to or less than 500 pounds per hour shall demonstrate compliance as follows. a. New and existing facilities shall demonstrate individual emissions unit compliance with the visible emissions standard upon initial compliance and annually thereafter. b. New and existing facilities shall demonstrate individual emissions unit compliance with the remaining applicable standards upon initial compliance and prior to renewing the operation permit. 2. New and existing facilities with a capacity greater than 500 pounds per hour shall demonstrate individual source compliance with the applicable standards upon initial compliance and annually thereafter. (g) Continuous Emissions Monitoring Requirements. Each owner or operator of a biological waste incineration facility shall install, operate, and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions continuous emission monitoring equipment. 1. The monitors shall record the following operating parameters. a. Secondary (or last) combustion chamber exit temperature. b. Oxygen (for facilities with a capacity greater than 500 pounds per hour). 2. A complete file of all measurements, including continuous emissions monitoring system, monitoring device, and performance testing measurements; all continuous emissions monitoring system performance evaluations; all continuous emissions monitoring system or monitoring device calibration checks; adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or devices; and all other information required, shall be recorded in a permanent legible form available for inspection. The file shall be retained for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance, reports and records. (5) Human Crematories. The following requirements apply to all human crematory facilities. (a) Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.080 grains per dry standard cubic foot of flue gas, corrected to 7% 02. (b) Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions shall not exceed 100 parts per million by volume, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02 on an hourly average basis. (c) Crematory units for which a complete application for a permit to construct a new unit was received by the Department on or after August 30, 1989, shall provide design calculations to confirm a sufficient volume in the secondary chamber combustion zone to provide for at least a -1.0 second gas residence time at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. The actual operating temperature of the secondary chamber combustion zone shall be no less than 1600 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the combustion process in the primary chamber. Primary chamber and stack shall not be used in calculating this residence time. Cremation in the primary chamber shall not begin unless the secondary chamber combustion zone temperature is equal to or greater than 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. (d) Crematory units for which construction began or for which a complete application for a permit to construct a new unit was received by the Department prior to August 30, 1989, shall provide design calculations to confirm a sufficient volume in the secondary chamber combustion zone to provide for at least a 1.0 second gas residence time at 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. The actual operating temperature of the secondary chamber combustion zone shall be no less than 1400 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the combustion process in the primary chamber. Primary chamber and stack shall not be used in calculating this residence time. Cremation in the primary chamber shall not begin unless the secondary chamber combustion zone temperature is equal to or greater than 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. (e) Human crematories shall cremate only dead human bodies with appropriate containers. The bodies may be clothed. The containers may contain no more than 0.5 percent by weight chlorinated plastics as demonstrated by the manufacturer's data sheet. If containers are incinerated, documentation from the manufacturers certifying that they are composed of 0.5 percent or less by weight chlorinated plastics must be kept on -file at the site for the duration of their use and for at least two years after their use. This documentation must also be submitted with any application for an initial or renewal air operation permit or air general permit notification form. No other material, including biomedical waste as defined in Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C., shall be incinerated. (f) All crematory operators shall be trained by the equipment manufacturer's representatives or another qualified organization. Only operators trained by a Department -approved training program shall be allowed to operate a human crematory. 1. The content of the training program shall be submitted to the Department for approval through the permitting process. Construction permit applicants shall submit a training program or reference a previously approved training program with the construction permit application. The training shall provide a basic understanding of the principles of the combustion process, - 329 provide instruction on the operation and maintenance of the crematory unit, and increase awareness of regulatory requirements and safety concerns. Training programs shall be a minimum of 8 hours of instruction. Training programs shall at a minimum include hands-on experience involving start-up, operation of at least one cremation, shut -down of the equipment, and one full cycle of preventive maintenance actions. The Department shall approve training programs which meet, at a minimum, the criteria applicable to cremation set forth in the EPA Medical Waste Incinerator Operator Training Program Course Handbook, EPA 453/13-93-018, and Instructor's Guide, EPA 453/13-93-019. 2. A copy of the training certificate for each operator having satisfactorily completed the Department -approved training program must be submitted to the Department within 15 days of training. The owner of any new or modified crematory unit shall submit copies of the operator training certificates within 15 days after completion of the initial compliance test pursuant to the unit's air construction permit. If a crematory unit is modified to the extent that a Department air construction permit is required, the operators shall be retrained to operate the modified unit. 3. An operator's certificate must be kept on file at the facility for the duration of the operator's employment and for an additional two years after termination of employment. (g) Test Methods and Procedures. All emissions tests performed pursuant to the requirements of this rule shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The test method for visible emissions shall be DEP Method 9, incorporated in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 2. The test method for carbon monoxide shall be EPA Method 10, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 3. The test method for oxygen shall be EPA Method 3, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 4. The test method for particulate emissions shall be EPA Method 5, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. The minimum sample volume shall be 30 dry standard cubic feet. 5. Test procedures shall meet all applicable requirements of Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. (h) Operation During Compliance Test. Testing of emissions shall be conducted with the source operating at the manufacturer's recommended capacity. (i) Frequency of Testing. 1. New and existing facilities shall demonstrate individual source compliance with the visible emissions standard upon initial compliance and annually thereafter. Facilities permitted pursuant to Rule 62-210.300(4), F.A.C., Air General Permits, shall demonstrate compliance within 60 days prior to the submittal date of the air general permit notification form and within 60 days prior to each anniversary of such date. 2. New and existing facilities shall demonstrate individual source compliance with the remaining applicable standards upon initial compliance and prior to renewing the operating permit or, if the facility is permitted pursuant to Rule 62-210.300(4), F.A.C., Air General Permits, within 60 days prior to the submittal date of the air general permit notification form. 6) Compliance Demonstration. Facilities may demonstrate compliance with the carbon monoxide and particulate emissions .standards by submission of a test report for an identical -(same make, model, and capacity) crematory unit operating in compliance with a valid Department air permit and tested pursuant to that permit. The test data in the test report must be less than five years old and may or may not be obtained from the unit that is being permitted. (k) Continuous Emissions Monitoring Requirements. Each crematory facility shall install, operate, and maintain continuous monitors to record temperature at the point or beyond where 1.0 second gas residence time is obtained in the secondary chamber combustion zone in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. A complete file of all measurements, including continuous monitoring system, monitoring device, and performance testing measurements; all continuous monitoring system performance evaluations; all continuous monitoring system or monitoring device calibration checks; and adjustments, preventive maintenance, and corrective maintenance performed on these systems or devices, shall be recorded in a permanent legible form available for inspection. Continuous temperature monitoring documentation shall include operator name, operator indication of when cremation in the primary chamber begins, date, time, and temperature markings. The file shall be retained for at least two years following the recording of such measurements, maintenance, reports, and records. (6) Animal Crematories. The following requirements apply to all animal crematory facilities. (a) Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.080 grains per dry standard cubic foot of flue gas, corrected to 7% 02 . (b) Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions shall not exceed 100 parts per million by volume, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02 on an hourly average basis. (c) Crematory units for which a complete application for a permit to construct a new unit was received by the Department on or after August 30, 1989, shall provide design calculations to confirm a sufficient volume in the secondary chamber combustion zone to provide for at least a 1.0 second gas residence time at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. The actual operating temperature of the secondary chamber combustion zone shall be no less than 1600 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the combustion process in the primary chamber. Primary chamber and stack shall not be used in calculating this residence time. Cremation in the primary chamber shall not begin unless the secondary chamber combustion zone temperature is equal to or greater than 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. - 330 (d) Crematory units for which construction began or for which a complete application for a permit to construct a new unit was received by the Department prior to August 30, 1989, shall provide design calculations to confirm a sufficient volume in the secondary chamber combustion zone to provide for at least a 1.0 second gas residence time at 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. The actual operating temperature of the secondary chamber combustion zone shall be no less than 1400 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the combustion process in the primary chamber. Primary chamber and stack shall not be used in calculating this residence time. Cremation in the primary chamber shall not begin unless the secondary chamber combustion zone temperature is equal to or greater than 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. (e) Animal crematories shall cremate only dead animals and, if applicable, the bedding and the remains associated with the animals, placed in leak -proof containers. Containers may contain no more than 0.5 percent by weight chlorinated plastics. Plastic bags used for the cremation of animals shall be nonchlorinated and no less than 3 mils thick. If containers are incinerated, documentation from the manufacturers certifying that they are composed of 0.5 percent or less by weight chlorinated plastics must be kept on -file at the site for the duration of their use and for at least two years after their use. This documentation must also be submitted with any application for an initial or renewal air operation permit or air general permit notification form. (f) Animal crematories shall not cremate dead animals which were used for medical or commercial experimentation. No other material, including biomedical waste as defined in Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C., shall be incinerated. (g) All crematory operators shall be trained by the equipment manufacturer's representatives or another qualified organization. Only operators trained by a Department -approved training program shall be allowed to operate an animal crematory. 1. The content of the training program shall be submitted to the Department for approval through the permitting process. Construction permit applicants shall submit a training program or reference a previously approved training program with the construction permit application. The training shall provide a basic understanding of the principles of the combustion process, provide instruction on the operation and maintenance of the crematory unit, and increase awareness of regulatory requirements and safety concerns. Training programs shall be a minimum of 8 hours of instruction. Training programs shall at a minimum include hands-on experience involving start-up, operation of at least one cremation, shut -down of the equipment, and one full cycle of preventive maintenance actions. The Department shall approve training programs which meet, at a minimum, the criteria applicable to cremation set forth in the EPA Medical Waste Incinerator Operator Training Program Course Handbook, EPA 4538-93-018, and Instructor's Guide, EPA 4538-93-019. 2. A copy of the training certificate for each operator having satisfactorily completed the Department -approved training program must be submitted to the Department within 15 days of training. The owner of any new or modified crematory unit shall submit copies of the operator training certificates within 15 days after completion of the initial compliance test pursuant to the unit's air construction permit. If a crematory unit is modified to the extent that a Department air construction permit is required, the operators shall be retrained to operate the modified unit. 3. An operator's certificate must be kept on file at the facility for the duration of the operator's employment and for an additional two years after termination of employment. (h) Test Methods and Procedures. All emissions tests performed pursuant to the requirements of this rule shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The test method for visible emissions shall be DEP Method 9, incorporated in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 2. The test method for carbon monoxide shall be EPA Method 10, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 3. The test method for oxygen shall be EPA Method 3, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 4. The test method for particulate emissions shall be EPA Method 5, incorporated and adopted by reference in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. The minimum sample volume shall be 30 dry standard cubic feet. 5. Test procedures shall meet all applicable requirements of Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. (i) Operation During Compliance Test. Testing of emissions shall be conducted with the source operating at the manufacturer's recommended capacity. 0) Frequency of Testing. 1. New and existing facilities shall demonstrate individual source compliance with the visible emissions standard upon initial compliance and annually thereafter. Facilities permitted pursuant to Rule 62-210.300(4), F.A.C., Air General Permits, shall demonstrate compliance within 60 days prior to the submittal date of the air general permit notification form and within 60 days prior to each anniversary of such date. 2. New and existing facilities shall demonstrate individual source compliance with the remaining applicable standards upon initial compliance and prior to renewing the operating permit or, if the facility is permitted pursuant to Rule 62-210.300(4), F.A.C., Air General Permits, within 60 days prior to the submittal date of the air general permit notification form. (k) Compliance Demonstration. Animal crematories may demonstrate compliance with the carbon monoxide and particulate emissions standards by submission of a test report for an identical (same make, model, and capacity) crematory air permit and tested pursuant to that permit. The test data in the test report must be less than five years old and may or may not be obtained from the unit that is being permitted. (1) Continuous Emissions Monitoring Requirements. Each animal crematory shall install, operate, and maintain continuous monitors to record temperature at the point or beyond where 1.0 second gas residence time is obtained in the secondary chamber combustion zone in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. A complete file of all measurements, including continuous - 331 monitoring system, monitoring device, and performance testing measurements; all continuous monitoring system performance evaluations; all continuous monitoring system or monitoring device calibration checks; and adjustments, preventive maintenance, and corrective maintenance performed on these systems or devices, shall be recorded in a permanent legible form available for inspection. Continuous temperature monitoring documentation shall include operator name, operator indication of when cremation in the primary chamber begins, date, time, and temperature markings. The file shall be retained for at least two years following the recording of such measurements, maintenance, reports, and records. (7) Any air curtain incinerator, new or existing, located at a landfill for any time period or at any other site for more than. six months. (a) Outside of startup periods, no visible emissions (5 percent opacity or less) shall be allowed, except that an opacity of up to 20 percent shall be permitted for not more than three minutes in any one hour. (b) During startup periods, which shall not exceed the first 30 minutes of operation, an opacity of up to 35 percent, averaged over a six -minute period, shall be allowed. (c) The general excess emissions rule, Rule 62-210.700, F.A.C., to handle startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, shall not apply to air curtain incinerators. (d) The following dimensions for the pit must be strictly adhered to: no more than 12 feet wide, between 8 and 15 feet deep, and no longer than the length of the manifold. The pit shall not be dug within a previously active portion of the landfill. (e) The only materials that can be burned in an air curtain incinerator are wood wastes consisting of trees, logs, large brush, stumps relatively free of soil, unbagged leaves and yard trash, tree surgeon debris, and clean dry lumber such as pallets. (f) The burning of sawdust, paper, trash, tires, garbage, plastics, liquid wastes, chemically treated or painted wood, and other similar materials is expressly prohibited. (g) Only virgin oil, natural gas, or liquefied petroleum gas may be used to start the fire. The use of waste oil, chemicals, gasoline, or tires is expressly prohibited. (h) In no case shall an air curtain incinerator be started before sunrise. For refractory lined air curtain incinerators, charging must have completely stopped before sunset. For all other air curtain incinerators, charging must have completely stopped two hours before sunset. (i) In no case shall the permitted burning rate, in tons per day, exceed the value obtained by dividing the number 100,000 by the permitted number of days that burning will be authorized to take place. 6) New air curtain incinerators must be located at least three hundred (300) feet from any pre-existing occupied building located off site. Air curtain incinerators existing as of October 1, 1986, must be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any occupied building located off site. The Department may issue a permit for an air curtain incinerator which does not meet this setback if the applicant submits with the application a signed affidavit from the owner(s) of all occupied buildings within the setback area that waives the setback requirement. (k) Air curtain incinerators used at landfills may not be operated within one thousand (1000) feet of any active portion of the landfill unless the air curtain incinerator is separated from the active portion of the landfill by a controlled gate or check -in station. (1) The material shall not be loaded into the air curtain incinerator such that it will protrude above the air curtain. (m) Ash shall not be allowed to build up in the pit to higher than 1/3 the pit depth or to the point where the ash begins to impede combustion, whichever occurs first. (n) A detailed operation and maintenance guide must be available to the operators at all times, and the permittee must provide the proper training to all operators before they work at the incinerator. The Department may request a copy of this guide. (o) Test Methods and Procedures. All emissions tests performed pursuant to the requirements of this rule shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The test method for visible emissions shall be DEP Method 9, incorporated in Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. 2. Test procedures shall meet all applicable requirements of Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.716 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.031, 403.061, 403.087, 403.716, 470.025 FS. History —Formerly 17-2.600(1), Amended 12-2-92, Formerly 17-296.401, Amended 11-23-94, 1-1-96, 3-13-96, 11-13-97. 62-296.402 Sulfuric Acid Plants. (1) Existing Plants. (a) Florida portion of the Jacksonville, Florida — Brunswick, Georgia, Interstate Air Quality Control Region as defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 81.91. 1. Visible Emissions — ten percent opacity. 2. Sulfur Dioxide — 29 pounds per ton of 100 percent acid produced. 3. Acid Mist — 0.5 pounds per ton of 100 percent acid produced. (b) All other areas of the State of Florida. 1. Visible Emissions — ten percent opacity. 2. Sulfur Dioxide — 10 pounds per ton of 100 percent acid produced. 3. Acid Mist — 0.3 pounds per ton of 100 percent acid produced. (2) New Plants. - 332 Section Zoning District Use Regulations W. U UTILITIES 1. Purpose The purpose of this district <Js to provide- and protect an environment suitable for utilities,, . . transportation, and communication facilities, together with such other uses as may be compatible with utility, transportation, and communication facility 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 applies to a use not defined under the SIC. code- may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Air transportafion services (a51,45z) b. Agriculture, including farms, groves, and ranches. (01.02) C. Communication. (as) ' d. Electric services: (491) e. Electric transmission. rights -of -way. (401) f. Gas pipeline rights -of -way. (asz) g. Gas production and distribution (492) h. Industrial wastewater disposal. (pig). i. Railroad, rapid rail transit, street railway transportation. (4om) j. Sanitary services (ass) k. Transportation services (47) ( I., Telecommunication, towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (ase) M. Water supply and irrigation systems. (494497) n. Water transportation (a<) �I 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be ir} accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations �r Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off --street Parking and Loading Requirements Off:street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.0600. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. k Conditional Uses a. Airports. (4se) ` b. Electric generation plants. (491) c. Gas production plants. (492) , d. Land clearing and yard trash recycling operations - subject to the provisions of Section { Adopted August 1, 1990 130 Revised Through 08/01/00 ,I i i i z U 'U U O o 0 O J a 0 „ N ;Q _chia a 4 0 C/ ! V / L n O O ` � U � ' %% 1£ k a z t �,GM W P ♦ • r xuwr is P RK 8� S OR oB � 7 � O i W a � W n r� s F— Z oa xv]�n 0 avox ft" 0 U '0000/ 0,7 ov°tl ]MI 3owd 1L "0u lvxv] '0" >cr Laatl � 7Nal]x lr3a W Z M� M Oratl 033NS arOtl MO1lW] o 1�1 K Qo Q Q PI-3tvrr] O U O14 A R°w 1~.1 .n cc S o: S Y£ 1 S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 KLNnoo 3390HO33>10 A Petition of Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to a11ow the installation and 4operation .:of an. Air Curtain Incinerator._ S.R. No. 68 Orange Avenue CU 02-005,57 This pattern indicates Map prepared nprn,9, 2002 A subject parcel N Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc. �f Land .Uses. op AG - 5 �It Hr it I .. S.R. No. 68 Orange_Avenue ' C U 02-005 This pattern indicates MV prepwod Ws; i subject parcel �I .wrw.b a.wY�aywwp...v r/rwe.�+b+K bbnbM yrYglY tillwbp YM��.�b�1btiY �� 'T .. rz ` ma 1'[iI ;t 1�.f� I �iu S�5� � x RIF r r i f I I, i a£ j.�} • z },. - fll Lil t 1 I7lair ifi a. TT tl I j t A l }.F� 7 l [}g r I 1 17 'i}—.1{ �11[1 I14 jj I 't , , �.n�.(r a��sb d.rt - �1i°i�.>,€ i } i, f�.l q .. 1 iS Ss ai+� it}I I-f t� a i } � 3 ; � , t �G � t � , �.I t i � i I, �t } tt k' � s �^�...�-..+^.+��+•��•..�. H 1:11 if, K.il I�} �;, I I, t, E Y i t r 1 1 - III L} Is I! t A i t l - .a�w•wrre»m�u�rw ' f r i};I IIA I�:i I� i III s i it ;"t I f r+I'I i I �a,.,. I 4 t..l I �qiji!j��tj;��'�.tI . ; �{i l {I } ' ° }.. }s (t'� s . �,.'°�m* ^r-'i."q^?`ah,.''*.g A,r !A �j'�' } ! i }i g e; Ip I € t to ri } ('I n, b S +� I t. t ��+ d� �1 )y i��.�S !j �t19� ' I �f- k I t� i I I +j 4� rtri 'I i iI 1 I it I t tl f i i l) atf b i r ,� IA '�vl rjl'i il. � � I. .I,>_•%+%�WIr(Ii�,.,,,...11 v .....m. 'Y,.... r. ,.era. <�..... AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 7: 00 P.M. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation and operation of an Air Curtain Incinerator in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: North side of Orange Avenue, approximately 5.75 miles west of Minute Maid 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 May 6, 2002. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on May 6, 2002. File No. CU-02-005 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1pRtOP' May 6, 2002 In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation and operation of an Air Curtain. Incinerator in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: North side of Orange Avenue, approximately 5.75 miles west of Minute Maid 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, May 16, 2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia 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. If 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 a date -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 5611462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number CU-02-005. Sincerely, ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Stefa atthes, Chairman JOHN D. BRUHN. Disrricr No. 1 • DOUG COWARD. Disrricr No. 2 • PAULA A. LEWIS. Disrricr No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. Disrricr No. 4 • CLIFF BARNES, Disrricr No. 5 Counry Adminisrroror - Dougios M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (561) 462-1590 • Planning: (561) 462-2822 GIS/Technicol Services: (561) 462-1553 Economic Development: (561) 462-1550 Fox: (561) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (561) 462-1529 • Fox: (561) 462-2132 O\ O% O\ h h V) c\r- h h 00 en I h — O\ (V O\ (V ON O\ N N N N vim, M (V M (V M (V M fV M (V M N O\ t- N O� N O\ t- M t-t- M M M M M N h N h N h N h N h lV h a O\O\O\ON v v 'tv ON 't 0%rnrnrn 't v v 'ITv ON v 0%0%rnrn 'tv 't -tN M M M M (M M M M M M en M cli M M 07 w i a w. N air O v v Oc o€ o OF o € �'!y,• U Nj E U€ N= U N U€ N .L: 7.l•i f yt N� .l-i .-Ci Ui y€ z .i i y e U E,O# _ iCnj��V](ViFVi { Y {{{ E £ {.U"}fw ww w €O"O O OHO 40 �i f[V1j Oj } of ! Cl N O VO' v 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 � � � $ xi y N N � N '� V] ►�i ►�i Vi ►�i V] V] rrr h iQ co m m m Co 0 0 0 0 0000 OOOOO O o00000 Co a a P+ RL GL CL AL FL 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r+ �ww�Fw cl ►� z wwwww 3 � aaaa t�u���� U'R > o > Q o O O O O O > aOOOi i [G'a C17 Rl W GG CG W d C O b O m m ca .a of L7 y N N N N N N N N cOV tOV eOV n,S z wwww aaa.a.w � 333333 u O 00 b v N . N h M h oo M ao M h W O� O _ v v .-+ N 00 h -.0 h `7 h_ Os 00 ON N �„h �1 O VI tY' gn `d' N N h m b N �C h .-+ 00 M O, e}' %O M .�.. O\ O\ M _ O M(ONN O 0 M h Nv M M O M et 't t-�►+ O O OIRD O M O_ O� Co DD .. O_( " t� O 00 C. -.___. O O O� O O N'' O CD iO O Cl O O kO O Co M O O_ O O_ O Cl s 0) as €�— i¢O O M O O ( i^FN €Ot0 O OiO; O€ O C. O O O O i0 O O O� t Oi0 O `N O O;O O O' O" O O O O O O O O O CD O O O N MM_ 0~0 NM hO aO0 VO1 NM ONONO 07 _'t Ow _ �O MM O'ct �O ON00 A f� gC"f-E� +IMF" F SL IUGE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLIBLC HEARING AGENDA .. .. .. - May 16, 2002 . TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, NOTICE b If.r.bl' Nr.,l b om.ldao vdM S.ebn 11.00.03 d Mi 5f. LAI.C.I.y Iw;,d D.f.bpe+d cod. ale x,. proWlaa a fM Sr. Lae. CeaAy wwP.hwlw+ Peon, Rw ralpwRg?pp11.a+. hoe. rywr.d xfa xw x Lae. CaaKy PL.IRRIq and tod,g Cas NFFien aluldar their (.R.winp rpanle .. . I. TILT LAND, LTD, Far a CAag. Li FM lane U. Clatg0oo061i ha. RU M.Ww" Mbar0 b IND OM,ahHaA far Na fa16f.14q d-F dPaPwtA THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE NW V. OF THE HE V.OF-THE -SW Y. OF SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 35 SOUtt( RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNVEV FLORIDA AND .. THE NORTH W OF THE NW V.OF THE SW V.OF SECTION T, TOWNSHIP 35 sourm RANGE39.EAST. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Wo.K- - Ea FW.alog, HglwoY,eppaWIdRy 2,500 h.F-AdAp*R-& 2. TILT LAND, LTD: Ea a Chap. b 2on4�y haw Mw AG.t (IgrTAWla� l da/aaq aaI dr AR-1_(A¢INBual Rpldwibl-1 du/aa.) Zaig DbMtls b Ill R. (RfdMbl IidRJ Z-ft Dh Me R.r Ilw Fabf''R,R dwaW.d Pop-" THE WEST TEN ACRES OF THE NW'V. OF THE HE % OF ME SW V. OF SECTION I TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNM FLORIDA. AND M THE NORTH A OF THE" V.OF THE -SW V. OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUtt RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA -' LoaRia Ea FId.draWH'g1wry, appodwoMy 2,500 fbf wA of Angle Road. 3. RAYMOND THOENNISSEN, far a O-W 1. Zol,hg fbw 61. AR-1 (ARrf."4 RnidwYid - 1 da/a>N Z-ft DFR ie b M. CG (C--K 0. 0 Zaig DIFMe. far fh. foll. i.g d-R dPapWr: THE NORTH 171.76 FEET OF THE EAST 256.15 FEET OF THE FOUOWING PARCEL THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING AND BEING IN ST. Ll1OE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS DRAINAGE CNALS'AND ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND LESS PARCEL CONVEYED TO FLORIDA STATE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 215. PAGE 103, PUBLIC RECORDS Of ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALSO, LESS THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND. All THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING, BEING AND SITUATE IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH. RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST; THENCE NORTH 00 06'40' EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 2655.28 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89 4 1 39' EAST. A DISTANCE OF 70.98 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EAST RIGHT OF EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE Of SAID KINGS HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 242.14 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 69 66'1 T EAST, A DISTANCE OF 606.13 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 00 01'15' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 629.00 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE NORTH 69 .b'12' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 85055 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00 01')6' WEST A DISTANCE OF 670.20 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 8913'39' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1256.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (O.R.8. 1175 PAGE 1418) Laaaaon: 3250 Nplh C; tlghway. .. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC, la a Ct, q M Z,,I q how Me AG-5 (AWiaft al - 1 d./5 a,n) Z-W Dbakl b Ill U (M Min) ZOWIq DlFnbf Ia Ill iWbwtrq d-il-i poperfy: Of LAND LYING IN S. PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICES INC, fa . Con4;lo14 Un P. f. ollow I,. inlbllalbn and opwa8on a.n"Caf.b h,cYwda..N It. U (II M.4 Zad,q Dl.rld fa tlf. blbwaq dnvibsd Popwy: A PARCEL.OPLAND LYING UJ THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER C/6 OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 31 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 87'ST65'. WEST, AS A BASIS OF BEARINGS, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SMD SECTION R A DISTANCE OF 267Z00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE 2V QUARTER VA) OF SECTION 5; THENCE NORTH 00'15'-EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER (Y) OF SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 169432 FEET TO'THE POINT OF BEG FININCq THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 00'2TI5'. EAST ALONG SAID WEST LNE, A DISTANCE OF 6" FEET; THENCE SOUTH'89°1976' EAST, DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE, A_ DISTANCE OF 65670'�FEETI THENCE SOUTH OD'27'I5' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 656": FEET; THENCE NORTH B91190r6' WEST; A DISTANCE OF 65670 FEET,TO THE PONT OF BEGINNING. ; 1 : :. '': - . SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRE55'AND PUNK UTILITY AND .DRAINAGE,OVERTHE WEST'25 FEET THEREOF. - CONTAINING 9.900 ACRES,' MORE OR LESS tooA- Nafh Rt& d c-V. Aw oppo l-* S7S -ft ww d Mkw Ma1d Rind.'- - - - 6: GIA9SMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION far a OmM Zariq haw Rw RM-5 R.eldI," MaM,,6-N Ny- S &/-.), IX 0.&�IdL 6A'altaq and CN (CaN cI4 NoWk.boad) Z.* DUIrMF b fM PUD LP-d LMF D. W pn.R - PorFo(Rfo Sbaa{Z.ft Dbhle f fo5.*g d-l;.d x.Pwr.. SONG ALL THAT PART OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, Ft DA, LYING NORTH OF TIE TURNPIKETEEDER ROAD, AND ALL THAT PART Of ME WEST ONF-0UA1tTFR OF SECTION-7. TOWNSHIP 36'SOUTN, RANGE A0 EAST, LYING NORM. OF SAID TURNPIKE FEEDER ROAD; LESS ,ANpEXCEPTING THEREFROM A PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES DESCRIBED AS: A PART OF THE WEST 146, 34 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER Of SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3E SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST.DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWSi BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SEC - SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID ONEOUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF.988.34 FEET, MORE OR UP TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO INCLUDING ANY AND ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN A CERTAIN EASE MENT DATED OCTOBER 27. 1970, FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1970 AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 907, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200989, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS; EASEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, AT O.R. BOOK 188. PAGE 908, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200990. Si. LUCIE COUNTY RECILDS; AND EASEMENT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1970. FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1970. AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 896.897, CLERK'S FILE NO 200987. ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE OF THE NORTH -SOUTH ONEOWRTER SECTION LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE, WHICH POINT IS 86AI FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-GUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-OUARTER OF SAID SECTION I TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE A DISTANCE OF 205.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREBY DESCRIBED FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING RUN NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE RIGHT-OF- WAY OF SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE TO A POINT THAT WOULD BE INTERSECTED BY A LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST FROM A POINT ON SAID NORTH -SOUTH ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE THAT IS 901.72 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE. QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-OUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST TO A POINT THAT IS DUE NORTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE SOUTH AND PARALLEL WITH SAID ONE -QUARTER SECTION LINE A DISTANCE Of 867.84 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH ' OVERALL PARCEL CONTAINS 185.91 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AS A BASIS OF BEARINGS, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID Lacs Wen Ide W Ilw T,Wl, Feedw Rood, d4.14y foufh of SP-Ilh Lan Camay ;TANCE OF 2672.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID QUARTER Q/,) OF SECTION S. THENCE NORTH 00'2YIS' EAST Cob VRbpe. ,,QUARTER OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER N OF SECTION 5, A PUBLIC HEARINGS .11 b. h.W M C- Widen CMwbwA R.aw POMar A-,S 2300 9..32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUE VWOft A-L F. P Wq Fbdda m M.y 16, 2002. b.wkWN d 7A0 PAL a m bon ' EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 65670 FEET; ow.dlw n P ,r k 89'IV16- EAST, DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE, -A DISTANCE Of ENCE SOUTH 00'27`E13' WEST, A DISTANCE -OF OF 65670 017h 1.41 PURSUANT TO SidW 286.6031 Honda SW ftk IF dakke b'app.d a y -. 69°I9')6' WEST, 'A DISTANCE W 656.70 FjtT. TO TEE POINT Of . . I d.U1ipI wadb FIF C 6ead eRMey,'BLhAwelFfbn Y1BB' bay )A.Ilfr- d wf.fM6'a Nally M *01 B..S a ua.rd ZF Y PIk .a.*and t far EASEMENT TOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY AND ' P,•OaF•/ M Ieay fwd fnwrony anb wa Rlol a vwbaKw r..ad b. Rw proudgF b wad., wl,kh lb. record Rfckdn Ill d Mdwfc. ap.n.Aldf w appal b b b. bo»d. THE WEST 75 FEET THEREOF. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONTAINING 9900 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. , ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/Eldon MMll.ef CHAIRMAN laaion: Nn,,. f•d. M O,n„ee A..nae, nl.I.o.•m,ndv 5.75 mJ.l veil Mold PUBII$If DAIf. Mny 6. JIKIJ Road. J. T1TSn LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: 05/16/02 File Number ORD-02-014 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Planning Manager OL DATE: May 9, 2002 SUBJECT: Petition of the Board of County Commissioners for an amendment to the Coastal Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan LOCATION: Between the North and South Hutchinson Island Bridges, west to the right -of way of U.S. Highway 1 and east to the Indian River Lagoon. St. Lucie County is the local government entity responsible for the overall management of the Port of Ft. Pierce and as such is required by Section 163.3178, Florida Statutes to prepare a port master plan for incorporation into the Coastal Management Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment will fulfill State requirements and St. Lucie County Coastal Management Goal 7.5 that directs the County to develop a new Master Plan for the Port of Fort Pierce to replace the existing 1989 Port Master Plan. The new Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan (Port Master Plan) more clearly defines the community vision, strengthens local control over the process, and provides flexibility to ensure intergovernmental coordination and the desired mix of uses. The Port Master Plan was developed through a series of intergovernmental and public workshops and meetings over a period of several years. The final version was generated following a February 19, 2002 joint workshop of the Board of County Commissioners and the Fort Pierce City Council that was held for the purpose of reviewing the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Port Master Plan. Based upon the comments presented at that meeting, and the March 12, 2002 of the Board of County Commissioners, this final draft of the Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies is proposed for your consideration. The Master Plan does not include detailed site layouts for the Port Area nor does it address specific future land use and zoning matters that are under the purview of the City of Fort Pierce. Implementation of the proposed Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies will occur through the Board of County Commissioners management of the Port and the City of Fort Pierce's land development regulations. May 9, 2002 Page 2 Petition: Port Of Fort Pierce Master Plan Coasatal Managemnet Element Amendment The Port Master Plan identifies two geographic areas. The Port Operations Area and the Port Planning Area. The Port Planning Area was identified as the area potentially affected by Port Operations. The Port Operations Area is comprised of the upland and adjacent waters that are the focus of existing and future Port development. The data and analysis section of the plan identifies and evaluates lands and waters within the Port Planning Area and the Port Operations Area. COMMENTS The proposed Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan represents a revised vision for the Port of Fort Pierce that has evolved through public referendums and charrette process, which shifts the general uses from exclusively cargo as per the 1989 Port Master Plan to a mix of recreational, commercial, and industrial uses. The revised Goals, Objectives and Policies are proposed to replace Goal 7.5 and subsequent objectives and policies under this Goal, which are addressed by the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the new Port Master Plan. The Data and Analysis section is provided as documentation to support the Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies and are not proposed for adoption. The Port Master Plan Table of Contents; Executive Summary; Introductions; Goals, Objectives and Policies; and Existing Conditions (Data and Analysis) sections are provided for your review. The remaining sections; Ongoing Efforts; Bibliography, and the various appendices are available in the Community Development Department office should you wish to review these sections. Please note that consistent with the recent revision of the County's Comprehensive Plan, only the Goals, Objectives and Policies will be adopted. The language in the Goals, Objectives and Policies has been developed and agreed upon by the County and the City of Fort Pierce. The Local Planning Agency's responsibility is to find consistency with local, state and regional plans and that the amendment furthers the public interest, health, safety and general welfare. Before any proposed amendment is transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for approval, the Local Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners must determine the following: a.) the plan's consistency with state, regional and local plans; b.) that the adoption of the plan amendment will not adversely affect the public interest, health, safety, and general welfare; c.) that the petition is consistent with the specific goals, objectives and policies governing the proposed plan amendment; and, d.) that the County's plan amendment review standards have been met. May 9, 2002 Page 3 Petition: Port Of Fort Pierce Master Plan Coasatal Managemnet Element Amendment To that end, staff recommends the following findings be made and included in any transmittal to the Department: CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 7.5 and it's subsequent directives are provided for your review of the proposed amendments consistency with the existing goal, objective and policies that are to be replaced by the recommended Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. GOAL 7.5: BY OCTOBER 1, 2001, ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHALL DEVELOP A NEW PORT MASTER PLAN FOR THE PORT OF FORT PIERCE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING 1989 PORT MASTER PLAN. • The proposed Port Master Plan fulfills this Goal. Objective 7.5.1: Incorporate into the Port Master Plan existing and proposed expansions including the 1996 Port of Fort Pierce Charrette report. The Port Master Plan addresses existing and proposed uses in the Port Operations area and includes Goals, Objectives and Policies that are consistent with the 1996 Fort Pierce Charrette. Policy 7.5.1.1: Develop the Port Master Plan consistent with Chapter 163.3178(2)(a-k). The proposed Port Master Plan has been developed to -meets the requirements of the above State Statutes. Policy 7.5.1.2: The Port Master Plan shall address the environmental conditions of the Indian River Lagoon and its interaction with existing and proposed port activities. The Port Master Plan identifies the area that could be affected by Port Operations as the Port Planning Area. The data and analysis section identifies the existing environmental conditions and addresses potential impacts in the Port Planning Area, which includes the Port Operations Area. Port Master Plan policies address environmental protection and prevention of detrimental effects on the Indian River Lagoon caused by port activities May 9, 2002 Page 4 . Petition: Port Of Fort Pierce Master Plan Coasatal Managemnet Element Amendment Policy 7.5.1.3: The Port Master Plan shall address all aspects of port management and operation including safety and security of commercial, industrial, recreational, and environmental activities. The Port Master Plan has addressed the issues identified in this policy. Objective 2.5 of the proposed Port Master Plan requires the Port security management plan be revised by 2003. Goal 3 addresses environmental protection and activities to prevent degradation of the Indian River Lagoon. Policy 3.3.1 requires the establishment of a scientific advisory committee to provide scientific advice on port operations and activities that may impact the Indian River Lagoon; Goal 4 addresses public access and recreational uses; Goal 5 addresses emergency management. Policy 7.5.1.4: Coordinate with the City of Fort Pierce to ensure consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan including the Port Sub Element and Coastal Management Element. The proposed plan has been developed in coordination with City of Fort Pierce representatives and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 7.5.1.5: Coordinate with the St. Lucie County MPO and other appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to ensure adequate intermodal access and adequacy of public facilities and infrastructure. This policy has been addressed in the proposed Master Plan. Objective 6.1 requires governmental agencies to work with each other to improve linkages between the port facilities and intermodal transportation routes. Policy 7.5.1.6: Develop funding mechanisms to implement the Port Master Plan such as a Tax Increment Financing District, Community Development Area, as well as exploring other funding mechanisms such a grants. • The plan provides for infrastructure and public access improvements. Policy 7.5.1.7: Throughout the development of the Port Master Plan ensure and encourage public participation of all affected parties through a formalized public participation process. May 9, 2002 Petition: Port Of Fort Pierce Master Plan Page 5 Coasatal Managemnet Element Amendment Public participation has been an integral part of the planning process that led to the proposed Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan. Economic Element GOAL 12.6 Improve infrastructure linkages throughout St. Lucie County. GOAL 12.4 Maintain and expand the tourism sector of St. Lucie County's economy. Policy 12.1.1.4 Place a high priority on infill projects that are consistent with the smart growth policies of St. Lucie County. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 10.1.5: Review port activities in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan of Ft. Pierce. Policy 10.1.5.1: The Board of County Commissioners, shall coordinate with the City of Ft. Pierce and other governmental entities, and interested public groups to resolve problems related, but not limited, to transportation, development and land use, natural and man-made hazards and disasters, and protection of natural resources at the port. Transportation Element GOAL 2.1: PROVIDE SAFE AND EFFICIENT INTEGRATED MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH ADDRESSES THE FUTURE NEEDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY FOR MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS, AND WHICH CONSIDERS SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Objective 2.8.1 Develop the Port Master Plan consistent with Chapter 163(2)(a-k), Florida Statutes taking into consideration the existing and proposed development plans for the Port area including the 1996 Port of Fort Pierce Charrette report. Policy 2.8.1.1: The Port Master Plan shall address the environmental conditions of the Indian River Lagoon and its interaction with existing and proposed port activities. May 9, 2002 Page 6 Petition: Port Of Fort Pierce Master Plan Coasatal Managemnet Element Amendment Policy 2.8.1.2: The Port Master Plan shall address all aspects of port management and operation including safety and security of commercial, industrial, recreational, and environmental activities. Policy 2.8.1.3: Coordinate with the City of Fort Pierce to ensure consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan including the Port Sub Element and Coastal Management Element. Policy 2.8.14: Coordinate with the St. Lucie County MPO and other appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to ensure adequate intermodal access and adequacy of public facilities and infrastructure. Policy 2.8.1.5: Develop funding mechanisms to implement the Port Master Plan such as a Tax Increment Financing District, Community Development Area, as well as exploring other funding mechanisms such a grants. Policy 2.8.1.6: Throughout the development of the Port Master Plan ensure and encourage public participation of all affected parties through a formalized public participation process. Policy 2.8.1.7: Upon the completion of the Port Master Plan, make any appropriate amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the proposed Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan addresses or furthers the following St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan directives. OTHER AGENCY REVIEWS Any proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan may be reviewed by several state and regional agencies. The Department of Community Affairs is charged with determining whether amendments are consistent with and further the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. In regard to the state and strategic regional plan, staff has the following comments: CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE - F.S. 187.201(16) - in recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. May 9, 2002 Page 7 Petition: Port Of Fort Pierce Master Plan Coasatal Managemnet Element Amendment • The proposed amendment to the Coastal Management Element will further the intent of Chapter 187.201(16), by enhancing economic and recreational opportunities within the urban area. The Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan accommodates multi -use development that utilizes and enhances existing infrastructure and can be provided in a manner that protects the adjacent natural resources of the Indian River Lagoon. Future development and redevelopment is expected to enhance the quality of life in the surrounding areas. NATURAL SYSTEMS AND RECREATIONAL LANDS § 187.201(9)(a), FS, provides for the development of Coastal and Marine resources in a manner that does not endanger public safety or important natural resources. Through access improvements, additional marine environments are to be made available to the state's population, consistent with sound environmental planning. • The proposed amendment ensures safe public access to the Indian River Lagoon will be provided in a manner that protects the adjacent marine resources. NATURAL SYSTEMS AND RECREATIONAL LANDS § 187.201(9)(b)(7), FS, provides for the protection and restoration of long-term productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources. • The proposed Port Master Plan will assist in improving water quality by reducing cargo land uses along the shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. The Port Master Plan encourages development that minimizes impacts to the Indian River Lagoon habitats, including the adjacent seagrass beds. THE ECONOMY § 187.201(22)(b)(3), FS, provides for the maintenance of the environment, as one of the state's primary economic assets. • The Port Master Plan promotes development that maintains and improves the value and functions of the adjacent natural resources and promotes new mixed -use development that will attract residents, visitors and businesses to the county. TRANSPORTATION § 187.210(20), FS, directs future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and promotes an intermodal transportation system. • The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers this goal by encouraging the establishment of intermodal transportation systems between the Port and the St. Lucie County International airport as well as pedestrian and bike links to the commercial and existing recreational areas in downtown Fort Pierce. May 9, 2002 Petition: Port Of Fort Pierce Master Plan Page 8 Coasatal Managemnet Element Amendment CONSISTENCY WITH THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY PLAN REGIONAL GOAL 3.3: Maintenance and expansion of the tourism sector of the Region's economy; the strategy for this goal is to maintain and improve existing features that are attributes to the attraction of tourist. • The Fort Pierce Port Master Plan provides for the preservation of scenic views along the Port's shoreline and recreational and commercial amenities that will attract tourist to the site. REGIONAL GOAL 3.4: Patterns of development which are proportionately less costly to provide with public services and facilities, and the redevelopment and revitalization of older communities into important and viable economic centers of the Region. The Port Master Plan proposes to provide new development and redevelopment within the historic economic center of the region. The proposed mixed -use development at the Port of Fort Pierce will be linked to local and regional transportation systems, including the St. Lucie county Airport. Multi -modal linkages to downtown Fort Pierce and its recreational and commercial uses will complement and further the revitalization effort of the City of Fort Pierce. REGIONAL GOAL 6.5: Protection of Marine Resources; Policies under this issue limit shoreline alteration and construction that degrades existing estuarine productivity. • The proposed amendment directly furthers this issue by encouraging the protection and restoration of the Indian River Lagoon Shoreline. REGIONAL GOAL 6.8: Protection of endangered and potentially endangered species. • The proposed amendment encourages the protection of adjacent seagrass beds that provide habitat for marine species. REGIONAL GOAL 7.1: A balanced and integrated transportation system; the strategy for this issue is to develop an integrated transportation system. • The Port Master Plan proposes to utilize existing railways that are linked to regional roadways that provide ready access to the St. Lucie County International Airport. The project also accommodates pedestrian and bicycle users through proposed connections to nearby recreation areas and downtown City of Fort Pierce. The proposed Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan is consistent with and furthers the Treasure Coast Regional Strategic Regional Policy Plan through promoting mixed -use urban development that incorporates intermodal transportation links to downtown Fort Pierce and the May 9, 2002 Page 9 Petition: Port Of Fort Pierce Master Plan Coasatal Managemnet Element Amendment St. Lucie County Airport. The provision for public access points to regionally significant waters that are protected through policies to guide development and management operations will protect marine resources and promote public recreational uses at the Port of Fort Pierce. CONCLUSION Based upon the information provided, staff recommends the Local Planning Agency find the proposed amendment to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. In addition, the Local Planning Agency should find the plan amendment to further the public interest, health, safety and general welfare and to meet the process and review requirements for amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that this amendment be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S. If you have any questions, please let us know. Attachments cc: File .. Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FIND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL, STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND TRANSMIT THE AMENDMENT TO THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES ...... [CITE REASON (S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO DENY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COASTAL MANAGEMNT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCOPORATED THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE PORT OF FORT PIERCE. BECAUSE [CITE REASON (S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] SHAPING THE SEAPORT 2002 Master Plan for Port of Fort Pierce April 2002 Draft Prepared for St. Lucie County Prepared by r, j OIINTCENTER for Environmental & Urban Problems www.ic.fau.edu ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Board of County Commissioners Doug Coward Chairperson District 2 John D. Bruhn Frannie Hutchinson District 1 District 4 Paula A. Lewis District 3 Cliff Barnes District 5 St. Lucie County Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney Patti A. Tobin, St. Lucie County Economic Development Manager Florida Atlantic University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems James F. Murley w Lenore Alpert Lisa Sinton Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium Rafael Montalvo Jeff A. Blair Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston Richard Delaney — Jack Wiggin Florida Atlantic University Center for Visual Planning Technology Asher Soldwedel Visplan.com John O'Brien Photo Credits Cover, Megayacht — Mike Whitt Photography l Cover, Aerial of Port — Dunn's Aerial Photography, Inc. SHAPING THE SEAPORT 2002 Master Plan for Port of Fort Pierce TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................1 PART 1: BACKGROUND AND SYNTHESIS Section 1: Introduction..................................................................................................7 Historical Background of Port & Port Authority............................................8 Port of Fort Pierce Ownership, Operations, and Economic Activities ...........9 Port Master Plan Development Process........................................................10 Earlier Master Plans for the Port of Fort Pierce............................................11 Recent Planning Processes............................................................................11 Port Master Plan Community Input Process.................................................12 PART 2: PROPOSED DEEPWATER PORT MASTER PLAN COMPONENT FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Section 2: Goals, Objectives, and Policies...................................................................23 F- PART 3: DATA AND ANALYSIS Section 3: Existing Port Conditions, 2001 A. Port of Fort Pierce Overview..................................................................47 B. Adjacent Land Uses................................................................................47 C. Inventory of Port Facilities.....................................................................52 D. Conflicts among Uses.............................................................................53 E. Natural Resources Inventory .................................................... ..............54 Seagrasses......................................................................................55 Manatees.............................................................. . ..........................62 F. Estuarine Conditions...............................................................................66 G. Beach and Dune Systems........................................................................72 H. Public Access..........................................................................................76 I. Natural Disaster Planning.......................................................................77 J. Hazardous Material Handling and Cleanup............................................81 K. Infrastructure Serving Port Facilities......................................................82 L. Management of Dredged Materials........................................................90 M. Security Plan...........................................................................................95 Section4: Ongoing Efforts..........................................................................................103 A. Potential Five Year Capital Improvements .................. B. Plan for Port Maintenance and Expansion Through 2012....................109 Bibliography .....125 LIST OF FIGURES' Figure A: Map of Port Planning Area/Port Operations Area ..............................3 Figure B: Map of 20 Deepwater Ports of the Southeast....................................16 Figure C: Map of Florida..................................................................................17 Figure D: Map of Florida's Deepwater Ports....................................................18 Figure E: Map of Port of Ft. Pierce Charrette Vision.......................................19 Figure F: Framework of Vision, Regulations, and Implementation for Deepwater Port Master Plans............................................................20 Exhibit A: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Survey.............................................36 Exhibit B: City of Ft. Pierce Zoning .................................. ............51 .................... APPENDICES Appendix A: Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Section 9J-5.012 Appendix B: Relevant Statutes Appendix C: Public Workshop Reports Appendix D: DCA letters Appendix E: Resolution Appendix F: Request for Qualifications Appendix G: Excerpts from Port Plan Website (www.ftpierceportplan.org) Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 0i Deepwater Port Master Plan for the Port of Fort Pierce, 2002 Executive Summary This Master Plan provides the background for the Port of Fort Pierce, the Deepwater Port Master Plan Component for adoption into the Coastal Management Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, a description and analysis of existing port conditions, and plans for development of the port over the next five to ten years. Strategically located in the heart of Florida's fast-growing Treasure Coast, the Port of Fort Pierce is moving into the future with a new vision, a journey that began in 1996 with a non -binding public referendum and charrette process. The vision has shifted to a mix of recreational, commercial, and industrial uses from the earlier 1989 Port Master Plan and its focus on cargo uses at the port. Through additional public workshops in 2001, this vision was further refined to focus on marine industries, specifically the megayacht industry, as the industrial component for the mixed use port. Megayachts are envisioned as the anchor tenant at the Port of Fort Pierce. The port will also continue to support existing cargo operations. This Port Master Plan more clearly defines this community vision, strengthens local control over the process, and provides flexibility to ensure intergovernmental coordination and the desired mix of uses. The community has recognized the port's role in serving the needs of marine industries, ecotourism and marine -related recreation. For purposes of clarity in the Port Master Plan, the port has been defined in two ways. The Port Operations Area consists of an area from just north of the northern causeway to just south of the southern causeway. This includes a portion of the waterway and the land ` that is immediate) adjacent to it. The Port Planning Area consists of a larger area which c i Y J g g , includes not only the Port Operations Area but also the entire harbor, the inlet, the channel, portions of Causeway Island, and portions of Taylor Creek. (See Figure A). This plan is intended to strike a balance between the environmental/preservation needs and the growth/economic needs of the community. It recognizes the role of ports in developing, managing, and promoting waterborne commerce while playing a leading role in facilitating both trade and prosperity (American Association of Port Authorities, 2000). Ports serve as catalysts for economic growth. Public ports are responsible for terminal facilities and intermodal transfer of cargo through maintenance and development activities (American Association of Port Authorities, 2000). The responsibility and ownership of the port have been key issues for this community. The St. Lucie County Commission is vested by law with the overall responsibility and management of the Port of Fort Pierce. Currently a majority of the port, 163 acres, is privately owned; only 34.65 acres are publicly owned. St. Lucie County intends to explore and consider all options for management, operations, and ownership of the port in order to achieve the public's best interest and the goals in this plan. Strengthening economic development activities and fostering new jobs will be attempted through an economic development plan created in cooperation with various levels of governments as well as the private sector within the next two years. In accordance with the desires expressed in community meetings, the port will be working with the City of Fort Pierce to establish high quality design standards for the port that are compatible with the surrounding area. The Port of Fort Pierce is one of fourteen deepwater ports in Florida. The port will accommodate limited cargo operations. Development, renovation, and improvement of port facilities will be encouraged to maximize the current potential of the port. An emphasis will be placed on gentrification of existing cargo areas. The marine industry and Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 related scientific and commercial activities will be promoted. Accommodation will be made for water -related marine activities including megayachts, marine research vessels, tall sailing vessels, restaurants, hotels, and water -related service activities. Expansion of water -dependent recreational and ecotourism uses will be supported. Megayachts in particular are envisioned as the anchor tenant for the port. Now as never before port security is of utmost importance. New state and federal laws and regulations have been passed within the past year, and further regulations continue to be developed through federal and state legislation. The port will work with the appropriate public safety entities to seek funds to revise the port security management plan to comply with applicable requirements. Environmental protection is to be addressed in many areas. This will include issues surrounding protection of the Indian River Lagoon, including biodiversity and water quality. Biodiversity efforts are to include port activities that affect endangered and threatened species such as manatees and seagrass beds. The port is to cooperate and assist with laws designed to prevent the introduction of exotic invasive species. The port will engage in protection and maintenance of existing natural coastal areas and resources. Port - related discharges affecting air and water quality will be regulated to comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Public access to the Port Planning Area will be addressed through development of an integrated open space system, including access to short-term parking, public fishing areas, and scenic views. The port will encourage improvement of an orderly network of streets and entrances to access port facilities. Multi -use marine recreational activities, walkways, and multi -use paths within the open space system will be encouraged. Accommodation for providing secure cargo and marine industry areas will be integrated into the plan. The port will cooperate with other governmental bodies to achieve maximum safety for the public in various emergency situations. Toward this end, commerce of hazardous materials will be restricted in the port. A spill response plan will be developed, and in case of a hazardous spill, the port will comply with federal, state, and local governments to ensure proper and expedient clean up with complete and timely information to the public. New and existing procedures will be identified for hurricanes and other natural disasters. The area surrounding the port has substantial but underutilized transportation assets. This includes railroad access, trucking facilities, nearby interstate highways, and an airport. The port will work with other governmental agencies to improve linkages between the port facilities and intermodal transportation routes. The port will encourage multimodal development while attempting to limit increased traffic congestion. It is in the public interest to use the natural, existing advantage for deepwater ocean access to its highest and best use. At this time, the compromise reached among community stakeholders is to maintain the port depth at its current 28 feet and the port channel width at its current dimensions. Supporting current channel dimensions will allow existing and projected needs of the port to be met. The port will continue to rely on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the navigation channels. Cargo will continue to be an important element at the port. Expansion of port activities will focus on marine industries. In particular, the megayacht industry is envisioned as the anchor tenant of the port. Through such activities, the port will serve to enhance the economic needs of the community while protecting the environmental resources of the region. This plan is to serve as a catalyst for the new community vision of the Port of Fort Pierce. C 2 'N 9 Draft fort Plan, April 26.. 2002 PART 1 BACKGROUND AND SYNTHESIS , Draft Port PlanApril 26,12002 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 1. Introduction Overview The Port of Fort Pierce is one of 20 ports situated in the South Atlantic Coast and the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure B). These ports include Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, and Florida's 14 deepwater ports (Fla. Stat. Section 311.09). Located between Port Canaveral (70 miles north) and the Port of Palm Beach (60 miles south) (see Figures C and D), the Port of Fort Pierce is in the heart of Florida citrus country and once was the main exporter of grapefruit to Europe and the Far East (Florida Department of Transportation, Year 2020 Plan, 2000). As shown in Figure A, the 1.63-acre port is bounded on the north and south by the State Road (SR) A I A causeways, on the west by US 1 (SR 5)/Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC), and on the east by the Indian River Lagoon, which is part of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Florida law mandates that all deepwater seaports, which includes the Port of Fort Pierce, must prepare and regularly update a master plan, which will coordinate port activities with local plans and become part of the coastal management element of the Local Government Comprehensive Plan [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(a)]. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requires a local sponsor, i.e., a public agency, to maintain the port channel. This agency, the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners (Board), must also provide leadership on port management and operations. Hence, authority for master plan preparation lies with the Board. The Board also has authority to seek state and federal approvals for development activities both landside and waterside of the port (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001). Part 2 of this plan proposes the Deepwater Port Master Plan Component for adoption into the Coastal Management Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The City of Fort Pierce is charged with routine supervision of development activity in the port area and has specific permitting authority for landside facilities development. Moreover, the Fort Pierce Harbor and Seaport Advisory. -Committee oversees port activities. This committee is comprised of representatives from communities within the tributary area of the port, such as the City of Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village. (For a more detailed description of port history and authority see Historical Background of the Port of Fort Pierce and Port Authority, below.) The Florida Atlantic University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems (Joint Center), consultant to St. Lucie County, is updating the Port of Fort Pierce Master. Plan. (The Joint Center has coordinated with Maritime Trust, consultant to the City of Fort Pierce, to ensure consistency and avoid duplication.) .Services include facilitating the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment to address state law, rules, and neww statutory requirements.. [In addition to other elements, the plan incorporates a seaport security plan pursuant to new legislation (Fla. Stat. Section 311.12) (see Appendix A for FAC, Section 9J-5.012).] Because most of the port land remains in private ownership, land -use decisions are limited to zoning and permitting restraints largely determined by the City of Fort Pierce. As such, the master plan will serve as a conceptual guide to meet the new requirements. 7 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Port development begins with a vision. In 1996, a revised vision for the Port of Fort Pierce shifted the use from cargo (per the 1989 Port Master Plan, below) to a mix of recreational, commercial. and industrial uses (see Figure E). This vision has been further retained to focus the industrial component on marine industries. specifically the megayacht industry. The updated master plan more clearly defines this vision and provides flexibility to enhance intergovernmental coordination and ensure the desired mix of uses. The process continues with Land Development Regulations, followed by Implementation Actions. The plan provides for the orderly development, management, security, and use of the port, while ensuring the restoration and enhancement of the coastal zone, including amenities and aesthetic values adjacent to the port. Input from the Joint Center project team includes information from data collection and analysis; the drafting of goals, objectives, and policies; public and other stakeholder input (see below, Port Master Plan Community Input Process); and direction from staff and elected officials. This project will be completed by June 30, 2002. Timing is critical as funding from the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) program is linked to analyses of up-to-date port plans. To ensure wise investment of state dollars, the FSTED Council reviews and approves applications. from seaports for project funding and annually publishes a Five -Year Seaport Mission: Florida statutes allocate a minimum of $8 million annually to the state's 14 deepwater seaports. (For further discussion, see The Master Plan Development Process, below.) Today, the Port of Fort Pierce looks forward to serving the community in many ways and is a potential economic engine for St. Lucie County. Revenues may be (` expected to derive from sources such as associated jobs, new business opportunities, and attraction of visitors, with an economic ripple effect for local businesses (St. Lucie County, Economic Development Division, 2000). The remaining sections of this Introduction present information on a number of topics related to the history, planning processes, and activities of the Port of Fort Pierce in particular, and options for management of Florida ports in general. Historical Background of the Port of Fort Pierce and Port Authority The Port of Fort Pierce first came into existence in 1920 when a manmade opening, the Fort Pierce Inlet, was cut through the land barrier between the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River Lagoon. On December 9, 1918, a Special Act of the Florida Legislature established a taxing district to fund this project. Roughly 65 percent of St. Lucie County was situated in the Fort Pierce Inlet District, which was empowered to sell bonds to finance the project and to satisfy bond obligations through real property tax revenues. Bopd.issues totaling approximately $1.9million were authorized -and sold.between 1921 and 1927, with additional funds provided by the City of Fort Pierce. Between 1920 and 1935, the inlet was opened, protective jetties were constructed, and the channel and turning basin were excavated. In 1935, the harbor was authorized as a federal project under the USACE and completed to its present dimensions in 1938. The Florida Legislature abolished the Fort Pierce Inlet District on July 1, 1947, and replaced it with the Fort Pierce Port Authority, which retained essentially the same 1, power but also had the legal right to acquire and lease real estate. On May 29, 1961, a Special Act of the Florida Legislature (Chapter 61-2754, Laws of Florida) replaced the Draft Port Plan April,26 2002 Fort Pierce Port Authority with the Fort Pierce Port and Airport Authority, both of ( which operated under the auspices of St. Lucie County. At the request of local interests in the early 1980s, the Jacksonville District, USACE, conducted a study of Fort Pierce Harbor. Entitled the "Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement of Fort Pierce Harbor," the study was initiated due to the belief that deeper harbor depths would enable the port to be more competitive. The study, completed in March 1986, recommended that (1) the existing 27-foot by 350- foot entrance channel be deepened to 30 feet and widened to 400 feet; (2) the 25-foot by 200-foot interior channel be deepened to 28 feet by 1000 feet square; and (3) an access channel be cut 28 feet deep by 1250 feet long and 250 feet wide immediately north of the existing terminal area. After receiving approval from the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the recommendations of the District Engineer and reporting officers were forwarded to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, who then forwarded the reports to the appropriate state and federal agencies for review and comment. The U.S. Congress had final authorization and funding authority. In August 1988, the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (U.S. Senate Bill 2100) authorized implementation of roughly $6.7 million for the Fort Pierce Harbor Project (with funding anticipated in early 1989).. The federal share of the project was approximately $4.3 million; the non - Federal share was $2.4 million. Florida's Governor was supportive of the project and advocated careful planning to ensure that the economically distressed surrounding area would benefit from -the proposed improvements. Also in 1988, the "St. Lucie Port and Airport Authority Act," (Chapter 88-515), i` Laws of Florida abolished the special taxing district known as the Fort Pierce Port and Airport Authority and created the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority. In 1997, Chapter 97-377, Laws of Florida, provided reorganizing, updating and clarifying provisions for the Authority. In 1998, the legislature enacted Chapter 98-496, Laws of Florida, which dissolved the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority and transferred its assets, liabilities, and responsibilities to the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County. In addition and as noted in the Overview, the Fort Pierce Harbor and Seaport Advisory Committee oversees activities in the port. Port of Fort Pierce Ownership, Operations, and Economic Activities Documented history of the earliest shipping from the Port of Fort Pierce is very limited. Private facilities were constructed before World War II; however, during the war the federal government used the port as a military amphibious base. Since the war, the -port has developed its own identity with all but 34.65 acres in private ownership (Maritime Trust, 2001). Of the port's 163 acres, 87.6 acres (adjacent to the ICW and Taylor Creek waterfronts) remain. undeveloped.. The.1989 Fort Pierce. Master Port Plan'(see:Section on Earlier Master Plans for the Port of Fort Pierce, below) was predicated on the assumption that the county would acquire the undeveloped land. Recommendations were made based on diverse marine -related activities for public purposes. Opportunities were reviewed for expanding cargo operations, initiating cruise operations, seeking port -related recreation, and commercial and industrial uses. Since the creation of the 1989 Plan, the county has acquired 20 of the 87.6 acres originally 9 „Draft:Port Plan April 26, 2002 under consideration for acquisition. While much acreage continues to be privately owned, it is still subject to public planning and zoning decisions. The privately owned property (formerly known as the MacArthur Tract), comprises 67 acres of mostly undeveloped land is located in the middle of the port area (Maritime Trust, 2001). A part of this land is used by AES, a bulk -materials handling facility, under a long-term lease in effect until 2014 (PBS&J; Roccapriore, 2001, July 28). AES (previously Marcona Industries) has been importing aragonite from the Bahamas since 1967. Aragonite, a fine-grained, sandy component of limestone, is used in cement, glass, and steel production. Commonly stored in piles outdoors, aragonite is often used in smokestack scrubbing systems to clean power plant emissions before release into the atmosphere. AES does not operate plants in Florida, the material is shipped out-of-state by truck or train. Aragonite usage in Fort Pierce will depend on the demands of the citrus industry; aragonite is also used as an agricultural lime to sweeten the soil. In 1996, the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners purchased 20 acres of waterfront property in the northeast corner of the port. Known as Harbour Pointe, this largely undeveloped parcel will be restricted to tourism, recreational, or marine commercial uses. Harbour Pointe is being incorporated in the county's plans for the port (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan, 2000). At this time, the land consists of a small, unpaved parking lot and a few picnic tables. The county owns two adjacent pieces of land used for parking. It should also be noted that the City of Fort Pierce has a public boat ramp (roughly 14 acres) in the southern part of the port; just north of the southern Causeway Bridge (Maritime Trust, 2001). Moreover, the King Maritime Group LLC owns about seven acres of land in the southern third portion of the port (Maritime Trust, 2001). King Maritime;: which purchased the Indian. River Terminal Company in October 2001, continues to export fresh citrus on a seasonal basis. It accommodates occasional general and refrigerated cargo and may consider other cargo ventures in the future (Roccapriore, 2001, October 25). The Port Master Plan Development Process It is stipulated in Section 9J-5.012 of the Florida Administrative Code (See FAC, Section 9J-5.012, Appendix A) that each deepwater port in the State should prepare a master plan so as to coordinate port activities with the plans of the "appropriate local government.” The master plan is to be incorporated into the coastal management element of the Local Government Comprehensive Plan and is to be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of that element. Inventories and analyses of all areas the port owns and administers are to be included.. Plan goals, objectives,'and policies,are designed to: 1) restrict development activities that would damage or destroy coastal resources-, 2) protect human life;'and 3) limit public expenditures in areas -subject to, destruction by natural disaster [(FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(c)]. An initial five-year plan for port expansion and, at the minimum, a ten-year plan for in -water facility maintenance are also among the requirements [(FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(d)]. Since the mid 1980s, all of Florida's 14 deepwater seaports have developed port t master plans for incorporation into the comprehensive plan of the appropriate local government. Planning for future infrastructure development and identifying funding 10 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 mechanisms were recognized by the late 1980s. The seaports' ability to finance the ' needed development solely from port revenues was reaching capacity. In response, the Florida Legislature created the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) program in 1990. This joined the State of Florida with the 14 publicly owned deepwater seaports in a 50/50 state/local partnership to finance and build infrastructure projects essential for the efficient and cost effective movement of cargo and passengers. The clear message from the legislature was that transportation of cargo and passengers equates to statewide economic development. To ensure wise investment of state dollars, the FSTED Council reviews and approves applications from seaports for project funding and annually publishes a Five -Year Seaport Mission. Florida statutes allocate a minimum of $8 million annually to the 14 seaports, and the legislature authorized two bond programs to help finance port development (Florida Ports Council, 2001; Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Program, 1999). Earlier Master Plans for the Port of Fort Pierce In 1986, CH2M Hill prepared a master development plan for the Port of Fort Pierce with assistance from Continental Shelf, Inc. The plan was partially funded by the State of Florida departments of Community Affairs and Environmental Regulation and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It included examination of local and regional socioeconomic trends, forecasting of potential commodity flows through the improved port, estimated economic.benefits.of port development, and environmental effects of the recommended improvements. The conclusion was that the port could expect to accommodate about 600,000 tons. of cargo by the late 1990s if the recommended development plan were implemented. Specific recommendations of the CH2M Hill master development plan included acquisition of the privately owned, undeveloped land within the port area and implementation of phased development to provide general cargo facilities, namely, marginal wharves, roll-on/roll-off platforms, and backland storage areas. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., updated the plan in 1989 for St. Lucie County. The Fort Pierce Master Port Plan (1989) revision of the CH2M Hill plan complied with the 1985 State of Florida Local Governmental Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act as it pertained to deepwater ports (see Section 1.5). The 1989 Port Plan was predicated on the assumption that the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority would acquire the 87.6 acres of privately owned, undeveloped land in the port area. Recommendations were made based on diverse marine -related activities for public purposes. Opportunities were reviewed for expanding cargo operations, initiating cruise operations, seeking port -related recreation, and commercial and industrial. uses. Since the creation of the 1989 plan, the county has acquired 20 of the 87.6 acres that were considered. Recent Planning Processes A revised vision for the Port of Fort Pierce was established in 1996 through a non- binding public referendum and charrette process, which shifted the intended general uses from exclusively cargo as per the 1989 Port Master Plan to a mix of recreational, commercial, and industrial uses (see Figure E). Since that time and through additional 11 -Draft Port Plan April16 ' 2002 - public workshops, this vision has been further refined to focus the industrial component of the mixed -use port on marine industries, specifically the megayacht industry, and for such uses to serve as the anchor tenant at the Port of Fort Pierce. The revised Port Master Plan more clearly defines this community vision, strengthens local control over the process, and provides flexibility to ensure intergovernmental coordination and the desired mix of uses. A framework for understanding port plans is shown in Figure F. The port plan is part of a much larger series of events and establishes a vision for land use, conservation, and coastal management. Port development begins with a Vision. The port plan is the final phase of the vision component of the process. Upon completion the vision phase, the process continues with Land Development Regulation followed by Implementation Actions. The updated plan provides for the orderly development, maintenance, management, and use of the port, while insuring the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, and security of the overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including amenities and aesthetic values adjacent to the port. Input from the FAU Joint Center project team includes information from data collection; analysis of the data; the drafting of goals, objectives, and policies; public and other stakeholder input (see below, Port Master Plan Community Input Process); and direction from staff and elected officials. Port Master Plan Community Input Process The South Florida Office of the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium, working as a member of the project team, conducted a number of public input activities to ensure input from a broad cross-section of the community into the plan. These activities included early interviews with stakeholders, workshops to solicit input on what should be in the plan, and workshops to help develop drafts of the goals, objectives, and policies. In addition, the project team conducted briefings"with Commissioners of St. Lucie County and the City of Fort Pierce to review the public input, solicit additional input, and reconcile any differences between them. More than 100 citizens attended each of the four community workshops. The following descriptions provide an overview of the public input activities conducted during the preparation of the plan. Full reports of each workshop can be found in the Appendices to this report. INITIAL STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS JULY — SEPTEMBER 2001 The Consortium conducted assessment interviews from July 18 to July 20, 2001, with representatives of interested stakeholders to determine their issues, concerns, and desire to participate in the Master Plan development process. (This review included business, property owners, local government managers/planners, minority community, and environmental interests). On September 14, 2001, the project team provided a process overview and update to the Harbor Advisory Council and the Waterfront Council. In addition, on September 19, 2001, the Consortium met with representatives of the African -American community to explain the process and determine/solicit commitment to participate in the development workshops. 12 Draft Port Plan April 26,,2002 PUBLIC INPUT WORKSHOPS Workshop I —October 30, 2001 Participants in Workshop I engaged in the following activities. Comments were captured on flipcharts and compiled in a report. ♦ Futures Exercise —From your perspective how would the port look in 2010? What activities would be taking place there, and what effect would the port have on the community? ♦ Issues Identification —What issues should the community address through the port plan process? ♦ Background information — What information should the planning team review to prepare the plan? Workshop II —November 14, 2001 At the beginning of Workshop II, participants were asked to react to assumptions that might be used to guide the further development of the plan. The project team had articulated these assumptions based on the results of Workshop I. The assumptions included provisions for multiple uses of the Port of Ft. Pierce: ♦ Some cargo, even if limited to existing operations; ♦ Recreation and commercial uses (i.e., walk areas, hotels, shops, restaurants, office, condominiums aesthetically consistent with City's redevelopment); `♦ Marine industries (i.e., megayachts); Protection of the environment of the Indian River Lagoon. There was unanimous agreement from participants on the assumptions guiding the development of the Plan. Participants were then provided input to be used in preparing an initial draft of the goals, objectives, and policies. Seven key issues were discussed and feedback given. These areas are key components of the outline provided in FAC, Section 9J-5.012: x ♦ Activities ♦ Environmental Issues ♦ Public Access ♦ Disaster Planning ♦ Landside Infrastructure ♦ Navigation Channels ♦ Responsibility for the port Other Following the workshop, the project team compiled a preliminary set of goals, objectives, and policies for community review and discussion. The draft was based on community input received at Workshop II. Workshop III— November 29, 2001 During the Workshop, participants first prioritized goals and objectives for discussion during the workshop and then offered comments and suggested refinements. Following the workshop, the team provided a window for receiving additional 13 DraftPort.Plan April 26, 2002 comments. After the comment period, the project team refined the draft of goals, objectives, and policies for the proposed Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan. Workshop IV —January 30, 2002 This workshop provided an additional opportunity to review and evaluate key substantive issues identified through public comment and by local officials prior to compiling the final draft of the Plan. Joint Workshop for County and_City Commissions —February 19, 2002 At this joint workshop, St. Lucie County and City of Ft. Pierce Commissioners reviewed a draft of the goals, objectives, and policies that had been revised in light of final public input and earlier comment from the Commissioners. They identified portions of the draft that still needed refinement and developed consensus on changes to those portions. Port Management Options As noted above, 14 of Florida's ports are classified as deepwater ports by Florida Statutes (Chapter 311.09). The Port of Fort Pierce is in this category (see Figure D). There are three prevailing types of port management in Florida: the county, the city, and an independent port authority (Maritime Trust, 2001). Although there is no dominant management structure in Florida's deepwater ports, most management options result from the creation of a special. district. Special districts are either dependent or independent. Dependent special districts can be created by the state legislature, the county, or a municipality., Characteristics of dependent special districts include at least one of the following;(Maritime Trust, 2001): • governing body. • Members of governing body appointed by single county or municipality governing body. �. • Members of governing body identical to single county or municipality Members of governing body subject to removal at will by single county or municipality governing body during unexpired terms. • Budget approved through vote of governing body of single county or municipality. • Governing body of single county or municipality who can veto the budget. Maritime Trust (2001) cites the Florida Special District Handbook in reporting the following advantages of special districts: • Focus costs only on the community that benefits from the special district's service. • Operate to serve a special, public purpose. • Provide essential services to residents of property and generate revenue each year. t 14 :., Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 • Manage, own, operate, construct, and finance basic capital infrastructure, facilities, and services by private and public sectors in independent, special districts. • Provide capital infrastructure, facilities, and services for the preservation and enhancement of the quality of life in multi -county or multi - jurisdictional districts Six port management options are outlined below: • Board of County Commissioners, which is based on the current management of the port. The county commissioners are the policy -making body, and port staff would be a county department. • City Council — This would require transfer of management of the port to the city. • Appointed Port Authority — Either the city or the county would appoint governing board members. The budget would also be reviewed by either the city or the county. • Elected Port Authority — New agency would be created consisting of an elected board. Staffing would be established by the authority. The authority would be a dependent or independent special district. • Governor Appointed Port Authority — This would create a new agency. The Governor would appoint a governing board of five to seven members. Board members could be property owners or their employees and members �. of established environmental or business organizations. The authority would be an independent special district and would establish its own`staff. • Shared Appointment Port Authority- A new agency would be created:' The Governor, County Commission, and City Commission, or the County Commission and the City Commission would share appointments to the five to seven member governing board. The authority would be an independent special district (Maritime Trust, 2001). 15 (Figure B: Map of 20 Deepwater Ports of the Southeast) , ..; ;... ; . ,, SOUTHEAST...PORTS Mobile Pensacola • Panama City St. Joe St. Petersburg Port Manatee Morehead City Wilmington 0 ® lCharieston ® Georgetown • Port Royal Savannah O./Brunswick Fernandina • Jacksonville Port Canaveral ®Tampa • ® Fort Pierce West Palm • Beach Port Everglades Miami Port of Key West • Draft Port Plan April. 26, 2002 (Figure C: Map of Florida) Florida ITT A lantic Ocean Mierce Palm Beach ami 17 Draff Port Plan Aprilk26,:2002 (Figure D: Map of Florida's Deepwater Ports) State of Florida Deepwater Ports Port of Port of Panama City Pensacola Joe Legend Ports State of Florida Water I Port offey W L Port of Fernandina II iPort of Jacksonville .. lk )ort Canaveral Ort of Fort Pierce —Port Of Palm Beach Port Everglades Port of Miami 18 17W Gj �77 O O Cd u H .2 CLI 4-j 0 t 0 a (+-4 0 0. CCJ aq �E 9 CI j 0, 40. W." CL E ct: [To 'n to Al m � o � '+ W � po f.T* U u o CL pa O Draft Port Plan, April 26, 2002 PART 2 PROPOSED DEEPWATER PORT MASTER PLAN COMPONENT FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE ST., LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 163.3178(k) 21 Draft 'Poft'Plah'Apnl ',' 2002 c 22 Draft Port Plan April 26„2002IK AN2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies A revised vision for the Port of Fort Pierce was established in 1996 through a non -binding public referendum and charrette process, which shifted the intended general uses from exclusively cargo as per the 1989 Port Master Plan to a -mix of recreational, commercial, and industrial uses. Since that time and through additional public workshops, this vision has been further refined to focus the industrial component of the mixed use port on marine industries, specifically the megayacht industry, and for such uses to serve as the anchor tenant at the Port of Fort Pierce. The port master plan more clearly defines this community vision, strengthens local control over the process, and provides flexibility to ensure intergovernmental coordination and the desired mix of uses. References to the "Port of Ft. Pierce" in the Goals, Objectives, and Policies shall be liberally interpreted to mean the appropriate local government entity charged with the responsibility for enforcing or completing the specific objective or policy statement. Goals, Objectives, and Policies for Port of Ft. Pierce Goal 1 Responsibility for the Port ff The overall responsibility for the management of the Port of Ft. Pierce is vested by law with the St. Lucie County Commission and should be managed in the public interest of all the citizens of St. Lucie County. Objective 1.1 St. Lucie County, working with the City of Ft. Pierce, interested agencies and private property owners and consistent with the port enabling laws and the constitutional and statutory protections for the rights of existing private property owners, should ensure that the public interest and quality of life is protected when exercising public control of port property. Policy 1.1.1 St. Lucie County shall explore and consider all options for the management and operations of the Port of Fort Pierce in cooperation with the municipalities and local officials._ These discussions shall take place prior to December 2004 through either a task force or joint workshop of the elected officials. Policy 1.1.2 St. Lucie County shall maintain the necessary oversight of the Port of Fort Pierce to ensure compliance with applicable state law governing deepwater ports and to guarantee the financial feasibility of any publicly funded infrastructure within the port. 23 Draft -Port Plan April 26, 2002 Policy 1.1.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall determine whether to initiate actions necessary to acquire public ownership of those areas in the port determined to be in the public interest. Policy 1.1.4 St. Lucie County shall coordinate with the City of Fort Pierce, other affected local governments, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the Florida ` Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED). Policy 1.1.5 St. Lucie County, operating through its existing and future legal authorities, shall initiate discussions with the City of Fort Pierce, with other public agencies, and with the private business sector to create the legal agreements, memoranda of understanding, and joint planning agreements necessary to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Master Plan for the Port of Ft. Pierce. Objective 1.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall establish a general Port Planning Area boundary and a Port Operations Area boundary to provide elected officials, prospective investors, port facility developers, and the public a clear understanding of the physical location of the activities that could be accommodated in the Port of Ft. Pierce The Port Planning Area and Port Operations Area are identified in Figure A. Policy 1.2.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall support development of commercial marine uses, such as megayacht construction and maintenance, marine research facilities, or expansion of tourist/recreational uses, depending on market conditions. Policy 1.2.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall support development of tourist, commercial and recreational uses in the northern third of the undeveloped port property. Policy 1.2.3 The Port of Ft Pierce shall continue to support limited cargo operations in the Port Operations Area. 24 Draft Port Plan April 26s 2002, Policy 1.2.4 Activities within the remaining Port Planning Area shall comply with the applicable State and County laws and the applicable plans and regulations of the City of Ft. Pierce or St. Lucie County. Goal 2 Port Activities The quality of life for St. Lucie County residents will be strengthened and maintained by enhancing the economic viability, attractiveness, environmental quality, and social benefits associated with activities at the Port of Ft. Pierce. Objective 2.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce should strengthen the economic development activities in the Port Operations Area by working with federal, state and local government, the private sector, and other interested parties to formulate an economic development plan by 2004 that will foster new jobs that exceed the County's average annual wage and enhance the community's prosperity. Policy 2.1.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall encourage the development, renovation and improvement of port facilities to maximize current potential, including rehabilitation and modernization of existing buildings consistent with the City of Ft. Pierce downtown redevelopment. Policy 2.1.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce will continue as a deepwater port that will- accommodate limited cargo, operations. Gentrification of cargo areas shall be emphasized and flexibility shall be retained ' in the Berth 1 area to allow either limited cargo operations or marine industries. All such uses shall be consistent with the general mix of uses described herein and compatible with adjacent land uses and natural resources. Policy 2.1.3 Future public infrastructure improvements in the Port Planning Area will be made consistent wi,6 the Port Master Plan Policy 2.1.4 St. Lucie County, working with federal, state and local governments, the private sector, and other interested parties, may provide incentives for jobs that exceed the County's average annual wage. 25 Draft`Port Plan April 26, 2002 Policy 2.1.5 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with federal, state and local governments, the private sector, and other interested parties, will encourage port industries to develop job training programs and use the local workforce to the fullest extent possible. Objective 2.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce in cooperation with the City of Ft. Pierce and other governmental bodies, shall assist in the development of high quality design standards to ensure that port facilities in the Port Operations Area are compatible with the use of the surrounding area in the City of Ft. Pierce as downtown waterfront development. Policy 2.2.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, in cooperation with other governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, should develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing public port facilities and landscaping to _ encourage new and. expanded business development. Policy 2.2.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce, in cooperation with other governmental bodies, should ensure that port facilities are aesthetically compatible with newly;, renovated downtown Ft. Pierce and other adjacent neighborhood areas and in compliance with the City of Ft. Pierce regulations. Policy 2.2.3 Existing activities within the Port of Ft. Pierce Operations Area that are determined to be inconsistent with future uses of the port should be identified and removed through the negotiated purchase of property or business, code enforcement activities, private/public partnerships, grants, other mechanisms by the appropriate unit of government, or eminent domain. Objective 2.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with federal, state and local governments, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall maintain, increase, and promote marine industry and related scientific and commercial activities at th'e+Port of Ft. Pierce so there is no net loss of marine industry. 26 ,Draft,Port Plan April 26, 2002 . . ... ..-. 1.C_ Policy 2.3.1 f The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall accommodate water -related marine activities such as megayachts, restaurants, hotels, tall sailing vessels, boat service and repair yards, marina facilities, and related service activities within the Port Planning Area for the benefit of residents and visitors to the community. Policy 2.3.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall accommodate water -related marine activities such as megayachts, marine research vessels, tall sailing vessels, restaurants, hotels, and related service activities within the Port Planning Area for the benefit of the residents and visitors to the community. Policy 2.3.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce, in cooperation with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall protect, maintain, and promote marine industry activity from encroachment or displacement by incompatible land uses. Policy 2.3.4 The Port of Ft, Pierce, working with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall encourage the location of additional marine science facilities in the Port Planning Area that are compatible with the Smithsonian and the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. Policy 2.3.5 The Port of Fort Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall encourage the location and development of a megayacht facility that serves as the anchor tenant in the Port Operations Area. Objective 2.4 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall allow and support expansion of water -dependent recreational and ecotourism uses in the Port Planning Area. Policy 2.4.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall encourage recreational uses within the Port Planning Area. 27 Draft Port Plan Apn 6 ,2002 Policy 2.4.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce working with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall maintain a public education and information program for the commercial and recreational boating activities on and adjacent to the Port Planning Area to alert and advise those users of the environmentally sensitive resources in the area. Objective 2.5 The Port of Ft. Pierce, in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, shall work with appropriate public safety entities to revise the port security management plan for the Port Operations Area by December 2003. Policy 2.5.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall use its best efforts to ensure that port security will protect port users and citizens from crime or terrorism concerns and prevent any increase in criminal activity or enterprises. Policy 2.5.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall develop a public education program for the port security management plan to ensure that the -owners, users, other responsible parties, and `members of the public understand port security. Goal 3 Environmental Protection The Indian River Lagoon is recognized as the most biodiverse estuary in North America and as an important component of the local economic base and the overall quality of life in the community. As such, the integrity of the Indian River Lagoon shall be protected by correcting any detrimental effects caused by current operations and ensuring long-term development and improvement activities are consistent with all local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations. Objective 3.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, shall ensure the protection and restoration of the Indian River Lagoon and avoid future degradation of the Lagoon's ecological health due to port activities. Draft Port Plan April; 26, 2002 Policy 3.1.1 The Port of Fort Pierce, working with federal, state and local governmental bodies, the private sector, and other interested parties, will regulate discharges coming from port activities into the Indian River Lagoon to prevent air and water pollution in violation of any adopted federal, state, or local laws or regulations. Existing port businesses should be retrofitted to reduce pollution in the Indian River Lagoon. Policy 3.1.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working through the Comprehensive Plans and Land Development Regulations of the appropriate local general purpose government, shall address excessive freshwater inflows originating from the Port Planning Area to minimize their impacts on estuarine salinity, consistent with guidelines being developed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District in the Indian River Lagoon — South Feasibility Study Draft (2001). Policy 3.1.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, ` and other interested parties, shall limit inputs of suspended materials, nutrient inflows, and toxic substances from the Port Planning Area into the Indian River C�Lagoon to state and federal approved limits. Policy 3.1:4 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall work with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties to enforce existing laws and prevent exotic invasive species from entering the Indian River Lagoon via ship's ballast and bilge water or cargo. Policy 3.1.5 The Port of Ft. Pierce will develop a port area maintenance program to ensure environmental compliance by the port and for any activities occurring within the Port Planning Area. Objective 3.2 The . Port of Ft. ,Pierce will work with other governmental , bodies, .fhe -private sector, and other interested parties, to prevent detrimental, effects on the: Indian River Lagoon caused by port activities by supporting estuarine diversity and the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the population of endangered and threatened species. 29 :Draft: Port Plan April 26, 2002 Policy 3.2.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall work with other governmental bodies, private interests , and other interested parties to preserve and restore seagrass beds and mitigate any permitted losses to existing seagrass beds caused by port activities to the maximum extent possible. Policy 3.2.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, shall protect endangered and threatened mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates from port activities in the Indian River Lagoon. Policy 3.2.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, shall take appropriate actions to protect and conserve fin and shellfish resources in the Indian River Lagoon from damage due to port activities. Objective 3.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests,` and other interested parties, shall protect and maintain the existing natural coastal areas and resources within the Port Planning Area. Policy 3.3.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations of the appropriate local general purpose government, shall address maintenance and reduction of existing air quality emissions from port activities to ensure that new emissions from the port meet applicable air quality standards. Policy 3.3.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and private interests, and other interested parties, shall create a scientific advisory committee, composed of researchers and managers from the Smithsonian Institute, Harbor $ranch Oceanographic Institution;` aria other regional marine research institutions, to provide'scientifc advice on port operations and activities (commercial, industrial and recreational) that may impact the Indian River Lagoon. 30 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Policy 3.3.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, , and other interested parties, will develop a list of best management practices for environmental protection which have been used successfully by other ports to ensure efficient and effective management of port operation activities while providing environmental protection. Policy 3.3.4 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and the private sector, should encourage the use of an absorbing type system of bulkheading where possible to protect the natural coastline in the port and surrounding area. Objective 3.4 In keeping with the St. Lucie County Manatee Protection Plan (MPP), the Port of Ft. Pierce will work with other governmental agencies and private interests to improve protection of the manatees and enforcement of existing related laws within the Port Planning Area. Policy 3.4.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, will adjust ' future and proposed dock design and construction to be consistent with manatee protection measures. Policy 3.4.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private >interests, and other interested parties, will conduct maintenance dredging in the Port Planning Area in a manner that is consistent with manatee protection measures. Policy 3.4.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, will conduct activities involving expansion of ship berths and maintenance of channels in a manner that is consistent with: manatee protection measures in the Port Planning Area. Policy 3.4.4 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, will conduct activities involving explosives in a manner that is consistent with manatee protection measures in the Port Planning Area. 31 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Policy 3.4.5 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, will conduct activities involving sediment disposal in a manner that is consistent with manatee protection measures in the Port Planning Area. Policy 3.4.6 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, will protect and/or mitigate seagrass beds and submerged aquatic vegetation that serve as manatee habitat in the Port Planning Area. Policy 3.4.7 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, will help to develop guidelines and establish an education program for crew procedures regarding observing and avoiding manatees when arriving and departing from docks in the Port Planning Area. Goal 4 Public Access The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, shall enhance public access to !he Port Planning Area. Objective 4.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, shall develop an integrated open space system to provide public access between those portions in the Port Planning Area that are open to the public and the surrounding community. Policy 4.1.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, shall facilitate public access to short-term parking. Policy 4.1.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall encourage unobstructed public access to designated public fishing areas. 32 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Policy 4.1.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall cooperate with and support efforts of other interested governmental bodies in providing access to unobstructed scenic views of the Indian River Lagoon. Policy 4.1.4 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall encourage the City, County, and State to improve and maintain an orderly network of streets and entrances to access port facilities. Policy 4.1.5 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall develop an integrated open space system along the waterfront of the Port Operations Area, with the exception of areas where such access would pose a safety or security concern or where it would interfere with approved port activities. Policy 4.1.6 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall encourage multi -use marine recreational activities, walkways, and multiuse. paths within the open space system in the Port Planning Area and provide linkages with the network in Fort Pierce. Goal 5 Emergency Management The public will be protected in various emergency situations through cooperation between the Port of Ft. Pierce and other governmental bodies to achieve maximum levels of safety and to restrict commerce of hazardous materials in the Port of Ft. Pierce. Objective 5.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with regional and state emergency management agencies, private interests, and other interested parties, shall identify new and existing procedures to ensure public safety in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster. Policy 5.1.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall., comply with the comprehensive emergency management plans of appropriate local general purpose government to ensure safe evacuation of the port during times of hurricane or other disasters. 33 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Objective 5.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, shall comply and cooperate to ensure that adequate procedures are in place to respond to a hazardous material spill. Policy 5.2.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall comply with the processes of federal, state, and local governments for safe and expedient cleanup of hazardous spills. Policy 5.2.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall cooperate with governmental bodies to provide complete and timely information to the public in the event of a hazardous materials accident. Goal 6 Landside Infrastructure Landside and waterside infrastructure serving the Port of Ft. Pierce should meet the port's future requirements in a manner consistent with the abilities of the appropriate agencies to provide the services needed to support approved port activities. Objective 6.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall work with other governmental agencies to improve linkages between the port facilities and intermodal transportation routes. Policy 6.1.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, private interests, and other interested parties, should limit increased traffic congestion in the Port Planning Area and on roadways adjacent to the Port Planning Area consistent with the adopted levels of service in the Comprehensive Plan of the appropriate local general purpose government. Policy 6.1.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce should enhance and expand activities that tie the port to the St. Lucie. County Airport and coordinate with the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development (OTTED), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad, Tri-rail and other possible rail service, in order to encourage multimodal development, maximize intermodal transportation connections, and facilitate the continued economic growth, development, and vitality of St. Lucie County. Beginning in 2003 and continuing 34 Draft Port Plan Apnt 262002 annuaily thereafter. the Port of Ft. Pierce shall prepare a State of the Pons Report to demonstrate to the public how activities of both faciiities are furtherinLy the q_uaiity_ of life of St. Lucie County residents. Policv 6.1.3 The Port of Ft. Pierce. %vorkine with other Qovemmental bodies. Should faciiitate expansion of pubiic transit to and from the Pon Planning :area. Goal 7 Navigation Channels Navigation channeis serving the port's maritime and recreational activities sliall meet existing and limited future needs as outlined in this plan. Objective 7.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall maintain the maximum channel depth at 28 feet with its current width as identified on the Army Corps of Engineers' Project Condition Survey dated August 2001 (attached as Exhibit A). Policy 7.1.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Inland Navigation District -to provide for the maintenance of the navigation channels, including location of spoil disposal sites. Policy 7.1.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard in the placement and maintenance of the navigational aids within the port area.M Objective 7.2 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall seek to improve the condition of Taylor Creek from the S-50 Spillway to the Intercoastal Waterway through maintenance dredging and water quality improvement projects. Policy 7.2.1 The Port of Ft. Pierce shall request that St. Lucie County include as part of its Capital Improvements Programs funding for the restoration and improvement of the Taylor Creek through maintenance dredging and water quality improvement projects to supplement funds received from other agencies. 35 rn T fill; 111,; H! fil � . i I -_,--moo /' i ✓I �- = ��` c� `\� ��,� 1 Ago a. uxle �.#L PROJECT CONDITION SURVEY 23 00 SO -FOOT PROJECT OD PMd.d fto 06303144 AM EDT VA7CMLIHI SHEET RL'. 3 STA. 30.00 uY -.M .......... T- MEL ftltz 5 ME ffn= mr: F??F f =FMM:= FF STA. 0.00 CUT-1 -!-ft!z!: RE Ii le rl • MN - _Q=ZZAMIM 2B aro 30-rWr -t ACT ca 00 N ...I � I f PROJECT CONDITION SURVEY • cc 28 NO 30-FOOT PROJECT li 1. KAfCkLINE SHEET NO. 3 STA. 60-00 �J- -L4t�� 9 _46 t O • I 6 HAICHLINE SHEET NO. C STA. 120•00 1 i - ti lI Qa rt ?-��-i.`•. wee='�=M�tis-r-r.•...:_ I I --tis-=ee2" �aa 320 n Mom" �^'m�:a��:+t�� i�'K"'.��• I I 1 1 1 :��-q: •es:� :_•cask rr �....� .r..—N. i 1 1 ���,ff ett •����-��. �r 1 1 I :Ft n ttis 1 1 1 1 ....I 1 -mEa�acttiuitlsr.,,,,- MATCNLINE SHEET NO. 4 STA. ".00 U \ I`: z ft.lYO[ E000611C1e. _ opAn [Nf or Tc mw ■�5� �umiwY. Aar Cn0� -()f PROJECT CONDRgN SUftVEr �. - \ 1 1 ZO 00 30•FOOT PROJECT xd Yd N e • � .1.1,E �.,..,.�. — M. PROJECT COMMON SURVEY 26 AIA w•sooT PROJECT ��• �...C* 6 vAerawrlrwa�.awe ..�.... t— x x v �I --'-'- 1 MATCNEIME SMELT 40. S STA. II0-00 CMATTbKwr j;—& i0m1000O0W by Odom" v "T dw►6,OMOw050001 MOlt"= AM COT KATCHLIK SHEET No. 8 STA. 55-00 t6 lilt Am. --T- • m-A. M.- WN VATCHLINE SHEET NO. 6 STA. 25.00 � A z ca PROJECT CONDITION SURVEY 23 AHO 30-FOOT PROJECT IT& 23-M "M SM "-" *A-* ftm %Off Or THE m "ifte 0 V�p�r ..d. n O CD C1. \ 4�1, W R.IQR NrgOR ! jt fC 11/C[ MUIM1. ROrL. �f CO i PROJECT CONDITION SURVEY \ ai 28 MD }O-FOOT PROJECT co i arm Jsa. QR•a SPI nn.c Rnt •�s3i-�.--�?ca-�.---,..�. Fes? ! \ 1• r.aLL�... ..yam-'ti-'��, �Y: m n •.r .w t.ia! r•jJ.� J ra. � I.IM; IA y,a A /.J �•IrlA 1.'t•I IA IA rA . t-J ! 4r �' _.2_.._21 XsAn.l 4.! I.r ..• !.1 ;• ~`. I.1 t!.! ti I.� IA b �• !.a r.J J.t ..r _-+......,.�_r t.at'. V..r IA a.. ..1 lA •A a.1 ..1 4 n IA V t ..a �-J IA J-I �•. to J.I lA J.• / . 4. It it �.. I.I ;l J.1 J•1 J.I JAu I.• r•. L Jw ....... w..,�...� • . !A 1. � 1..1J Iry�' f.! a Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 44 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 PART 3 DATA AND ANALYSIS 45 Draft Port Plan April 26. 2002 46 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 3. Existing Port Conditions, 2001 The objective of this section is to illustrate the physical, urban, and natural context within the Port of Fort Pierce. Subsections of the FAC, Section 9J-5.012., coastal management element, addressed in this and subsequent sections are indicated in brackets. This section provides an inventory and analysis of the built environment as well as terrestrial and marine environmental conditions at and near the port. Existing conditions are reviewed from the following standpoints: • Inventory of port facilities • Adjacent land uses • Infrastructure serving port facilities • Ecological and environmental conditions • Natural disaster planning • Hazardous materials handling and cleanup A. Port of Fort Pierce Overview [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)] This section consists of an inventory and analysis for the areas owned or administered by the port [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (2)]. Although it is under the jurisdiction of St. Lucie County, the Port of Fort Pierce cannot be considered independently of its location in the City of Fort Pierce. Of importance to port development is the city's geographical separation into two areas: 1) the mainland, or city proper, with its concentrations in urban functions and 2) Hutchinson Island, a barrier island devoted primarily to tourist, residential, and public conservation/recreational uses. B. Adjacent Land Uses [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)] Urban Context Area The Port of Fort Pierce facilities lie almost entirely within close proximity to the City of Fort Pierce and are closely related with the urban fabric of the area (See Figure A). This proximity to the city is of key importance. Of importance to port development is the city's geographical separation into the two areas of the city proper, with its concentrations of urban functions and Hutchinson Island, devoted primarily to tourist, residential and public conservation/recreational uses (PBS&J, 1990). Existing Land Uses The land use on the barrier island coastal area is primarily residential, while use on the mainland coastal area is primarily commercial/industrial (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, 1990, pp. 5-9). The eastern boundary follows the City of Fort Pierce city limits line that lies just west of the Fort Inlet State Park (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). The port planning area lies adjacent to the IRL Aquatic Preserve. The land uses for the areas fronting or close to the Indian River are mostly water- 47 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 dependent or water -related (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, 1990, pp. 5-9). Some undeveloped land exists on the barrier island, the Causeway Island, and the undeveloped privately owned portions of the port. Structures in the mainland coastal zone include the Port of Fort Pierce, the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) electric generating plant, the municipal marina, citrus packing plants, Taylor Creek Marina, and various other commercial properties. Several large parcels of property in the Port Operations Area remain undeveloped. The port also has properties, which could be redeveloped for more intensive use (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, 1990, pp. 5-9). The use of the land adjacent to the Port Operations Area involves primarily water -dependent or port -related uses including marinas, commercial fishing docks, marine supply shops, fruit -packing plants and warehouses, and marine terminals. Other uses include waterfront restaurants and a mobile home park. The Port Operations Area, bounded on the north across North Beach Causeway by the North Bridge Plaza Shopping Center with frontage on U.S. 1, and by Causeway Island and Taylor Creek within unincorporated St. Lucie County, consists primarily of vacant, undeveloped acreage, with a scattering of older single-family residences and mobile homes. South of Taylor Creek along U.S. 1 is Sunrise Ford, the Riverview Memorial Park cemetery, and a mixture of mostly older strip retail and neighborhood commercial land uses (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, pp. 5-9). Other diverse uses across the South Causeway, include a sewage treatment plant, another mobile home park, a museum, a park, the U.S. Coast Guard facility, and a mixture of residential areas and tourist facilities, ending in the beaches (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, pp. 5-9). The city defines inconsistent land uses as those that either do not contribute to carrying out the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan or are in conflict with future land use designations. Several inconsistent land uses exist adjacent to the port as indicated in the City of Fort Pierce Future Land Use Element (1990). These include: • The area along Old Dixie Highway, south of North Beach Causeway, which is a mixture of dilapidated housing, warehousing, and retail uses. This area is designated Commercial Marine (CM) on the city's Future Land Use Map. Part of an existing residential neighborhood abutting U.S. 1, between Avenue J and Avenue H, designated General Commercial (CG) in the City's Comprehensive Plan. An existing mobile home park and older wood frame single-family residences, which are located between the South Bridge (Seaway Drive) and Avenue H and designated CM in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the Port Operations Area, there are also diverse port -related uses. These include the privately owned King Maritime Group LLC shipping facilities (previously known as the Indian River Terminal Company), several fruit - packing houses, industrial operations, a dry -slip marina, a boat yard, a tank farm, and a few other small businesses. The Indian River Terminals are located in the southern third of the port, consist of approximately seven acres of land, Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 and constitute the only "deepwater facility within the port (Maritime Trust, 2001). The King Maritime Group may consider new types of cargo in the future. The City of Fort Pierce controls the land use designations and zoning for most of the port area. The land use designation of the port, according to the city's Future Land Use Element, is a mixture of industrial (I) and commercial marine (CM). (Exhibit B, p. 54) County land use designations adjacent to the port include approximately 12 acres of commercial, north of SR A I A in the vicinity of the U.S. Highway I and Old Dixie Highway, as well as additional commercial land use designations along U.S. Highway 1 and north of Taylor Creek. The port is bounded on the west by a commercial general (CG) land use designation. Exceptions include the cemetery located in the vicinity of Avenue M and U.S. 1 and commercial marine land use designation for the area between the South Bridge and Avenue H (PBS&J, 1990). The eastern and southern shorelines of the Fort Pierce Inlet Park are within the Port Planning Area. North Hutchinson Island is on the north side of the Ft. Pierce Inlet and directly east of the port (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). The land use of North Hutchinson Island is dominated by residential, public conservation/recreation, and undeveloped land uses. Of the 3,110 total acres on North Hutchinson Island, 2,105 acres are in public ownership, 75 acres have a conservation easement and another 68 acres are targeted for public purchase. The majority of the land is publicly owned. The Fort Pierce Inlet Park eastern and southern shorelines are located are located in the Port Planning Area. Causeway Island Causeway Island is owned by the City of Fort Pierce and managed by St. Lucie County.Uses on Causeway Island include the Smithsonian Institute and a museum (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). Fisherman's Wharf Operations at Fisherman's Wharf include commercial fishing. This area was identified by city planners as having potential for redevelopment. There are no plans to redevelop this site at the present time (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 2001). City Fishing Pier The City Fishing Pier is located just south of the southern Causeway Bridge, along the Indian River Lagoon, and consists of 2,850 feet of pier (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, 1990). • Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Fort Pierce City Marina This is a public marina with six coastal access boat ramps. It offers 234 wet slips, sewage pump out, and fuel. It is located on N. Indian River Drive (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, 1990, pp. 5-44 to 5-45). Fort Pierce Inlet Marina This is a condo/multifamily site that offers boat repair and 32 wet slips (City Coastal Management Element, pp. 5-45). Taylor Creek Marina Of the 619 commercial dry docks in the City of Fort Pierce, 600 are located in the Taylor Creek Marina. This marina offers boat repair and fuel (City of Fort Pierce, 1990, pp. 5-41). Harbourtown Marina This is a commercial marina that offers boat repair, sewage pump out and fuel. It consists of 412 wet slips (City of Fort Pierce, 1990, pp. 5-45). Village Marina This is a commercial marina with one boat ramp, 35 wet slips and 13 dry docks (City of Fort Pierce, 1990, pp. 5-45). Historic and Cultural Resources [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)] Within the Port Planning Area there are six historic structures, four of which are within the Port Operations Area. Many of the known archaeological and historical resources of the city do occur in the coastal area. Approximately seven structures on the National Register are in the City of Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County, Coastal Management Element Update, 2001, pp. 7-13). The State Bureau of Historic Preservation does not identify archaeological resources other than by U.S.G.S. section in order to prevent destruction of these sites by looters. Three of the city's four National Historic Register sites are in the coastal area. The sites include the Old Fort Pierce Site, Cresthaven (Boston House), and the P.P. Cobb Building. The downtown McCrory's Building has the potential to be nominated on the National Register of Historic Places. There are no designated historic'districts inz Fort Pierce (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, 1990). Other historic sites include the Old City Hall, the Post Office, the Arcade Building, the Sunrise Theater, the Seven Gales House and Information Center, Second Street, and the Sunrise Theater (City of Fort Pierce, 2001). Ongoing port operations and future development are not anticipated to impact these historic resources. 50 O N \ � u v u u m m cq is tq � 7 N70 m j N C7 Z •N N C m W m u N �;.o, nJ.P N m a, ''vjp m '-' u � rn O. N • W i Q c a N > O �OvicN c NNH w 0 f a LLI _ 12 w 0 NwNw m w u r m OO<0 Tnw Q'R Z Ui v N w E •NCco� ZW=N c 0 _¢dm`C cc 0 i Oo L+Jw o aZW Z c = 3-a i Q O i T• = Z. E 0 00 � � c� cn cry a : o ' u. W DC DC OC OC U U U U U - O O O=�• o M O 0 ' .. C,yilf .... �fj'•j� i+IC a 1 � -'s . t'A i � � •V. I: o a d', JP• :� u: , O < {f fii`,'•' {�1�!"- rtlliif ( fim ►ttttt �Y/+/�` �# rtl'IIIIIiN 1?{ flllll 'h . 4Sf rr .lr►r' 11►►►►► w r rrrr �f1jt �� rfl 1� 1111►1 fl jj117 • Ni►111 � �.►, IJJ 'llfli�►i► Nllll rrl'1'►r� 'IMANN1'1 117 11HIff� i r l�l; I;1 ►1111111� { IIIIIU ►►'1'►►,kl►` rtl'Ir►�I►i► rlr rft rr11,fA1 rt1Y1N11► i+ „ rrY►IlNffl►1 �i'1 '1 r�i'lllll��l%%ill► 'I�:.rtfltl'lll►NNII �'1' ►f►1 �/lrlllfj►►Ijllfjljfjllllf►�11/+,�� uu . 1►1►111►111►11111/1+�1+ ... ,. Eil►? r►.1 rim; � � r••,nl�. !di rrr r ll►1 � + f n 0 N a w O :fl kn X W Draft Port Plan April- 26, 2002 C. Inventory of Port Facilities Channels and Turning Basins The Port of Fort Pierce was designed for deepwater operations. It is connected to the Atlantic Ocean shipping lanes by a distance of three miles, from the outer sea buoy to the Indian River Terminal through the Fort Pierce Inlet (County Website, 2001; Fort Pierce Master Port Plan, 1989) (See Figure A). The Fort Pierce Inlet has two natural stone jetties, which are 1,200 feet long and separated by 900 feet. Between 1920 and 1935 the inlet was opened, the protective jetties were constructed in the channel, and the turning basin was excavated (St. Lucie County, Economic Development Division, 2000). The stone jetties protect an entrance channel that is 300 feet wide. Upon reaching the Indian River, the channel narrows to 200 feet. Water depth in the entrance channel is 31 feet below mean low water from the ocean to a point of approximately 1,500 feet west of the inshore end of the inlet. From that point the depth of the channel and turning basin is 28 feet below mean low water. The turning basin is up to 900 feet wide and allows large vessels room to maneuvering for docking and undocking at the Indian River Terminal (St. Lucie County, Online, 2001). The channel and turning basin are intersected by the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), which allows coastwise barge traffic direct access to the port. Tidal surge in the harbor averages 2.5 feet with 3 feet occurring during spring tides (St. Lucie County, Online, 2001). Navigational Aids Both the ICW adjacent to the port and the Fort Pierce Inlet have standard navigational aids (PBS&J, 1990). Two tugs, 1200 hp and 500 hp, provide around -the -clock service. Additional assistance can also be provided by the Harbor Master pilot boat, which has a capacity of 400 hp. The Fort Pierce Harbor Master, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Indian River Terminal all maintain VHF channels for ship to shore communications (St. Lucie County, Online, 2001). Marine Structures Commercial shipping has been conducted in the port since the 1930s (St. Lucie County, Economic Development Division, 2000). The commercial cargo portion of the port is currently in the southern portion known as the Indian River Terminal. This terminal was built in 1933 and was recently purchased by the King Maritime Group LLC. The terminal's three docks are 934 feet long. The terminal's warehousing includes 8000 square feet of dry storage and 64,000 square feet of refrigerated storage. The Indian River Terminal has berths of 454 feet, 330 feet, and 150 feet for vessels to 28 foot draft, and the municipal pier has marginal wharfs of 330 feet and 195 feet for vessels up to 20 52 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 feet in draft on the seaward end. The municipal pier, primarily suitable for small cargo vessels servicing the island trades, also has a roll on, roll off (ro-ro) ramp, which is presently used by a firm transporting fresh produce from the Bahamas. The Indian River Terminal with a pier -side refrigerated terminal can also accommodate landing ships and ro-ro vessels equipped with bow or stern ramps. AES operates a terminal for bulk discharge and distribution. This terminal has a three dolphin mooring system, which can moor vessels to 28 feet in draft (St. Lucie County, Online, 2001). Buildings Of the buildings found in the port area, most are one to two stories in standard industrial heights (City of Fort Pierce, 2001). Among the types of buildings are port facility warehouses, packing plants for fresh fruit and vegetables and marine industry office space. The port does not have cruise ships or container loading facilities. Within the port area, approximately 87 acres remains vacant. Most of the land on the north side of the port is vacant. The southern third of the 87 acres is adjacent to the existing deep -water berths (City of Fort Pierce, 2001). Areas in Need of Redevelopment It has been suggested by the City of Fort Pierce Community Redevelopment Agency (2001) that a northern entrance to the port should be developed to be in keeping with the 1996 Port of Fort Pierce Charrette. This new entrance would function as a primary route for cargo trucks to help control traffic congestion. It was also suggested in the 1996 Port of Fort Pierce Charrette that a connected street system within the port area should be built to allow access to undeveloped areas of the port. Additional rail spurs were recommended as well as additional bulkhead where necessary for berths 2, 3 and 4. To maximize the recreational potential of publicly owned lands, the charrette recommendations included renovating the park along the north side of Causeway Island. D. Conflicts among Uses According to the St. Lucie County Coastal Management Element Update (2001) the predominant land use along the North. Fork of the St. Lucie River and Indian River Lagoon (south of Fort Pierce) is residential. The shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon on Hutchinson Island is primarily public conservation/recreation. The County's Future Land Use map recognizes the need for water -dependent and water -related uses by the commercial, industrial, and mixed -use designations on the mainland north of Fort Pierce and the Port Planning Area. Several existing or potential shoreline conflicts were identified by the county, including the following: conflicts in existing non -water dependent uses in the platted industrial area, and redevelopment focus on water - dependent uses; environmental sensitivity of these areas in regard to stormwater management and handling, storage and use of hazardous materials; and potential conflict between mixed use designations and low density residential 53 Draft Port Plan April 26; 2002 designations that must be offset through transitional gradients (St. Lucie County Coastal Management Element Update, 2001, pp. 7-12 to 7-13). There are further identified conflicts with shoreline uses of the Port of Fort Pierce in regard to the various stakeholders, which were identified at the public workshops. Some of the stakeholders believe the port should accommodate greater amounts of cargo and should deepen the port in order to meet the needs of additional cargo. Other stakeholders would believe cargo should be virtually eliminated from the port in order to protect the environment. Four assumptions were agreed upon at the public stakeholder meetings: 1) The port will continue to accommodate cargo through existing facilities 2) The port should accommodate recreation and commercial uses, including marine industries supported by the community such as megayachts. 3) Protection of the Indian River Lagoon environment requires environmentally safe and friendly port activities and uses. 4) Intergovernmental coordination is both desirable and necessary to develop activities consistent with the public interest. E. NaturaI Resources Inventory [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5) (b)] The study area for the port master plan includes both the Port Planning Area and the Port Operations Area. To enhance port development the study area boundaries have been expanded slightly since the 1989 plan. The previous boundaries of the "Portarea" as defined by the 1989 Port Plan were as follows: bounded on the north and south by State Road (SR) A I A causeways, on the west by the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) and on the east by the IRL (PBS & J, 1990). The new boundaries have been redefined to include a greater portion of Taylor Creek. The Port Planning area now extends from the North Bridge (North SR AIA) to the South Bridge (South SR AIA), and from U.S. 1 east to the Indian River including the entire harbor, channel and Causeway Island from the city's wastewater plant and the county's historical museum to a geographical line approximately equal with Chuck's Seafood Restaurant. It also includes a portion of Taylor Creek beginning at the harbor and extending to approximately North Sixteenth Street. The Port Operations Area consists of the area between northern causeway to southern causeway and the portion of the harbor that is adjacent. The land in question extends west to Old Dixie Highway between North Beach Causeway and Taylor Creek and extends west to North Second Street from Taylor Creek to Seaway Causeway. (See Figure A). Natural resources that are affected by port activities include the IRL, the Atlantic Ocean, Taylor Creek, and both the associated habitats and species (FDEP, 1998). The undevelopedlands' in the Port Planning Area are of particular importance due to the proximity of the Fort Pierce Inlet, which has provided an estuarine environment described as "one of the best remaining segments of the Lagoon" (FDEP, 1998). 54 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Ecological and Environmental Conditions This section reviews natural resources generally relevant to the port area (See Figure A). The following text and accompanying graphic illustrate site specific natural resources for these facilities. The deepwater port facilities of the Port of Fort Pierce consist of shorelines and marine structures within the IRL and direct access to the Atlantic Ocean. Natural resources in this area include but are not limited to vegetative cover and wetlands, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, beach and dune systems, and an estuarine system (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The landside areas of the port are in an urban setting and do not have noteworthy vegetation or fauna. The harbor area and its environs, however, provide habitats for various plants and animals, including species classified as endangered, threatened, or of special concern (PBS&J, 1990). Marine Communities The marine resources within and around the Port Planning Area are extensive. In the IRL complex over 600 species have been identified (St. Lucie County, Conservation Element, 2001; Woodword-Clyde, 1994). There are several reasons for this diversity. The IRL spans several biogeographic provinces with both tropical and temperate influence. The IRL complex also contains highly diverse habitats including tidal inlets, sand bottoms, seagrass meadows, and adjacent mangrove forests and freshwater creeks. In the southern portion of the IRL there is an even higher level of diversity due to a greater abundance of inlets, the presence of reef. like habitats that are not present in the north, and greater tropical representation (St. Lucie County, Conservation Element, 2001; Woodword-Clyde, 1994). There is no other region of estuarine or continental shelf habitats that contains as many species or aquatic organisms as the ocean inlets of the IRL, particularly in the Fort Pierce Inlet due to its size and stabilization (Gilmore & Hanisk, 1991). Seagrasses Seagrasses are submerged flowering plants with true roots and stems and are distinctly different from marine algae. The documented importance of seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation in the ecological stability and productivity of the estuarine ecosystem includes the stabilization of sediments, prevention of re -suspension of particulate matter, as well as cover and food for fish and wildlife. Of the habitats entirely confined within the lagoon, seagrass beds support the richest fish community, in terms of both diversity of species and density. The seagrass habitat is also a critical resource for the Florida manatee. This marine mammal depends on seagrasses as part of its food supply. Juvenile sea turtles have also been documented as foraging on turtle grass and other seagrasses in the IRL (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Seagrass ecosystems are recognized as the primary food source and critical to the 55 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 recovery of the Endangered West Indian Manatee (Woodward -Clyde, 1994). Seagrasses also provide habitat for the Green sea turtle. In 1991, scientists at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution (HBOI) conducted an extensive study of the shoreline in the port. Four species of seagrass and 44 species of other Submerged Aquatic Vegetation were found (Gilmore & Hanisak, 1991). The seagrass beds along the undeveloped portion of the port were found to be the most extensive and significant. The seagrass beds adjacent to the shoreline were healthy and patterns observed were consistent with previous seagrass studies (Gilmore & Hanisak, 1991). Approximately 4.7 acres of seagrasses were mapped, 77% of which were found off the undeveloped eastern shoreline, or in the area known as Harbor Point Park (St. Lucie County Economic Development Division, June 1, 2001). The majority of these vegetative communities were found in waters adjacent to undeveloped port lands (Gilmore, 1991). The transect along the Port's Indian River Lagoon shoreline extended form the shore to the ICW, a distance of approximately 250 feet. The seagrass beds in this area were predominately found within a few meters of the shore. The physical conditions along the project shoreline were reportedly favorable for seagrass growth, a gentle sloping shelf and water depths that provide an expansive area of potential habitat cover. According to Gilmore (1991) any alteration of the shoreline or adjacent substrate will negatively impact seagrasses and the conditions for submerged aquatic vegetation growth. The IRL contains seven species of seagrasses: manatee grass, shoal grass, Johnson's seagrass, turtle grass, paddle grass, star grass, and widgeon grass. ff This diversity is far greater than seagrasses found in any other United States estuary. Johnson's seagrass (Halophilia johnsonii) is a federally threatened species endemic only to the southern IRL region. Where conditions are appropriate, seagrasses may form an underwater meadow of dense cover. These meadows are generally found in water between 0.7 and 3.3 feet deep on sandy or muddy sand substrates. In deeper water where there is less light or in areas where substrate or water quality conditions are not ideal, seagrasses may not be present or may occur only as scatter clumps or as plants limited to a few inches in height (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Dense beds are found around the shoals being formed at the mouth of the St. Lucie River; however, such seagrass beds have varied in density over time. Seagrass beds in the Fort Pierce area were moderately dense when mapped in 1986 and less dense when mapped in 1992 (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Historical seagrass coverage changes between the 1970s and 1992 were determined as part of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Final Report. Within St. Lucie County, the majority of the lagoon reported a zero to 25 percent increase in seagrass coverage. One exception is the area of the Fort Pierce Inlet, between Bear Point and Jack Island, which reported an increase of seagrass coverage that was greater than 25 percent (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). 56 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2000) sited more recent surveys. One such survey was conducted by FDEP Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA) staff in August of 1998. Slight changes of shape and area coverage in the beds in were found between 1992 and 1998. In April of 1999 aerial photography conducted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) revealed similar findings. FDEP CAMA staff surveyed Berths 1-5 in May of 2000 and showed a greatly reduced bed. The greatest change was found at berth 4-5, with a reduction in maximum bed width from roughly 100m to 8m. A 3-8 inch layer of silt/clay/organics was found where formally had been sandy substrate. Seagrass beds in Berths 2-3 were found to have grown since the 1998 survey after losses since 1991. The consistency of the muck found by CAMA staff was very similar to samples taken from offshore reefs in 1996. The muck appeared to be deposited prior to dredging efforts in April of 2000. It was speculated that the most likely source of the muck was Taylor Creek, perhaps due to downward movement from two recent hurricanes. However, it was noted that the hydrodynamic conditions of the port, ICW, Taylor Creek, inlet, and reefs are largely unknown (FDEP, 2000). Substantial research has indicated that the distribution and health of seagrass and other submerged vegetation is directly related to water quality and water clarity of estuaries and can thus be used as an estuarine health indicator. Factors influencing seagrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation growth and distribution include water depth, water clarity and availability of light, substrate, nutrient levels, salinity, temperature, and anthropogenic influences such as runoff and boating activities (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001). According to Maritime Trust (2001), four varieties of seagrasses are found in the port vicinity: cuban shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii), Cuban shoalgrass (Halodule decipiens), Johnson's seagrass (Halophil johnsonii), and manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme). Johnson's seagrass is generally uncommon in this area. The largest area of seagrass in the port vicinity is the Jim Island Seagrass Meadow, which is a 290 acre area located north of the interior channel. Seagrass beds are also found to the west and north of the turning basin (Maritime Trust, 2001). According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Multispecies Recovery Plan for South Florida (Draft, 2000) physical destruction of seagrasses most commonly comes from boat propellers and is called prop scarring (cited by Maritime Trust, 2001). Boat wakes also cause physical disturbance to seagrasses with increased turbidity. Small craft boating and larger commercial boats can both influence this condition (Maritime Trust, 2001). Intertidal/Wetlands Two basic types of saltwater wetland or "intertidal" wetlands in the lagoon are mangrove forests and salt marches. The distribution of these habitat types is primarily latitudinal, caused by temperature and particularly by the occurrences of freezes. Mangroves are sub -tropical and sensitive to low 57 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 temperatures and freezes (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001). The undeveloped shoreline of the Port Operations Area contains mangroves (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). Mangrove communities, like other coastal wetlands, contribute to the removal of dissolved nutrients in runoff from adjacent upland areas. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and other essential nutrients are absorbed by mangrove root systems. Mangrove size and growth are proportional to the levels of nutrients received and this growth may be correlated to the amount of runoff received from adjacent terrestrial sources. The submerged root systems of mangroves form a protected nursery habitat for dozens of fish, such as the common snook, striped mullet, tarpon, and mangrove snapper. Many avigaunal species also use these systems for nesting and/or foraging, including herons, egrets, brown pelicans, roseate spoonbills, and white ibis (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). As late as 1950, coastal saltwater wetlands, both forested swamp and salt marsh, covered approximately 6,000 acres of St. Lucie County's coastal shoreline area adjacent to the IRL. Salt marsh halophytes and black and white mangroves dominated these coastal areas. The federal government and the State of Florida sold the majority of the coastal wetlands to private developers. Human development resulted in the filling of approximately 17 percent of the wetlands in the county (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Ongoing coastal wetland activities are directed at public acquisition, preservation, restoration, recreation, and public management of these environmentally sensitive ecosystems. Multi -agency coordination is an integral component of this effort, which involves multiple management goals, adaptive management strategies, and ecosystem management principles focusing on protection of coastal biodiversity. Spoil Islands Spoil islands in the lagoon provide vegetative cover. There are 34 spoil islands within the county's portion of the IRL. Most resulted from depositing spoil material during the creation of the ICW in the early 1900's, or its rebuilding between 1961 and 1995. A few were natural islands on which dredged spoil was placed. Although spoil islands are generally dominated by exotic vegetation, they also provide shallow water habitat in fringe areas for the growth of mangroves, seagrasses, and other native wetland vegetation. In 1990, Florida Department of -Natural Resource studies showed that a total of 467 plant and animal species ranging from fungi to marine mammals inhabited or used these islands. Uses include nesting sites for many wading and diving birds. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission consider County Line Spoil Islands and Bird Islands as major rookeries (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001). 58 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Riverine/Freshwater Systems Numerous freshwater wetlands and streams are found adjacent to 01' connected directly to the lagoon system. Although not directly a part of the lagoon, adjacent wetland communities are a vital component for the biodiversity of the lagoon. They function in maintaining water quality and in filtering harmful substances from surface runoff waters before reaching the lagoon. The quality and quantity of freshwater discharges from the mainland is critical to the maintenance of a healthy estuary and the salinity gradient required by numerous estuarine -dependent fisheries. One of the two primary points of discharge into the IRL is the C-25 Canal, which discharges directly into the lagoon across from the Fort Pierce Inlet (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). This canal discharges into Taylor Creek that flows along the north side of the undeveloped port lands (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002) Shoreline The undeveloped 87 acres of the Port Planning area include approximately 2,500 linear feet of undeveloped shoreline along the IRL and Taylor Creek (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). The emerging mangrove. shoreline and adjacent aquatic estuarine resources may be affected by future uses of the port (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). Living Marine Resources Natural Reefs The IRL contains rock/ledge communities consisting of exposed limestone along the north wall of the inlet; wormrock reefs along the north side of the inlet, formed by cementing of sand grains by polychaete worms; and soft - bottom communities (Maritime Trust, 2001). Limestone natural reefs are found both near shore and offshore within the coastal area of St. Lucie County (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). The near shore reefs or hard bottom areas exist both north and south of the Fort Pierce Inlet. They are primarily coquinoid limestone, occurring in approximately 10 to 20 foot depths and extending from 150 feet out to 2000 feet offshore. Discontinuous pavements with ledges up to six feet in relief parallel the shoreline. The near shore reefs support a dense and diverse cover of flora and fauna. Algae, sponges, as well as soft and hard corals, are a few of the dominant species that, along with numerous other cover species, provide shelter and food for invertebrates and over 225 species of fish. Over 200 species of mollusks, 97 species of crustaceans, and 21 species of echinoderms have been found to be associated with the Oculina hard coral alone (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). 59 Draft Port Plan April 261,2002 Oyster Bars Oyster bars are essentially an exposed sand -shell biotype where the shell component is dominant. Oyster bars are common in the IRL between the Sebastian Inlet and the Fort Pierce Inlet and historically contributed to the commercial fishing industry in Fort Pierce. However, there are no commercially leased oyster beds and there is only a relatively small area north of Fort Pierce and east of the ICW that presently has approved open shellfish waters. The oyster performs a valuable function in the food web by converting plankton, detritus and possibly dissolved organics into animal protein, which is then available to higher predators. Attaching to dead shells or stony outcroppings, oyster communities are self-perpetuating once established and provide attachment sites and protective cover for a large number of invertebrates including tunicates, bryozoans, amphipods, decapods, and gastropods. This secondary community provides a forage base for opportunistic fish, which in turn support roving carnivores such as crevalle jack, gray snapper, snook, and red drum (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Fish The IRL is reportedly the "richest estuarine ichthyofauna in the continental United States." Recent reports indicated a total of 788 speciespresent in the IRL, many using a variety of habitats, particularly during different phases of their life histories and/or at different times of the year. St. Lucie County is located within the southern portion of the lagoon where twice as many fish species have been recorded compared with the northern portion. The higher diversity in the southern portion of the lagoon has been ascribed to the greater tropical climate, hard -bottom and reef -like habitats, and to the abundance of Atlantic inlets (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001). The status of fish resources is difficult..to establish on a quantitative basis and much information comes from anecdotal sources and non -scientific reports. Such information indicates that populations of many fish have declined in the period ranging from about 1952 to 1989. Populations of some species such as the common snook and red drum appear to have increased in recent years, probably in response to catch limitation regulations, while others such as the spotted sea trout have continued to decline. Reconnection of thousands of acres of mosquito impoundments may have a beneficial effect on ichthyofauna) food chains and lead to increased populations of fish. Changes in seagrass abundance may also affect fish abundance (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element,'2001). Sixty to seventy percent of the economically important Atlantic Ocean species are dependent upon estuaries during some phase of their life cycle (FDEP, 1998). In 1991, Gilmore and Hanisak identified 8 species of recreational fish, 26 commercial fish species, and 10 species of crustaceans in waters on or adjacent to the port. One of these the Common snook, is a species of special concern. The juvenile Common snook use seagrass beds (Gilmore & Hanisak, 1991). Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Commercial fisheries are an important component of the local economic base. Historical trends and analysis of fin fish and shellfish commercial landings for the period from 1958 through 1988 for counties in the Indian River Lagoon region indicates that the average total fisheries contribution of each county in 1988 was almost identical to the average contribution for the 30-year period, indicating that there has been no major shift in the overall distribution of total fisheries during this period (Woodward -Clyde, 1994). The study reported that St. Lucie County accounted for 20.1 % of the total commercial fisheries landings in the five County Indian River Lagoon region for the thirty- year period. (St. Lucie County, Coastal Management Element, 2001). In 1998, St. Lucie County fisheries landings were lower, reporting 3,079,308 pounds with a value of S4,039,294, with finfish accounting for over 97% of all landings (St. Lucie County, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Recreational fishing and boating represents important economic and cultural assets for St. Lucie County. The Indian River Lagoon draws a significant number of tourist and recreational users to the area (St. Lucie County, Cpmmunity Development Department, 2002). Estimates of recreational fisheries landings and the economic value of recreation fish to the Indian River Lagoon Region is estimated to be as much as six times that from commercial fisheries (Woodward -Clyde, 1994). A 1995 study of the Indian River Lagoon estimated the economic value of this coastal estuary at over $700 million per year (Woodward -Clyde, 1994). The economic value has been attributed to the following sources: recreational fishing and shell fishing accounted for 48%, boating almost 10% of this value, while commercial fishing accounted for less than 2% (Ecotourism-Heritage Tourism Advisory Committee, 1997 as cited by the St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). These recreational uses are expected to experience a large increase, with non -local saltwater anglers expected to double by 2010 (Ecotourism-Heritage Tourism Advisory Committee, 1997 as cited by the St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). Shellfish and Crustaceans The major sources of consumable shellfish within the IRL are the blue crab, the southern and northern hard clams, and the American oyster. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection classifies and manages shellfish resources of the lagoon so that shellfish harvests are safe for consumption. Currently, the industry is vulnerable to bacterial contamination of the lagoon from wastewater treatment discharges and from stormwater runoff. Harvesting in St. Lucie County is now virtually non-existent with only a small area of approved harvesting north of the Fort Pierce Inlet (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Marine Mammals Although a few studies on dolphins have been conducted, most others on marine mammals concern the endangered manatee. 61 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Manatees The Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is Florida's state marine mammal (Ecological Associates, 2002). Manatees are in the scientific Order Sirena, large air -breathing aquatic mammals. They inhabit fresh and saltwater areas such as oceans, estuaries, rivers, canals and dredged channels. These animals are found primarily in Florida as they prefer warm waters. In the winter they migrate to south Florida and/or to either natural or artificial warm - water refuges. Manatee usage of Taylor Creek is heavy (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). The waters of the Indian River Lagoon and Taylor Creek, which are adjacent to the port, are protected under the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act that recognizes these adjacent waters as being used by the West Indian Manatee (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). The St. Lucie County Manatee Protection Plan (2002) reports manatee sightings over the years and identifies locations with the greatest relative abundance of manatees. The plan identifies the portion of the Indian River Lagoon adjacent to Taylor Creek as one of the areas with the greatest relative abundance of manatee throughout the year. Freshwater from Taylor Creek appears to be the main attraction for manatees. This area has extensive seagrass beds nearby, and is adjacent to the primary north -south corridor for manatees on the east coast of Florida. (St. Lucie County Manatee Protection Plan, 2002). The average adult manatee is 11.5 feet long and weighs 2,200 pounds. Their diet consists of aquatic and floating plants. Manatees consume 10 to 15 percent of their body weight in vegetation each day. Intervals between breaths vary but manatees typically surface in order to breath every 3-5 minutes. This figure can range from every 30 seconds to as long as 20 minutes depending on the activity level. The manatee life expectancy is a maximum of 60 years (Ecological Associates, 2002). Most manatee studies focus on their distribution and congregation around power plants, in the winter to avoid cold water (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Manatees migrate north and disperse throughout the lagoon system, feeding extensively on seagrass during the summer. The Fort Pierce Power Plant is a point of congregation (Maritime Trust, 2001). Except for isolated congregations around power plants manatees migrate south during the winter. There are a number of sources of manatee mortality including wintertime cold, boat -barge collisions, natural causes, (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001) and entrapment in flood control gates, the second leading human factor in manatee deaths (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995, as cited by Maritime Trust, 2001). Manatees are still common in the IRL (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Conservation Element, 2001). Many manatees congregate at the Moores Creek Fort Pierce Utility Power Plant. Available data indicate that collisions with watercraft may be the single largest human -related cause of mortality within the lagoon. Manatee collisions with watercraft are positively correlated with the amount and density of boat traffic (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Conservation Element, 2001). It has been 62 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 } speculated that due to thermal effects, manatees may also tend to congregate in the following areas: the mouths of canals where fresh and salt waters mix; in the comparatively deeper water canals at HBOI, Queen's Cove, and Big Mud Creek; and in dredged basins such as the Port of Fort Pierce, the Fort Pierce Yacht Club (Ecological Associates, 2002). The federal government and the state of Florida have designated the Florida manatee as an endangered species (Ecological Associates, 2002). The precise number of manatees in Florida is not known; however, aerial censuses have documented the population to be at least 3,276. The distribution of the manatee population in Florida is estimated to be as follows: 47 percent in the Atlantic region; 37 percent in the Southwest; 12 percent in the Northwest; and 4 percent in the St. Johns River region. St. Lucie County is part of the Atlantic Region, which includes the lower portion of the St. Johns River, Florida's east coast, and the Florida Keys. Research has indicated that the population in this region has remained fairly steady or decreased slightly in recent years (Ecological Associates, 2002). Between 1974 and 2000 manatee deaths in St. Lucie County have ranged from 0 to 5 per year (Ecological Associates, 2002). The causes of manatee death in St. Lucie County are as follows: 37 percent undetermined; 27 percent watercraft; 11 percent perinatal; 16 percent natural; 5 percent cold stress; 4 percent human -related. Because of the manatees' relatively low population, low reproductive rates, limited geographic range, and high rates of human - related mortality this animal is particularly vulnerable to extinction. Several programs have been initiated to protect the manatee. An interagency group of manatee experts, the Florida Manatee Recovery Team, developed the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, which was first approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1980. This plan was revised in 1989, 1996, and 2000-01. Site specific manatee plans were recommended in the plan to be developed at the local level. The purpose of the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) of St. Lucie County is to meet state standards for manatee protection in the local waterways (Ecological Associates, 2002). In and around St. Lucie County the water quality of the Atlantic Ocean is excellent; however the quality of the waterways in the inland manatee habitat is highly variable. Daily fluctuations occur due primarily to tidal cycles, and seasonal variations from the summertime wet season and the wintertime dry season. The greatest influence near the Fort Pierce Inlet is diurnal tides and to a lesser extent exchange through the St. Lucie Inlet in neighboring Martin County. As the distance from the inlet increases, the tidal effect decreases. As a whole, the water quality of the IRL in St. Lucie County is better than the tributaries and canals that flow into the lagoon. As a result seagrasses are mostly limited to the IRL (Ecological Associates, 2002). The water quality in the vicinity of the Fort Pierce Inlet is excellent (Ecological Associates, 2002). Maintenance dredging of the Inlet has led to maintaining a significant tidal exchange between the Atlantic Ocean and the IRL. This allows pollutants that are generated or introduced to be discharged to sea and the water quality is generally sustained to be suitable for seagrasses and other SAV (Ecological Associates, 2002). 63 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 The water quality in the IRL has been degraded over the past several decades due to a number of drainage and development projects (Ecological Associates, 2002). In general the water quality of the IRL is adequate to support the submerged aquatic vegetation that serves as a food source for the manatees. Alterations in the constituent drainage basins have negatively affected this body of water. It is likely such changes have reduced the abundance and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the upper regions of the St. Lucie Estuary. It is noted, however, that the main threat to manatees in canals and channels is due to encounters with watercraft rather than to poor water quality. It is unknown to what extent manatees use emergent shoreline vegetation for feeding. A number of programs such as the IRL Restoration Feasibility Task Force and the St. Lucie River Initiative are in place or planned for improving the water quality in this region (Ecological Associates, 2002). Education to the public is important for manatee protection. A number of public and private sources for education manatee information are currently available (Ecological Associates, 2002). Such sources include Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Manatee Observation and Education Center (MOEC), Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution (HBOI), Florida Power and Light Company, Save the Manatee Club, Florida Oceanographic Society (FOS), and Safe Boating courses. Other regional, state and federal organizations with information concerning manatees include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), Homosassa Springs State Wildlife Park, Sea World of Florida, Audubon of Florida, Miami Seaquarium, and Lowry Park. Reptiles Limited study has been conducted on salt marsh snakes and alligators. Most research has been directed to marine turtles, which may use the lagoon system during their developmental stage and the beach dune system for reproduction (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Reptiles in the vicinity that are threatened or endangered include the following: American alligator, Atlantic loggerhead turtle, Atlantic green turtle, leatherback turtle, Atlantic hawksbill turtle, Kemp's ridley, and the Atlantic salt marsh snake (Maritime Trust, 2001). Natural Upland and Shoreline Communities Mammals in and around IRL Atlantic bottle -nose dolphin, Manatee (Thouverez, 2000) Birds in IRL community Common loon, horned grebe, brown pelican, double -crested cormorant, frigate bird, mintail, green -winged teal, blue -winged teal, American widgeon, northern shoveler, ruddy duck, red -breasted merganser, osprey, American coot, Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 herring gull, forster's tern, least tern, Caspian tern, black skimmer, belted kingfisher (Thouverez, 2000). For most of the last 34 years the Fort Pierce bird count recorded wintering birds and other species, which may breed or pass through the county. A total of 241 avian species were recorded in the county between 1957 and 1998. Between 1990 and 1998, 174 avian species have been observed during the count, including the following species which are listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern: little blue heron, tri-colored heron, brown pelican, wood stork, red -cockaded woodpecker, crested caracara, Florida scrub jay, roseate spoonbill, limpkin, snail kite, southern bald eagle, southeaster American kestrel, Florida sandhill crane (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Conservation Element, 2001), reddish egret, snowy egret, white ibis, Arctic peregrine falcon, American oystercatcher, brown pelican, least tern and roseate tern (Maritime Trust, 2001). One reason for the avifaunal richness in the IRL is that it provides a wide array of habitats for wading birds and wetland -dependent avian species. These habitats include open water, mangroves, salt marshes, spoil islands, and. mosquito impoundments, which attract and sustain numerous avian species. As a result the lagoon provides habitats for resident and wintering species, as well as migratory species using the Eastern Flyway (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Conservation Element, 2001). Reptiles in IRL community Diamondback terrapin (Thouverez, 2000), American alligator, Atlantic loggerhead turtle, Atlantic green turtle, leatherback turtle, Atlantic hawksbill turtle, Kemp's ridley, and the Atlantic salt marsh snake (Maritime Trust, 2001). Fish in IRL community Bullshark, ladyfish, silver stripe halfback, Irish pompano, school master, sailors choice, goby (2 species), tarpon, scaled sardine, striped anchovy, sea catfish, gafftopsail catfish, rainwater killifish, gulf killifish, sheepshead minnow, sailfin molly, gulf pipe fish, jack crevalle, snook, gray snapper, lane snapper, mutton snapper, yellowtail snapper, pig fish, spotfin mojarra, silver jenny, silver perch, spotted seatrout, spot, southern kingfish, red drum, sheepshead, pinfish, striped mullet, white mullet, tidewater silverside, lined sole, puffers (3 species), Atlantic spade fish, striped croaker (Thouverez, 2000). Fish that are threatened or endangered include the common snook and the mangrove rivulus (Maritime Trust, 2001). Other Areas of Special Concern Endangered and threatened species are those plants and animals in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered, respectively, as designated by both the federal government and the State of Florida. The state also lists species whose survival potential is of special concern. Following is a description of listed species known or suspected to occur in St. Lucie County by reason of distribution and habitat. There are various causes for a species being listed. Some species have never been common. Some species are 65 Draft Port Plan April 26 '2002 vulnerable because they are restricted to a limiting resource or habitat. Lakela's mint and the red -cockaded woodpecker are representatives of this category in St. Lucie County (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Conservation Element, 2001). Johnson Seagrass is as an example of a species that has been identified in the Port Operations area as being restricted to a limiting resource or habitat (Gilmore & Hanisak, 1991). According to the authors Halophila johnsonii (Johnson Seagrass) is known to occur only from the coastal lagoon system of eastern Florida, from Sebastian Inlet to Biscayne Bay. The most serious threat to the continued existence of many listed species is the alteration of their habitat by man (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Conservation Element, 2001). Even clearing and alteration of natural areas will encourage exotic plant species to invade native habitats, often resulting in shading out native plant species (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Conservation Element, 2001). The identification and implementation of stormwater treatment and shoreline restorations projects that reduce the quantity of suspended solids and nutrients that enter the IRL is critical to maintain and improve coastal waters and the many species with special protective status that inhabit the coastal planning area of the county (St. Lucie County, Coastal Management Element, 2001) Two of the most endangered species within St. Lucie County, the West Indian Manatee and the Green sea turtle, are dependent on the health of the IRL (St. Lucie County, Community Development Department, 2002). The adjacent Indian River Lagoon and Taylor Creek are protected under the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (2002) that recognizes the adjacent coastal waters as being used by the West Indian Manatee. Several beach and dune species, such as sea -lavender, beach creeper, and inkberry are subject to loss of habitat due to development. The beaches of East Central Florida, including St. Lucie County, are an important breeding ground for several species of sea turtle. The leatherback, green and loggerhead sea turtles have all been recorded. The nests of these turtles are high_ ly vulnerable to natural predators and to disturbance on the beaches. Projects have been established in many sea turtle nesting areas to monitor and protect the nests of sea turtles. Another threat to the hatchlings is the increasing light pollution that accompanies the development along beaches, and causes disorientation as they attempt to find the ocean after birth. The county's sea turtle ordinance restricts the hours and months that artificial light can shine on the beach area; however, it is becoming apparent that interior lights cause hatchling disorientation (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Management Plan, Conservation Element, 2001). F. Estuarine Conditions [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)] Water quality is a critical issue in Fort Pierce, and the condition of the resource has important implications for the overall health of the marine environment (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996) k� 66 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 General Estuarine Conditions The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) System is considered the most diverse estuary in North America due to its abundance and variety of fish, birds and mammals (Thouverez, 2000). The IRL, a 155-mile long estuary, is located on Florida's east coast, from the Ponce de Leon Inlet south of Daytona Beach to the Jupiter Inlet. It comprises more than a third of Florida's east coast. It is comprised of several bodies of water including the Indian River, the Banana River and the Mosquito Lagoon. An estuary is defined as a semi -enclosed body of water with free connections to the open sea that is measurably diluted by fresh water. The IRL is located in a zone where tropical and temperate climates meet. Therefore the flora and fauna contain tropical and subtropical species. As a result the lagoon has more species than any other in North America (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996). The IRL is a unique and diverse ecosystem. The ICW was created in this century for safe passage of water -based commerce from Maine to Key West. In the IRL, the construction of the ICW created a deep -water channel, which is maintained at a depth of 12 feet north of Fort Pierce and 10 feet south of Fort Pierce, in an otherwise shallow system of three feet on average. Disposal of dredged material from the ICW was often deposed onto the IRL bottoms creating islands called "dredged material disposal islands" but commonly referred to as "spoil" islands. The spoil islands have evolved from barren deposits to ecological ucommunities themselves. However, 90 percent of the vegetative colonization on the spoil islands consists of non-native species. Numerous species of fish invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and mammals inhabit the spoil islands. Seagrasses are often found in the shallow margins of spoil islands and enhance biological diversity by creating protective and foraging habitat for juvenile fish and other species. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) located below the water's surface is another biologically rich community in the IRL. The SAV is comprised of algae and seagrasses. The variety of seagrasses in -the IRL is greater than in any other estuary in the United States (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently described the IRL and its associated ecosystem as a resource in peril (USACE, 2001). This decline in the ecosystem is due to the severe impact of human activities over the course of the last 100 years. Several problems have resulted from urban and agricultural development, including a decline in water quality, rapid discharge, pollutants, excessive nutrients, significant muck deposits in the estuary, a decline in native flora and fauna, endangered species, and flooding. A decline in estuarine health has occurred due to drainage systems that rapidly discharge runoff containing pollutants into the St. Lucie River and Estuary and the southern IRL. This has been the result of urban and agricultural development. Accumulation of flocculent ooze, massive oyster stress and die -offs, fish lesions, declining fish and invertebrate populations and a decline in sea grass production has resulted from excessive nutrients entering the IRL (USACE, 2001). 67 Draft Port Plan April 26"2002 In the past, wetlands acted as natural filters and retention areas, but many of these areas were lost to drainage or development (USACE, 2001). Increases in the amount of freshwater entering the St. Lucie Estuary has led to an accumulation of muck that has occurred 2.5 times faster than historic or normal levels. Where muck has accumulated, there has been loss of normal estuarine organisms and a decline in water quality due to resuspension. USACE has developed the Indian River Lagoon — South Plan to achieve restoration of the St. Lucie River, to remediate the significant muck deposits in the estuary, and to improve native flora, fauna, and threatened and endangered species. It was acknowledged in the USACE study that current efforts to reduce excessive nutrients should assist in the recovery of natural vegetation patterns in some parts of the system. The USACE plan would include capture of watershed flows, water treatment, water storage, and redistribution to agricultural areas and to rehydration/enhancement of historic wetlands. The plan also involves muck remediation and removal to allow a suitable substrate for bottom organisms to recolonize (USACE, 2001). Known existing point and non point source pollution problems The Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act, enacted by the Florida Legislation in 1987 and revised in 1991, designated the IRL system as a priority body of water in Florida for restoration and special protection. The plan was to address six concerns: 1) point and non -point pollution, 2) destruction of natural systems, 3) correction and prevention of surface water problems, 4) research for better management of surface waters and associated natural systems, 5) public awareness, and 6) improved interagency coordination and management. The three major categories of concern were: water and sediment quality, habitat alteration and loss, and interagency management. Issues of water and sediment quality include undesirable salinity fluctuations, increased suspended matter loadings and sedimentation, increased nutrient loadings, increased input of toxic substances, and increased levels of pathogens. Issues around maintaining a functioning macrophyte-based ecosystem include loss of seagrass beds and stress on remaining beds and loss of emergent wetlands and their isolation from the lagoon (South Florida Water Management District & St. Johns River Water Management District, 1994). The quality of sediment and water is directly related to activities in the watershed in any body of water. In estuaries, the ocean and the physical configuratioaof the water body and watershed affect the quality. Circulation and mixing, watershed drainage, and point source and non -point source pollution also, affect quality. The IRL receives input of saltwater from the ocean, and freshwater from direct precipitation, ground water seepage, surface runoff, creeks, streams, drainage systems and point sources such as wastewater treatment plants. The long narrow shape and shallow waters result in sluggish circulation patterns in many places. The circulation that occurs is primarily wind -driven due to the limited tidal exchange occurring in only six widely separated inlets. Thus the IRL is sensitive to sudden influxes of pollutants or material resulting from increasing urbanization, industrialization and .: Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 ,} agriculture in the watershed. Some tidal flow appears to be present throughout the area between Fort Pierce and St. Lucie inlets. Tidal flushing and action is most pronounced within three to five miles of each inlet (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996). Mixing from boat traffic has not generally been considered a major component of the IRL hydrodynamics. However, a decrease of seagrasses might be expected in a restricted area with continual boat traffic due to the very localized mixing of lagoon waters and the resultant stirring that could mix density layers and re -suspend bottom sediments. This would be on a very localized micro -scale (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996). Pollutant loadings enter surface waters from two primary pathways: point sources and non -point sources. Point sources of pollution are the discharges of wastes resulting from processes such as water or wastewater treatment, power generation, manufacturing, or similar activities. The discharge is located at an identifiable "point" such as a pipe or other structure and can often be controlled. On the other hand, the specific sources of non -point pollution are generally not identifiable and are more difficult to control or eliminate. Non -point sources include stormwater runoff, septic tanks, atmospheric fallout or deposition (rainfall and dryfall), groundwater, and tributaries (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996). Non -point source pollution comes from a wide area, not just a single source (Maritime Trust, 2001). The IRL contains both point and non -point sources of pollution. Point sources are largely from domestic wastewater treatment plants. The Indian River Lagoon Act (Chapter 90-262, FAC) of 1990 required elimination of all discharges of domestic wastewater to the IRL by 1996. At the time of that report most wastewater plants were in compliance with the act. The largest non -point sources of pollution to the IRL are stormwater and tributary discharges collectively. In the early 1990's, it was estimated that non -point sources represented 60 percent of the loadings into the IRL (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996). There are multiple potential adverse affects of freshwater diversion into the IRL are many. The alteration to the saline system can extend beyond the ranges that resident species can tolerate. Stormwater discharge has been implicated in the loss of seagrass acreage and shellfish mortality. Increased salinities from drought periods have negatively impacted other species. Additionally nutrients, metals, pesticides, suspended solids and organically stained, highly colored waters are carried by freshwater discharges from the extended watershed into the IRL (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996). Marinas and boats are also non -point sources of pollution. Marina operation and maintenance can result in discharge of metals, oils, greases, and other materials through surface water.runoff. Discharges from boats may also contribute to pollution from discharge of untreated sewage and fuel from exhaust of outboard engines (Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 1996). There are two ports in the Indian River Lagoon (IRL). Port Canaveral is isolated from the IRL by a lock system, and therefore it does not usually impact the water quality of the IRL. Due to its shallow depth the Port of Fort Pierce Draft Port Plan April 26 2002 has very low cargo vessel traffic, and therefore the IRL has not been significantly impacted by vessel and port operations to date (Thouverez, 2000). The IRL has seen a decline in water quality over the past 50 years resulting from freshwater runoff from development areas, carrying both point and non point source pollutants this is due to population growth since the 1950s. Consequences of water quality deterioration include a decrease in seagrass coverage, which is a source of food, habitat and nursery area for fish in the lagoon and fish from the sea. Seagrasses are important to the productivity of the IRL. Seagrasses are light -dependent and are negatively impacted by turbidity levels in the water column. Mechanical dredging and vessel motion both re -suspend sediments in the water column. The impact is less with short, strong perturbations than it is with medium, repetitively occurring perturbations (Thouverez, 2000). Turbidity can result from naturally occurring events such as waves caused by wind. Port activities that cause turbidity include dredging, disposal of dredged material, propeller wash, and vessel -generated waves. At this time the major contributor of turbidity and sediment deposits is freshwater runoff, particularly from non -point sources of pollution (Thouverez, 2000). As reported in USACE study in 1986, the tides and tidal currents control the salinity of the water in the Ft Pierce Harbor and Inlet: "During ebb flow and influence of Taylor Creek water on the surface salinities extends across the Intracoastal Waterway into the inlet. The water in the inlet itself is'vertically well mixed by the turbulent flow. In the beginning stages of the ebb tide, water from Taylor Creek passes over the Jim Island flats; as the ebb progresses, the flow moves off the flats and through a channel at its southern edge. A flood tide forces the freshwater back, forming a distinct salt wedge at the mouth of Taylor Creek. Although this salt wedge is observed during both ebb and flood tide, it is most pronounced at the incoming tide. Vertical salinity differences up to 30 parts per thousand have been observed at the mouth of the creek. The thermal structure appears to be relatively constant, with the largest temperature variation encountered being slightly more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit." (PBS&J, 1990) Problems can also occur from jetties that are built to stabilize artificial inlets. The jetties built between the ocean and the IRL block the natural flow of sand from north to south. One solution is to convey the sand from north of the inlet to south of the inlet artificially but this is done at high cost (Thouverez, 2000). As part of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project, the C-25 canal was create (St. Lucie County, Ecosummary, 1998). This canal discharges into the IRL. Invasive Species There is a risk of exotic or invasive species being introduced into the IRL from cargo vessel discharge of ballast water, which generally contains live 70 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 exotic organisms (Thouverez, 2000). Aquatic nuisance species (ANS) are nonindigenous species that can threaten native species and ecological stability of infested waters (Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, 2000). Invasive species can also include plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, retiles, birds, and mammals (Bryant, 1999). Any of these can be a threat to a local ecosystem, contributing to depletion and extinction of native species (Bryant, 1999). Of the exotic introductions into the United States, most plant and vertebrate animal introductions have been intentional, while most invertebrate animal and microbe introductions have been accidental (Pimentel, Lach, Zuniga & Morrison, 1999). It is estimated that approximately 50,000 non -indigenous (non-native species) have been introduced into the United States. More than 98 percent of the United States food system is provided by introduced species such as corn, wheat, rice, other food crops, cattle, poultry and other livestock. Other intentional uses of exotic species have been for purposes such as landscape restoration, biological pest control, sport, pets and food processing. On the other hand, some exotic species have led to major economic losses. These losses have occurred in agriculture, forestry, environment and other areas. Damage caused by non -indigenous species has included native species extinctions (Pimentel et al., 1999). The state of Florida has experienced problems with exotic species including plants, aquatic plants, wild dog packs, fish, and feral pigs (Pimentel et al., 1999). Approximately 95 percent of introductions of arthropods and annelids have been accidental. Many of these species have gained entrance in plants, soil, and ships' ballast water. Of the various species of mollusks in the United States, 88 percent have been introduced intentionally and accidentally and have become established in the aquatic ecosystems. Some of these mollusks, such as the zebra mussel, gained entrance through ballast water that was released into the Great Lakes from ships that had traveled from Europe (Pimentel et al, 1999). Congress directed the U.S. Coast Guard in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) to promulgate voluntary guidelines for ballast water management and other ship operations (U.S. Coast Guard, 2001). This regulation was intended to reduce the number of non -indigenous aquatic nuisance species introduced into U.S. waters. Additionally submission of ballast management reports by all ships entering U.S. waters was made mandatory (U.S. Coast Guard, 2001). It was recently announced that in order to comply with the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, the U.S. Coast Guard has established regulations and voluntary guidelines to control the invasion of aquatic nuisance species (Coastal States Organization, 2001). The regulations include mandatory reporting for nearly all vessels entering U.S. waters. The rule was scheduled to become final December 21, 2001 (Coastal States Organization, 2001). The U.S. Coast Guard has been assisted with the issue of invasive species by the recent regulations, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Prevention and Control Act (PL 101-646), which requires samples from ballast waters of ships entering U.S. ports trade (St. Lucie County, Economic Development Division, 2000). 71 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Hydraulic Characteristics According to the Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (1986), prepared for the Fort Pierce Harbor project: "The oceanic tide and the tide within the inlet area are essentially semi -diurnal, with a very weak diurnal component. The tides at the Fort Pierce City Dock range about 0.6 feet compared with an average 3.3 foot range at the inlet, and lag behind inlet tides by about two hours. The water passing through the inlet has been observed to move as far as five miles north from the inlet area." USACE study also provided data concerning surface tidal currents in the inlet, which were measured during spring tides in 1979. According to USACE, maximum currents during two tidal cycles were 5.9 feet per second (fps) on flood tide and 7.4 fps on ebb tide. The times of the peak currents were coincident with high and low tides at the entrance to the inlet: +2.2 feet mean sea level (msl) and —1.6 feet msl, respectively. Inlet currents measured on February 27, 1958, showed peak flood and ebb velocities of 2.0 fps and 4.4 fps, respectively, during a 1.6 foot tidal cycle range. Peak volume transport through the inlet is estimated to average about 100,000 cubic feet per second. Water circulation in the harbor is predominantly tidally driven, tidal currents account for 93 percent of the variance of current flow. The circulation pattern is largely affected by the hydrographic features of the area, including islands, shoal areas, grass flats, and dredged channels. The two causeways that form the north and south boundaries have modified the natural flushing patterns of the harbor, as elsewhere in the lagoon system (PBS&J, 1990). G. Beach and Dune Systems [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)] General Characteristics of the System The Port of Fort Pierce lies on the east -central coast of Florida and is connected to the Atlantic Ocean through the Fort Pierce Inlet. The harbor is located in the Indian River Lagoon adjacent to the City of Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County. The port is adjacent to a state aquatic preserve and is part of a lagoon system designated as an "Estuary of National Significance." The lagoon is a critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. The inlet provides access for a variety of estuarine -marine species. The shoreline is typical of a young shoreline of emergence. During recent times, a bar has formed from material cut from the sea floor by wave action and to a lesser degree by deposition of sand from southward moving currents. Historically the inlet, known as the Indian River Inlet, was a natural meandering passage from the Indian River Lagoon to the Atlantic Ocean. After 1892 and the opening of the St. Lucie Inlet, the passage became unusable because of shoaling. The present inlet was first modified by dredging in 1921, followed by the construction of two stone jetties in 1926. A channel was cut through Hutchinson Island, the barrier island that separates the Indian River Lagoon from the 72 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 ocean, approximately 2.7 miles south of the location of the natural inlet. The jetties were constructed 900 feet apart; the existing southern jetty is about 1,200 feet long, the northern jetty is about 1,600 feet long. The county has roughly 21 miles of beachfront shoreline, with six miles on North Hutchinson Island (North Beach) and 15 miles on South Hutchinson Island (South Beach) (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001, pp. 7-23). The Fort Pierce Inlet separates the two beaches from one other. In 1935, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assumed responsibility for maintaining the channel jetties and enlarging the channel and turning basin to the present dimensions. Completed in 1938, the design included an east -west access channel 2.2 miles long and 350 feet wide at the 27-foot depth contour at the Atlantic Ocean access point. The design of the interior of the channel resulted in a 200-foot width, connecting to a 900-foot-wide and 25-foot-deep turning basin. Immediately west and north of the federal project area, additional turning space and berthing areas have since been constructed by local interests. With its limestone rock, sand sides, and sand floor, the channel provides habitat for a variety of algae, invertebrates, and fish. The Beaches Citing Coastal Zone Resources, Inc. (1985), the St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element (2001) reported that the width of the beach berm (from the water's edge to the dune) ranges from 40 to 140 feet, with 75 and 85 foot averages on North Beach and South Beach, respectively, although there are numerous exceptions. Extreme conditions exist within 2.3 miles south of the Fort Pierce Inlet where there is very little beach and dune line due to erosion. The average elevation of the berm is two to five feet above mean high water (pp. 7-24). The overall littoral trend along the beaches near Fort Pierce has been one of erosion, although there has been some accretion from approximately one mile north of the jetties. Erosion has been a continuing problem on the southern side of the inlet. The most severe erosion has occurred for approximately 1,200 feet south of the inlet, where the shoreline has receded as much as 450 feet during the period of record (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, pp. EIS 25-26). Another important and ongoing related issue, which should not be overlooked, is an expected sea level rise, which the Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 1988 to be between 4.9 and 7.5 feet along the east coast of Florida between 1980 and 2100 (As cited by St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). The historic rate in this area is 0.06 to 0.08 feet per year. Under natural conditions, barrier islands migrate landward as sand is transferred from the ocean side to the lagoon side through overwash areas. Development requires efforts to prevent this natural process and, in so doing prevents the sediment buildup of lagoon side marshes. Therefore, attempts to buffer sea level rise may lead to higher water elevations along the lagoon shoreline (pp. 7-25). 73 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 The Dunes It appears that most of the coastal dune system surrounding the Fort Pierce Inlet has been lost either to urban development, beach erosion (especially south of the Inlet), or a combination of both (Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., 1997). -Aerial photography shows that only a small section of the primary dune now exists. The dune that remains is located in the Fort Pierce Inlet State Recreation Area. Primary dune vegetation includes sea oats (Uniola paniculata), railroad vine (Ipomea pes-caprae), dune sunflower (Helianthus debilis), and sea grape (Coccoloba uverifera) (Fort Pierce Inlet Management Plan, p. 32). The coastal barrier dune systems usually consist of a series of active dunes, sand ridges, troughs, and flats extending landward from the beach (Kimley-Horn, 1982, as cited by the St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). St. Lucie County's dune system, however, is considered atypical because it is generally characterized by a single primary dune. South of the St. Lucie Power Plant on South Beach and a major portion of North Beach are comprised of landward overwash areas, which lack defined secondary dunes and ridges (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). The widest and strongest dunes are found on North Beach, probably due to a supply of sand from littoral drift (Coastal Zone Resources, Inc., 1985). Dune widths vary from about 200 feet immediately north of the inlet to being nearly nonexistent at the north county line, but most are between 50 and 150 feet. The dune on North Beach ranges in height from 10 to 15 feet. As noted above, there is very little dune line immediately south of the inlet (Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1988). There is a stronger dune south of this area, which ranges in width from 20 to 50 feet (Coastal Zone Resources, Inc., 1985). Continuing south are several areas with no dune, including the St. Lucie Power Plant area, which is subject to overwash. Beginning one mile south of the inlet a low dune appears, which eventually reaches 15 feet near the south county line (pp. 7-24). Trends in Erosion and Accretion The Fort Pierce Inlet plays a significant role in beach system dynamics, interrupting longshore sediment transport (i.e., littoral drift is interrupted); accretion builds up to the north while there is erosion to the south (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Net transport is estimated to be at least 130,000 cubic yards annually (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1996; St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001, pp. 7-24). As noted elsewhere in this master plan, maintenance of the inlet and port turning basin have been the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since 1935, and these areas have been dredged 34 times to remove sediment from the entrance channel and turning basin. A large part of this sediment has been disposed of offshore; some beach -quality sand has been pumped onto the beach immediately south of the inlet. Beach erosion south of the inlet had progressed to the point at which restoration/renourishment projects were undertaken and completed in 1971 and 1983, after which sand from channel maintenance dredging has been deposited on the beach 74 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 south of the inlet. "A total of 1,283,200 cubic yards of material has been placed on the beach within the area 1.3 miles south of the inlet from 1971 through 1990" (2001 CMA, pp. 7-25; Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 1997). More recently, to improve commercial access the Army Corps of Engineers widened and deepened the channel in 1995 (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). The existing Fort Pierce Inlet includes an entrance channel 350 feet wide by 30 feet deep, an interior channel 250 feet wide by 28 feet deep, and a turning basin 1,100 feet wide by 28 feet deep. Of a total dredge quantity of 600,000 cubic yards, 166,650 cubic yards of material were placed on the beach south of the inlet (Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 1997). It should also be noted that the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores developed a 30-year shoreline erosion project for St. Lucie County in 1988. The average projected erosion rate for the 10,000 feet of shoreline south of the inlet is 4.3 feet annually, while the average projected accretion rate for the 10,000 feet of shoreline north of the inlet is 5.4 feet per year (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001, pp. 7-25; Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 1997). Summary of Recent Maintenance and Management Plans Several major actions, described elsewhere in this document, have been taken over the years to address erosion and beach renourishment in the Fort Pierce Harbor area. For example, in 1994-95, short-term efforts to stabilize the shoreline south of the inlet led to the construction of three sand -filled tubes and the deposition of roughly 54,000 cubic yards of compatible beach material. The tubes were removed in 1999 when the beach renourishment project was completed. Long-term efforts at stabilization included the construction of a 200400t-long spur jetty. It has been said that, "Since completion of this structure in December 1997, post -construction monitoring has indicated this structure has performed well' (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001, pp. 7-26). In addition, a beach restoration management plan, which analyzed sand source compatibility and areas in need of erosion control measures (among other issues), was prepared by the (former) Florida Department of Natural Resources in 1987. The Fort Pierce Inlet Management Plan was prepared through a cooperative agreement between St. Lucie County, the State of Florida, and Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., (adopted by the State of Florida on May 30, 1997). Erosion causes and mitigation measures are the main subject of this plan, summarized below. The three major goals of the inlet management program are:. 1) mitigate erosion impact of the inlet, 2) maintain navigation, and 3) Re-establish longshore sediment transport (Coastal Planning & Engineering,. Inc. as cited by St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Coastal Management Element, 2001). Ultimately then Bureau of Beaches and Shore recommended and adopted.the following actions implementation plan: 1) Initial restoration of 2.3 miles of beach south of the inlet. 2) Placement of all beach compatible maintenance or offshore dredged material on downdrift beaches. Material shall be placed on beach in areas of greatest need. 75 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 3) Placement of supplemental material from upland sources or dredged from nearshore north of the inlet, or from seaward of depth of closure on the beaches south of the inlet such that the combined total of material from all sources equals or exceeds 130,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis at a minimum. 4) Improvement of south jetty to incorporate a spur jetty or other measures to reduce backflow of material into the inlet. 5) The sediment budget contained in the study report is adopted as an interim measure and shall be formally validated or redefined in subsequent revisions of the plan based on a comprehensive monitoring plan by December 31, 2001. 6) Implement a comprehensive inlet, beach, and offshore monitoring program subject to approval of the Department. 7) Evaluate possible alternatives to facilitate the bypassing of sand from the shoreline north of the inlet to the downdrift beaches (pp. 7-26 and 7- 27). H. Public Access [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5) (b)] Public Access Facilities Public access to the waterfront is outlined in the following subsections. Coastal Access Boat Ramps There are four points of public access boat ramps in the vicinity of Port of Fort Pierce. These consist of the following: the city marina has six public ramps, North Bridge on North AIA has two public ramps, North Bridge at Little Jim Bridge has two public ramps, South Bridge on Seaway Drive has two public ramps, and South Bridge on Causeway Island has two public ramps (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, 1990, pp. 5-44). Non -Boat Fishing Access Non -boat fishing access is available on North Bridge (1900') on AIA, the North bridge pier (200'), Little Jim Bridge A I A Causeway (50'), and South Bridge on A I A east end pier (200') (City of Fort Pierce, Coastal Management Element, 1990, pp. 5-46). Public Access via roadways Current access to the port is from three locations, including the intersections of US Highway 1 & Second St, Seaway Drive at Indian River Drive; US Highway 1/Ave H and Seaway Drive/Indian River Drive (LBFH, Inc., 2000). In the past requests were made to use the county -owned Harbour Pointe site for recreational use (Port and Airport Workshop, St. Lucie County, March 31, 1998). The property has been closed for general public use due to lack of suitable public access, a lack of infrastructure improvements for public 76 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 facilities, and a general lack of funding for landscaping and other recreational amenities. The City of Fort Pierce had requested that the county fully improve roadway access to the site. The Port and Airport Authority (1998) recommended that pursuit of grant funding be continued to enable funding for physical improvements to the Harbour Pointe site. At that time the short-term solution was to make interim improvements limited to proper maintenance and limiting use of the site. I. Natural Disaster Planning [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)] Hurricane Evacuation Planning A portion of the port lies within the Flood Velocity Zone (V 12) and is subject to wave action as well as high water. The remainder of the port lies in a 100-year flood plain. The eastern most portions of the port lie in the Category 1 Coastal High Hazard Area, and the balance lies in the Category 2 area. This designation includes the port in among the high -risk hurricane locations, with evacuation required under almost all circumstances (PBS&J, 1990). The adjacent causeways carrying residents from the barrier islands are subject to early flooding five to eight hours before the peak of the storm surge, due to the funnel effect of the inlet. Because of this situation, the adjacent roadway links that port users would depend on for evacuation would be heavily used immediately upon news of an impending hurricane. It is of vital importance that a port hurricane plan be developed once any port expansion program commences. The evacuation for port users would be west on Orange Avenue to I-95 North (PBS&J, 1990). Although it is not known how many port employees would require shelter, it is assumed that most employees would be able to leave the port for less hazardous areas and would not require shelter. At present, private port users have their own plans for hurricane protection and obtain instructions from the St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners and the Captain of the Port (U.S. Coast Guard). Under most circumstances, ships docked at the port try to head out to sea prior to the arrival of a hurricane to avoid damages that ship movements could cause to docks and upland facilities. There are no port structures that might warrant special attention for tie -downs during a hurricane. Protection of utilities serving the port is the responsibility of the appropriate city agencies. The St. Lucie County Fire District handles day to day emergencies at the port. Four fire stations can respond: Airport, Central, South Beach and North Beach (PBS&J, 1990). According to the Fort Pierce Comprehensive Plan Coastal Management Element (1990), the most recent hurricane evacuation study was prepared by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) in 1988, to update the original plan prepared in 1983. Since the original plan was produced, the population in the area has increased dramatically. According to the United States Census Bureau (2000), the population of St. Lucie County increased 28.3 ". percent between 1990 and 2000. As of 2000, the population of Fort Pierce was approximately 37,516 (U.S. Census, 2000). The population of St. Lucie County in 2000 was approximately 192,695 (U.S. Census, 2000). The Fort Pierce 77 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Coastal Management Element (1990) indicated that the majority of growth has occurred within ten miles of the Atlantic Ocean. The population increase places additional demands on the public shelter system and the evacuation roadway network within the entire region. For purposes of this discussion, all of St. Lucie County is used, since the TCRPC did not separate the City. of Fort Pierce in its report and because Fort Pierce is central to the successful implementation of the county's evacuation plan. According to the Fort Pierce Coastal Management element (1990), most of the city's population lives within the hurricane vulnerability zone. The hurricane vulnerability zone is made up of all the areas within the city that will require evacuation of all residents in the event of a 100-year storm or category three storm event. It is important to note that the TCRPC recommends that barrier island and mobile home residents evacuate for virtually all hurricane warnings. For evacuations the TCRPC identified four possible destination types: public shelters, friends and relatives, hotels and motels, and out -of -county. Factors seen to influence destination were time available before the storm, income, health, and availability of space. In 1988 it was estimated that public shelter demand would be between 10,202 and 19,339 depending upon the storm event (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The primary public shelters consist of school facilities provided by the St. Lucie School District. Auxiliary shelters consist of facilities provided by churches and other organizations. To qualify as an approved public shelter, each site must undergo an inspection by the American Red Cross and appropriate public officials. Certain areas are identified within each structure to be used as public shelter during a hurricane emergency. Allocation of space is based on safety and security factors. Available shelter floor space is then converted to shelter capacity by allocating assigned floor space at a rate of 40 square feet per person. Although not acceptable or realistic for planning purposes, in cases of extreme emergency, 20 square feet per person is being recommended as acceptable by state and local emergency management officials and the American Red Cross (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). , In 1988, a public shelter deficit was determined to exist in a worst -case hurricane emergency (Category 3-5) if shelter space is calculated at 40 square feet per person. At that time, county shelter space was adequate if calculated at 20 square feet per person (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The special needs of the handicapped, elderly, and infirmed are to be served by a special medical facility at Westwood High School. The facility will be staffed by appropriate medical personnel and will be available on a first -come - first -served basis. It has a total capacity'of 1200 persons. Persons bedridden or hospitalized must seek admittance to a hospital through their doctor (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The primary shelters of St. Lucie County at the time of the 1988 report were as follows: Morningside Elementary School, Lakewood Elementary School, Fort Pierce Westwood High School, Means Count Center, Port St. Lucie Elementary School, St. Lucie County Fairgrounds, and the United Methodist im Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Church. Auxiliary Shelters were as follows: Garden City Elementary, Dan McCarty Elementary, White City Elementary, Fort Pierce Elementary, Fort Pierce Central High School, Chester A. Moore School, and Floresta Elementary School. The capacity for 40 square feet per person was 14, 394. For 20 square feet per person the capacity was 28, 788 (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The principal time component of the evacuation process is the clearance time. This is the period of time after the individual has decided to evacuate that is required for the evacuee to prepare to leave and travel from his place of residence to a place of safety. Clearance time is a fixed period of time based on a specific scenario with a given level of threat and behavioral response (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The TCRPC study identified the principal hurricane routes in St. Lucie County. The county's evacuation road network includes major north -south and east -west arterials, as well as roads that would be used to gain access to the major arterials. As of 1988, there are 71 evacuation road network links in St. Lucie County. The Jensen Beach causeway in Martin County is also a network link, which would be used by the population south of the St. Lucie Power Plant. The following roadway segments, which have the highest volume to capacity ratios, were identified as critical links (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990): • Port St. Lucie Boulevard at Florida Turnpike • Port St. Lucie Boulevard at U.S. Highway 1 intersection • Florida Turnpike north of Port St. Lucie Boulevard • Prima Vista Boulevard and Airoso Boulevard • Seaway Causeway and U.S. Highway 1 intersection • AIA south of Seaway Causeway • I-95 north of White City Road (and on -ramps) • North Beach Causeway • White City Road and Midway Road These links control the flow of evacuation traffic during a hurricane evacuation and are key areas of special control (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). Most of the county's growth was projected to occur within the I-95 — Turnpike corridor. The city's growth is expected to be infill and redevelopment. No matter where new residents choose to locate, they will add additional strain to existing shelter and evacuation roadway capacity. As the population increases, evacuation times will also increase if not accompanied by major road improvements (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). TCRPC estimated that 17.4 percent of the population at risk would seek - public shelters for storm categories 1-2 and 18.6 percent for storm categories 3- 5. The existing shelters were deemed adequate for meeting the needs of categories 1-2 in 1995 based on forty square feet per person, while 20 square feet per person would meet the 1995 needs for categories 3-5 hurricanes. Efforts were being made by the city, the county and private developers to 79 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 increase the availability of shelter space (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The Fort Pierce Coastal Management Element (1990) recommended that the following techniques and strategies be adopted by county and city emergency management officials to reduce evacuation times: 1. As manpower supply allows, two officers should be stationed -at each critical intersection, one to move traffic, and the other to assist disabled vehicles. Critical links and intersections discussed previously should be used as a starting point in developing manpower assignments. 2. Position all available tow trucks along key travel corridors and critical links. At a minimum, tow trucks should be at major bridge crossings to remove disabled vehicles. 3. Where intersections will continue to have signalized control, signal patterns providing the most "green time for the approach leading away from the coast should be activated by the State Department of Transportation field offices. 4. All draw -swing bridges needed for evacuation should be locked in the "down" position during a hurricane warning. Boat owners must be made aware of flotilla plans and time requirements for securing vessels. Optimally, industrial and recreational vehicles should be moved to a safe harbor during or before a hurricane watch. 5. Manual direction of traffic should be supplemented by physical barriers/cones that are adequately weighted down and which are placed to channel traffic and prevent unnecessary turning and merging conflicts. This strategy can be used effectively at interchanges listed previously in the critical link/intersection tables. 6. The movement of mobile homes and campers along evacuation routes should be minimized after a hurricane warning is issued. A disabled mobile. home could block the only escape route available for evacuation in some areas. Such vehicles are difficult to handle in an evacuation due to sporadic wind gusts. Post Disaster Redevelopment Following a major natural disaster, such as a hurricane, there will be a period of cleanup and rebuilding. The typical reaction by the community is to rebuild everything to the condition that existed before the storm. Rebuilding to pre -storm conditions may be imprudent and result in repeated damage to the same structures. The vulnerability of certain areas to damage by hurricanes or other storms cannot be ignored. In order to make the community safer and reduce inconveniences and dislocation caused by storms, revised land use and capital facilities plans should be considered. In order to. respond quickly after a storm with alternative land use and capital facility plans, it is necessary to examine in advance the areas, structures, and facilities most likely to be damaged and provide alternates to current land use plans and facility sites which can be adjusted following a storm event (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 According to the Fort Pierce Coastal Management Element (1990), there are no structures with histories of repeated damage due to coastal storms. However, based on recent observation, the areas most likely to receive severe storm damage are those areas east of AIA, north of Surfside Park, and along the south side of the inlet. Unless this area received beach renourishment or shore/dune protection systems, it is almost certain that more structures will come into the high hazard area because of shore recession and rising sea level. Therefore, it appears that damage to these facilities is inevitable. Because of inevitable damage, the city should consider establishing a damage threshold at which reconstruction in the same location would not be permitted. One established standard is 50 percent of value used by the National Flood Insurance Program. Structures seaward of the control line that were damaged to 50 percent of the value would be required to rebuild landward of the control line (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The roads, causeways, and bridges near the inlet are vulnerable to storm surge and flooding. Structural damage to the bridges from storm tossed debris is possible, but washout of roads is more likely. Loss of these connecting links, even temporarily, would present an extreme hardship on the barrier island residents. An early warning and clearance program will continue to be needed for the barrier island (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). Coastal High -Hazard Areas The area projected to experience the most severe damage is the coastal high hazard area. The only public facilities in the high -hazard areas are the dune crossings and inlet jetties. Private facilities are located along the south inlet jetty and the dune crossings. The FPUA electric power generating plant and wastewater treatment plant are at high risk from flooding during a Category I hurricane (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). The existing Future Land Use Plan assigns single and multi -family residential land uses and commercial land uses to the coastal high hazard area. However, the coastal construction setback line limits the actual use of the high hazard area except along the inlet. The Fort Pierce Comprehensive Plan (1990) proposed new public facilities in the coastal high -hazard area are public access or recreation facilities and renourished beach. By their nature, these facilities must be located in the coastal high hazard area (Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Management Element, 1990). J. Hazardous Material Handling and Cleanup [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)] The only identified source of hazardous materials in the port area is the Fort Pierce Oil Company, which has tanks containing diesel fuel, gas, and asphalt. The firm indicated in 1989 that it had filed a hazardous substances plan with the U.S. Coast Guard and that it was in compliance with all agency requirements, including those of the Department of Environmental Regulation. It has RE Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 provided five foot high concrete containment walls, boom skirts, and the required absorbent materials (PBS&J, 1990). When the 1989 Fort Pierce Master Port Plan was written, St. Lucie Fire District was developing a hazardous material team to handle major emergency situations. Depending on the magnitude of the situation, either the Combat Chief or the Chief of the Department would work with port officials and tenants, in conjunction with the St. Lucie County Office of Emergency Management, to develop the plans and procedures required for safe operations at the expanding port (PBS&J, 1990). Although port operators do not handle bulk petroleum or packaged petroleum products, such as cans or barrels, there is always a possibility of a small diesel oil spill during ship refueling. These spills can be cleaned up by the user responsible for the spill, or by a commercial oil spill cleanup crew. When port activities expand, precise procedures to be followed in reporting and cleaning up oil spills must be established and disseminated to all port users (PBS&J, 1990). K. Infrastructure Serving Port Facilities [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)] This section summarizes the existing infrastructure systems presently in place to service port facilities including roadways, potable water and wastewater systems, drainage systems, solid waste facilities, as well as energy and communication systems. Transportation Network A port's operations are dependent on other components of the regional transportation system including roads, railroads, and airports. The Port of Fort Pierce is fortunate in that two components of this system, the regional road network and the railroad, are easily accessible. Airport access is currently limited (PBS&J, 1990). Due to the changing market, what were -Once mutually exclusive modal components of the shipping process (aviation, railroad, r trucking, and water transport) are now mutually dependent elements (Wilber Smith Associates, 2001). Intermodal transportation consists of the use of more than one mode of transportation with transfer(s) between modes to make a trip or complete a freight movement. For intermodal transportation to be effective, the transfer has to be convenient and efficient. Two major pieces of Federal legislation have encouraged intermodalism (ISTEA in 1991 and TEA-21, in 1999). Florida fostered intermodalism through the Intermodal Development Program in 1990, created'to provide funding for intermodal projects and promote intermodal development within the state. The Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) Program is another mainstay in the intermodal program funding. The Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force was created in 1998 as a private/public sector partnership to address freight issues and needs. The "Fast Track" was created to accelerate finance of statewide or major regional transportation needs that enhance economic developm;nt, which RN Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 had been unfounded or under -funded in the past (Florida Department of Transportation, Year 2020 Plan, 2000). The most frequent transfers of freight occur at seaports with either rail and trucks or air and trucks. The state of Florida aims to maintain freight mobility to achieve its economic objectives for employment, value-added services, and economic prosperity (Florida Department of Transportation, Year 2020 Plan, 2000). Roadways The Port of Fort Pierce is bounded on the north and south by SR A 1 A, on the west by U.S. 1 or Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad, and on the east by the Indian River. Vehicular access to the port from the north and south is via U.S. 1, a five -lane highway. An alternative north -south route is 251h Street (PBS&J, 1990). Access in and out of the port has always been difficult. Trucks carrying products from the west & south have to travel through the City of Fort Pierce to reach the port. An evaluation of the feasibility of a flyover bridge entrance in the north area of the port was conducted for St. Lucie County in November of 2000. Current access to the port is from three locations including the intersections of. US Highway 1 and Second Street, Seaway Drive at Indian River Drive, US Highway 1/Avenue H and Seaway Drive/Indian River Drive. For the flyover bridge study there were two obstacles to cross: 1) Old Dixie Highway and 2) the FEC Railroad. No detrimental environmental impacts or geotechnical issues were identified in the report. At an estimated cost of $1.25 million to $3.53 million, excluding the corridor aesthetics, the county and city determined that it would be economically viable and vital to the redevelopment of the city but was contingent on the plan for the port (LBFH, 2000). The port is served well by the regional roadway network. Both Florida's Turnpike and I-95, the primary north -south expressways in the region, have interchanges that are a short drive from the port. The major routes to I-95 and Florida's Turnpike are SR 70 (Okeechobee Road/Delaware Avenue) and SR 68 (Orange Avenue (I-95 only). An alternate route to I-95 is U.S. 1 via Indrio Road to the north (PBS&J, 1990). The City of Fort Pierce maintains approximately 200 centerline miles of roadway. Lane mileage of the State Highway System in the Fort Pierce area has increased since 1990 with the widening of 251h Street and State Road 70. Between 2001 and 2006 additional lane mileage will be added to the state system through scheduled expansion of the next segment of SR 70 west of Fort Pierce and south US 1, south of Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001). Truck related issues are location specific but typically fall within the following categories: inadequate roadway turning radii; lack of turning lanes; lack of traffic signals, or turn signals at intersections; inadequate lane widths; routes through residential neighborhoods; inadequate turn lane storage; vertical or horizontal clearances; grade crossing delays; lack of direct access; roadway congestion, especially during rush-hour peaks; and processing at terminal gates (Florida Department of Transportation, Year 2020 Florida Statewide Intermodal M. Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 System Plan, 2000). Given the potential for continued significant population and economic growth in the near future (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001), increased demand on the roadways is expected. Railroads The Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad runs along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge through eastern St. Lucie County. This Class II railroad serves the east coast of Florida from Jacksonville to Miami. Major commodities handled by the FEC are nonmetallic minerals and various commodities moved in containers and trailers (intermodal traffic). The FEC provides no passenger service at this time; however, efforts are underway to reinstate the AMTRAK passenger service along this route at some point in the near term future (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001). With the exception of SR A 1 A, no major roadways in the county are significantly affected by the FEC mainline operations. In order to cross over the heavily utilized FEC mainline, the City of Fort Pierce, in conjunction with FDOT, constructed the Citrus Avenue overpass in the 1970's. There is a second grade separated crossing at Avenue C. Both grade separated crossings permit vehicular movement from South Hutchinson Island to US 1 in the event of blockage of all at -grade crossings. There is no grade separated crossing for the North Hutchinson Island area (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001). All of the ports that depend on rail service experience some degree of the constraints of one -railroad service. These and other physical and policy constraints, such as lack of on -dock rail facilities, grade crossing conflicts, and service and scheduling problems, severely hamper the ability of Florida's ports to compete with out-of-state rail -oriented load centers (Florida Department of Transportation, 2000 Florida Rail System Plan, 2000). International commerce is currently Florida's number one trade industry. Almost 70 percent of Florida's international commerce moves by water. Florida ranks forth among the 50 states nationally, in terms of container movement. In 1997, Florida's deepwater seaports handled 2.37 million twenty - foot equivalent unit containers (TEUs). The 1997 volume represents a 60 percent increase in container traffic over 1993. Approximately 40 percent of these marine containers are handled by rail. Railroad intermodal facilities are dependent on connections with other modes, either water or most commonly trucks. As one of the two central Atlantic ports, the Port of Fort Pierce provides proximity to the citrus industry and direct rail connections that are significant assets (Florida Department of Transportation, Year 2020 Florida Statewide Intermodal System Plan, 2000). The demand for rail transportation by Florida's ports and other rail users is expected to expand. Approximately two-thirds of Florida's international trade moves through its seaports. The seaports provide the distribution links for the north, south, east and west via the rail system and the roadway network. Domestic industry typically requires the same intermodal transportation system essential to the international trade. Rail transportation is expected to become 84 Draft Port Plan Apri126, 2002 more important than ever in determining Florida's competitiveness in global markets. Most of Florida's seaports rely on this system for the transport of cargo crossing their docks. The Port of Fort Pierce is rail served by FEC, but is currently focused on highway improvements to accommodate future expansion at the port. The FSTED Council continues to promote priority funding with respect to the essential development of an intenmodal infrastructure to speed the landside movement of goods and passengers crossing Florida's docks (Florida Department of Transportation, 2000 Florida Rail System Plan, 2000). Although the Florida Department of Transportation has identified improvement needs of approximately $85 million for the intermodal rail system throughout Florida, it has not made any contractual commitments in the area in regard to the Port of Fort Pierce (2000 Florida Rail System Plan, 2000). The 1999 Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force was organized as a public/private partnership in 1998 to identify, prioritize, and recommend freight transportation projects for fast track funding and to develop recommendations for the 2020 Florida Statewide Intermodal Systems Plan (1999 Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force Report). Projects were identified in a few major cities far the fast track funding. No projects were identified in the Fort Pierce area. It was recommended in reference to Florida's ports that the FDOT and FSTED Council prepare a strategic plan consisting of a multimodal strategy for handling international waterborne freight (Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force, 1999). Air transportation The closest airport to the Port of Fort Pierce is the St. Lucie County International Airport, a general. aviation airport approximately three miles northwest of the port. The primary roads connecting the two are U.S. 1 and St. Lucie Boulevard (Fort Pierce Master Port Plan, 1989 & St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001). The existing layout of the St. Lucie County International Airport consists of a north -south runway and a northeast -southwest runway that have been permanently closed. The remaining airfield consists of two runways: the primary east/west runway and crosswind runway. The airport currently occupies approximately 4,000 acres. St. Lucie County has recently scaled back long-range development plans in response to environmental and community issues. The environmental issues primarily concern onsite wetlands in the eastern portion of the airport property. The community issues are related to noise and other potential adverse impacts on areas lying east of the airport. If community concerns are satisfactorily addressed, the most revised long term plans for the airport contemplate an extension of the main east/west runway to 10,000 feet and the addition of a 6,000 foot parallel runway to north of the east/west existing runway. There are no plans on the part of the county to expand airport operations beyond those of a general aviation airport (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001). Four other private airports operate in St. Lucie County, but none have facilities comparable to those at St. Lucie County International Airport. Airports to the north and south of the county, Vero Beach Municipal Airport in RK, Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Indian River County and Witham Field in Martin County respectively, do have similar runways of 5000 feet as well as air traffic control towers (PBS&J, 1990). Given the potential for continued significant population and economic growth in the near future, increased demand on airport facilities is expected (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element. 2001). Water transportation The ICW traverses the eastern edge of St. Lucie County via the IRL. The waterway is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and does not have a significant impact on the St. Lucie County transportation network except for one drawbridge crossing, at SR A I A access to North Hutchinson Island (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001). The ICW serves as a means of access to the Fort Pierce Inlet for both recreational and business uses. The nearest ocean inlets north and south of the Fort Pierce Inlet are the Sebastian Inlet to the north and the St. Lucie Inlet to the south. Of these three area inlets, the Fort Pierce Inlet is generally recognized as being the safest to navigate due to limited shoaling and predictable currents (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001). The port lies on the IRL. Several municipal and private marinas share these waters with the port. Harbortown Marina lies across Taylor Creek and is a 34 acre marina complex that opened in 1988. The marina has 27 employees and the Indian River Boat Yard has 30 employees (Harbortown Marina, 2001). In 1989 it had approximately 165 slips, but expansion was permitted to 350 slips. It accommodates boats from 30 to 125 feet. The marina has a vessel population of 450 in the water and in storage and sells half a million gallons of fuel annually (Harbortown Marina, 2001). The Fort Pierce City Marina is located a short distance to the south of the port area. It accommodates boats from 25 to 60 feet (PBS&J, 1990). In 1988 it consisted of 234 wet slips (City of Fort Pierce Comprehensive Plan, 1990). The Taylor Creek Marina and Cracker Bay Boat Works lie to the west of the port area. This marina has 600-dry docks and accommodates boats of up to 35 feet. The Pelican Yacht Club is across the South Causeway from the port. It has 104 wet slips (City of Fort Pierce Comprehensive Plan, 1990) and accommodates boats of up to 100 feet (PBS&J, 1990). Additionally there are smaller marinas in the area that provide slips for pleasure boaters (PBS&J, 1990). When port activities increase, the pleasure boat traffic and the shipping traffic will have greater opportunities for in -water conflicts. At that time, a boat traffic management plan should be considered to supplement the.existing U.S. Coast Guard regulations (PBS&J, 1990). There are four broad categories of waterborne accidents:, human factors, equipment failure, weather, and hazardous materials. Human factors (ignoring hazard warnings, operating in adverse conditions, etc.) account for 75 percent of marine accidents. Fatalities, injuries, and accidents on the water mostly involve recreational boating. Water transportation workers suffer about four times the national average of fatalities for all workers. Crew member fatalities from tugboats and fishing vessels exceed the water transportation worker average (US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Draft Port Plan April 261.2002 . Maritime Administration, & US Coast Guard, 1999). Recreational boating is second only to highway transportation -related fatalities (St. Lucie County, Economic Development Division, 2000). Potable Water Facilities A potable water supply usually consists of a water supply source, a treatment plant, and a distribution and storage network. Surface water (stored in natural lakes or man-made reservoirs), groundwater, or some combination of the two usually constitute the supply for a system. Before use for public consumption all water must be treated to remove impurities or render them harmless. After treatment, the water is supplied to individual users by way of a network of pipes and storage reservoirs. Water is delivered under pressure within the distribution system to ensure adequate flow to meet demands, which fluctuate during each day (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Potable Water Sub -Element, 2001). Potable water is provided by the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA), which maintains a 20 million gallon per day (MGD) potable water treatment plant. Raw water is obtained from several municipal wellfields and is processed for potable water use at the Henry A. Gahn Treatment Plant located on 251h Street in Fort Pierce. The water distribution system currently contains over 206 miles of water mains (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Potable Water Sub -Element, 2001). Potable water is distributed to the port from the south starting from a 12 inch line that starts at Seaway and continues north along N. Second Street (Maritime Trust, 2001). That line ends as a six inch pipe at the marinas on the north side of the port. A "six inch line proceeds from Second Street east along Port Avenue. The line proceeds at Harbor Street south to the Indian River Terminals and north to the adjacent properties. In 1999 FPUA announced plans to complete a 4.0 MGD Reverse Osmosis (RO) expansion to the existing facility, bringing the total capacity to 25.2 MGD. An additional 2.0 MGD filter system in the future will increase the permitted treatment capacity to 27.2 MGD. The production capacity of this facility is presently permitted 17.9 MGD by the South Florida Water Management District water use permit. The first phase of expansion occurred in late 2000, with future expansion plans being adopted (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Potable Water Sub -Element, 2001). The current method of disinfection with chlorammoniation requires continual operation of both lime softening units to achieve the 20 MGD design flow. Because this does not allow for maintenance down time, an effective maximum flow of 13 MGD is probably more realistic and consistent with the currently available raw water supply (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Potable Water Sub -Element, 2001). This facility currently provides water service to the City of Fort Pierce and adjacent unincorporated areas. The water service boundary is approximately bounded by Midway Road to the south (and, on the Martin County line by South Hutchinson Island); by the Florida Turnpike to the west, by St. Lucie Boulevard to the north, and by the Atlantic Ocean to the east. This is an area in which service could be provided given current capacity of the existing system. 87 `Draft'Port Plan April 26, 2002 Although the capacity exists to serve the entire area, the majority of properties, which are located adjacent to and nearby the City, are responsible for locating and maintaining their own water supplies. These on -site water supplies normally obtain their water from shallow aquifer wells (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Potable Water Sub -Element, 2001). Wastewater Facilities (Sanitary Sewer) The FPUA maintains a 9.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant on the southwest extremity of Causeway Island on the Indian River in Fort Pierce. This serves an estimated existing area population of over 40,000. As of the year 2000, the FPUA had a temporary operating permit from the FDEP, which rates the wastewater treatment plant at a flow of 9.0 MGD (maximum per month) to serve the City of Fort Pierce. At present this plant has approximately 4 MGD of excess capacity with the highest maximum month average flow of 6.0 MGD. The long-range plans call for construction of a new wastewater treatment plant on the mainland. Planning for the mainland wastewater treatment plant has been put on hold. The FPUA has extended its wastewater service beyond the boundaries of the City of Fort Pierce and presently serves many areas in unincorporated St. Lucie County (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, 2001). The Port of Fort Pierce is part of the city's sewer service area. Wastewater generated at the port is collected and routed to the FPUA system for treatment at the existing wastewater treatment plant. Following secondary treatment, the effluent is discharged into the IRL and a private firm disposes of the sludge. An eight -inch wastewater line connected to the plant by means of a force main network provides service to the port along Second Street (PBS&J, 1990). According to Maritime Trust (2001), a sewer force main enters the property from the north and continues south along N. Second Street, eventually becoming a gravity sewer line. Sewer collection lines continue along Port Avenue, Harbor Street and Fisherman's Wharf. A second line enters the property from the west at Seaway and Second Street, which proceeds north on Second Street to Fisherman's Wharf. This line also continues east on Fisherman's Wharf to Indian River Drive to a lift station, which is located south of Fisherman's Wharf. At the point the wastewater is pumped south (Maritime Trust, 2001). Given the potential for continued significant population and economic growth in the near future (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Element, 2001), increased demand on the sewers is expected. The current sewer system for the port could be expanded in some areas but further development would be required in other areas (Maritime Trust, 2001). Stormwater/Drainage Facilities According to the Indian River Lagoon CCMP Plan (1996), freshwater and stormwater discharges represent the largest nonpoint source of pollution to the IRL. Over the years these discharges have resulted in muck deposits and sedimentation in the lagoon and its tributaries. This deposition and IM Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 sedimentation has caused the loss of seagrass beds with resulting impacts to ! fisheries and shellfish populations. Increased loadings of nutrients from freshwater discharges have been known to cause algae blooms resulting in fish kills (Indian River Lagoon CCMP Plan, 1996). St. Lucie County has a stormwater management program to deal with these issues. The county is currently conducting a mapping survey. This study is to enhance the county's ability in directing water flow countywide to reduce flooding in flood prone areas, and to facilitate the placement of water control structures and water quality improvements. Large equipment requires maintenance and replacement on an ongoing basis (St. Lucie County, Comprehensive Plan Update, 2001). The City of Fort Pierce Public Works Department is responsible for stormwater drainage. The City of Fort Pierce contains 12 drainage basins, two of which cover the port area. The northern portion of the port includes part of the Taylor Creek drainage basin, and the southern portion is part of the South Bridge Drainage Basin). The Taylor Creek drainage basin uses storm sewers to convey drainage north to Taylor Creek. The South Bridge drainage basin uses storm sewers to convey drainage southeast to the Indian River (Fort Pierce Master Port Plan, 1989; City of Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, Natural Groundwater, Aquifer Recharge and Utilities Element, revised 1990). In general, flooding within the city is not perceived as a problem. Periodic flooding has occurred in various areas of the city due more to clogged storm sewers and canals than to under -designed facilities (City of Fort Pierce, ` Comprehensive Plan, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, Natural Groundwater, Aquifer Recharge and Utilities Element, revised 1990). Maritime Trust (2001) reported that the port does not have an organized stormwater management system. Stormwater management that has occurred has been on a piecemeal basis because of the age of the port and the pattern of development (Maritime Trust, 2001). It will be necessary to set aside a portion of the port for stormwater management (Maritime Trust, 2001). Stormwater management will help to prevent turbidity from run-off, which is the primary source of turbidity. Issues of water quality are not expected to be a limitation to port development. In order to protect the water quality in the IRL, retention and treatment of stormwater will have to occur on site before discharge into the lagoon (Maritime Trust, 2001). Solid Waste Facilities The county disposes of solid waste at the GIades Road site, which is the only solid waste disposal facility currently permitted in the county. The county expects to continue to operate a'landf ll for the entire county indefinitely since the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act discourages municipalities from operating such facilities. As of November of 1992, the City of Fort Pierce ceased to use the St. Lucie County Landfill as a disposal site for its solid waste. The city entered into a 30-year contract to dispose of the city's general solid waste in the Okeechobee Regional landfill operated by Chambers, Inc., in Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Okeechobee County (St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, Solid Waste Sub -element, 2001). Port operations generate only negligible amounts of solid waste. Port solid waste generally includes discarded boxes, packing and residue from cargo shipments, and litter from garbage receptacles located at port facilities. In 1989 existing port users reported approximately six cubic yards of solid waste disposed of daily (PBS&J, 1990). Energy The Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) provides electrical service to the port area via a three-phase line on N. Second Avenue, with a substation nearby. The H.D. King Generating Station, located at N. Second Street and Avenue B in downtown Fort Pierce, generates the electrical power. FPUA has emergency ties with the City of Vero Beach and the Florida Power and Light Company (FP&.L). In 1989, the service standard for electrical facilities was set at 52- kilowatt hours per capita per day (Fort Pierce Master Port Plan, 1989; City of Fort Pierce, Comprehensive Plan, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, Natural Groundwater, Aquifer Recharge and Utilities Element, revised 1990). Port consumption of power is thought to be nominal at this time. Demand would be expected to increase as a result of port development. Communications Bell South provides the City of Fort Pierce with communications services. If an internal street system were developed there would be an opportunity to develop a telecommunication distribution`system (Maritime Trust, 2001). Such a system could include empty conduits to allow for expansion or new technology in the future. L. Management of Dredged Materials [FAC, Section 9J-5.012 (5)(b)) In 1997 the Port and Airport Authority voted to accept a reconnaissance study by the Army Corps of Engineers as the first step in determining the feasibility for deepening the Fort Pierce Harbor. The results of this initial study indicated the project qualified to proceed to the next step to determine the overall feasibility of the project. The authority decided that since there was no immediate or foreseeable need to deepen the harbor beyond the current 28 feet, they did not wish to proceed to the next step of feasibility analysis to deepen the port (Port and Airport Workshop, St. Lucie County, March 31, 1998). At the current depth USACE reports' indicate the port will require maintenance dredging every five years (Maritime Trust, 2001). The amount of maintenance dredging would need to increase if additional berths were added. There is a study in progress, being conducted due to observations made by divers and fishermen for several years, of fine sedimentary deposits accumulating on reef amenities in the Fort Pierce near -shore continental shelf area. There was concern that dredging may be linked with the sediments and would become worse after scheduled dredging for the future. In the report, 01 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 scientific literature was reviewed that indicated potentially negative effects for reef amenities covered by particulate matter, which can impair growth and increase coral reef mortality rates. This study was to consist of three phases: 1) Pre-2000 dredging/discharge study for baseline; 2) 2000 dredge discharge monitoring study; and 3) Post -discharge long-term monitoring study. At the time of Phase I collection, which are due to be confirmed later, there was an apparent absence of influence from inshore sediment sources at all the continental shelf sampling sites. This study established a baseline, which the authors intend to use for comparison after future dredging operations Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Lab (AOML) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, 2000). Due to the nature of dredging, the requirements of handling and storing dredged materials, and the environmentally sensitive areas in which dredging occurs, it has become increasingly difficult to identify and permit suitable dredged material management areas in Florida (Florida Inland Navigation District, 2002). In response the Florida Inland Navigation District began a program in 1986 for managing dredged material on a long term basis. This plan will allow for permanent infrastructure for management of all dredged material from the 374 miles on Intracoastal Waterway channel connecting Fernandina Harbor with Miami Harbor when it is fully implemented. Over 48 percent of the anticipated dredged material has been identified as potential beach quality material. Six permanent beach placement sites were identified for these materials. The remainder of the material is anticipated to contain levels of silt that preclude placement on the beach. Fifty upland containment sites are to temporarily store these sediments. The material is then to be excavated and beneficially used. Once the needs of dredged material management have been addressed the Florida Inland Navigation District will direct resources to the control of sediment in -flow into the waterways (Florida Inland Navigation District, 2002) Taylor Creek Dredging The Taylor Creek dredging summary report and alternatives indicated that Taylor Creek contained a significant amount of sediments, which may be harmful to the lagoon and offshore reefs if water velocity from storms were to cause them to be washed out. The portion of Taylor Creek that empties into the port harbor has been reduced to a depth of six to seven feet. To maintain the original depth and remove the dredge material that has settled there for years, the depth should be 12 to 14 feet. There was concern that dredging and storing of dredged material would be a hazard. Recent analyses were cited that indicated that this dredging was not a concern. Leaving the muck in Taylor Creek was deemed inconsistent with the proposed objectives of the stormwater master plan. Due to funding shortages for the project, the port authority decided to seek additional funding to provide for removal and disposal of the material at an upland storage area (Port and Airport Workshop, St. Lucie County, March 31, 1998). The St. Lucie County Port & Airport Authority initiated the Taylor Creek Restoration, St. Lucie County Sediment Characterization Report. The project 91 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 was to provide a preliminary characterization and removal feasibility study of sediments from Taylor Creek. The project area was approximately 23 acres from C-25 spillway and North Canal on the west to ICW on the east. Two composite muck sediment samples and two water samples were tested. Individual samples were also taken and combined (BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc, 1998). The conclusions listed in the report are reviewed below. Of the metals represented in the creek water, copper, lead, nickel and silver exceeded the Florida Class III Marine. The toxicity -characteristic leaching procedure (TLCP) determines if a particular material, due to leaching of analytes of concern, would be a potential hazard to Rroundwater. The TCLP results for metals indicate that no potential leaching hazard to the groundwater is expected from the upland disposal of the muck sediments. Although no standards exist for sediment disposal on land a comparison of Taylor Creek results with USEPA 503 regulations for sewage sludge disposal on land indicates that the sediments are well below regulatory limits and should not pose any land disposal concerns with regard to metals (BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc, 1998). The concentration levels of metals and nutrients in the muck sediments suggest that the sediments are a possible source of contaminants to the above - lying creek water. This was further demonstrated by the additional increase in concentration metals shown in the elutriate test data. Removal of these sediments may aid in improving the water quality. However, evaluation of water up -stream of both the C-25 spillway and North Canal is also necessary. } Physical testing of muck sediments suggested that the sediments from the two regions of the project are fairly similar. Use of chemical polymers are effective in reducing the turbidity but did not typically enhance further dewatering of the sediments. Based on the overall concentrations of metals and nutrients found in the elutriate test water, removal of muck sediments from Taylor Creek should enhance the water quality in the creek. Although no specific bentihic surveys were conducted, removal of these muck sediments should benefit the benthic community, improve water quality and assist with the regeneration of seagrasses in areas adjacent to the creek. Two similar projects, Crane Creek (dredging completed the spring of 1998) and Turkey Creek (under implementation at the time of this report), in the IRL were designed with similar water quality, navigation and benthic environment improvement goals (BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc, 1998). The Taylor Creek restoration project was conducted for sampling, analysis, and characterization of sediments and water from Taylor Creek. The data was used to develop and investigate options for sediment removal. The study area was approximately 6000 feet long from the western edge of the ICW to about 1000 linear feet west of the spillway for the C-25 and F-1 canals. The areas of study were divided into three reaches. The tasks included determination of the Creek Sediment and Water Chemical Characteristics, the Creek Sediment Physical Characteristics, and approximate volume of sediment in the project area, and provided dredged material disposal options and potential beneficial uses (BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc., 2000). 92 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 There are no sediment standards for chemicals so concentrations were compared with Florida Residential and Industrial Soil Clean Up Goals and the USEPA limits for land disposal of sewage sludge. Arsenic was the only parameter that exceeded the soil clean up goals. Based on the TCLP test results the sediments are not hazardous materials. Oil and grease were detected in all samples (BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc., 2000). Approximately 90,000 cubic yards (c.y.) of sediment will be removed from reach number 1 (the area between the Florida East Coast Railroad (FECRR) Bridge and the western right of way of the ICW). The design channel is 140 feet wide and tapers to 100 feet. The average depth of sediment in this channel is six to seven feet. This area will be dredged to a depth of 23.5 feet from mean sea level regardless of sediment type. Significant amounts of muck are present outside the channel. Thickness ranges from three to eight feet (BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc., 2000). Approximately 80,000 c.y. of sediment will be removed from reach number 2 (the area between the FECRR Bridge and the Spillway at the C-25 Canal and the submerged weir at the F-1 Canal). This will re-establish the design channel depth to approximately 12.5 feet mean sea level (MSL). This channel is 240 feet wide. Muck appears to have accumulated on the south side of the channel ranging from four to six feet. The north side of the channel can be characterized as hard sandy bottom (BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc., 2000). The sediment removal for reach number 3 (the areas approximately 3,800 `. linear feet west of the C-25 spillway and from the fixed weir structure Canal No. I -to 1,000 linear feet west of the F-1 spillway) was restricted to muck only. The average muck layer in this area was one to two feet (BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc., 2000). The estimated volume of sediments in the project area was approximately 210,000 c.y. Three dredging options are available. When dredging is done, there is a bulking factor in which sediments tend to expand or bulk from their initial volume. Mechanical dredging such as clamshell or dragline has a typically smaller bulking factor than does hydraulic dredging. With hydraulic dredging, the deposited slurry settles into a solids content that consists of at least a 25 percent increase. However, the limited site access in reaches 1 and 2 would require the mechanical dredging process to have multiple material handling to remove the dredged sediments to the disposal area. Mechanical dredging would also hinder boat traffic within the marina due to the large size of the barges. This option is more viable for reach number 3. With hydraulic dredging, the disposal area would require an area to retain and dewater the dredge slurry. Sediment dewatering techniques are aimed at maximizing disposal storage capacity, separating dredged materials into reusable portions, and, increasing settling rates to provide higher clear water decant rates. The most feasible sediment removal option is, hydraulic dredging based on operational efficiency. Disposal option sites for. Taylor Creek were not finalized at the time of this study. The study recommends a cost analysis be conducted after the disposal area is chosen. 93 Draft Port Plan April'26,2002 Options for disposal include: • Pumping all the dredge material into the disposal pond and storing it without dewatering. (Storage = 40 acres 25-30 feet high). This option is not feasible. • Pumping all the dredge material into the disposal pond and treating it with chemical flocculant; clear water would be decanted into a nearby body of water, and the ultimate sediment would be stored. (Storage = 40 acres 10-12 feet high). • Remove the sand portion from the dredge slurry with hydrocyclone, and pump the fine-grained portion into the disposal pond. The sand portion would be hauled to desired reuse areas. The left over sediment would then be stored. (Storage = 40 acres 15-17 feet high). • Dewater the fine-grained sediments from the option above using an advanced dewatering process to increase the final solids by at least 25%. • Use aggressive material drying techniques to in solids content and minimize storage volume requirements. The 40 acre site is too small to provide enough drying areas to handle the estimated dredged volume. This technique could be used if the dredging was performed as a multi- year project. This technique is also weather dependent, as heavy rains will significantly impede the drying process. Reuse Options for Sand/Shell Fraction: • Beneficial as fill material for typical construction projects: • Meets grain size requirements for use as a fine aggregate in the production of concrete or asphalt pavements, golf course construction, park construction, or beach erosion replenishment. . • Coarse -grained fraction of the sediment can be used as sub -grades when confined and damp but are subject to erosion. The dredged sand would also be suitable for use as an embankment material for constructing roads, highways and bridges. Reuse of Silt/Organic Fraction: • High organic content makes muck an attractive alternative for plant growth media • FDOT sodding, mulching, and grassing • Topsoil amendment or muck blanket for grass cover establishment of roadway projects. • Supplement for potting soil mixes • Wetland and wildlife habitat restoration. • Enhance marshes and wooded wetlands, wildlife nesting islands, and upland and transitional habitats. Draft Port.Plan April 26, 2002 M. Security Plan for Future Ports play a critical role in national security (American Association of Port Authorities, 2000). The primary criminal activity at ports is directly related to the import and export of goods and contraband that violate federal laws (Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in the U.S. Seaports, 2000). The Interagency Commission (2000) categorized most crimes under the following headings: drug smuggling, stowaways and alien smuggling; trade fraud, cargo theft, export crime, stolen vehicle, and other serious crime. At the time of the Interagency Commission's report the FBI considered terrorism directed at U.S. seaports to be low, in spite of high vulnerability to attack. Under Florida Statute 311.09, the Port of Fort Pierce is considered a deepwater port. As the governing body and pursuant to Florida Statute 311.12, the Board of County Commissioners is required to submit a Security Plan for the Port of Fort Pierce. The Port of Fort Pierce is considered to be a minimum security risk facility due to its low level of commercial activity (Camber Corp., 2000). There are few federal security standards to for the maritime industry (Graham, 2002). At this point in time less than three percent of containers entering U.S. ports are inspected. Ports have a strong history of localization and no national port authority exists (Graham, 2002). The importance of port security in blocking both terrorism and other crime must be addressed without impeding commerce (Alpert, 2002). In a memorandum to the State of Florida (Governor's Office of Drug Control) from St. Lucie County Administrator Douglas M. Anderson (2001, Jan. 16), it was noted that, while the Port of Fort Pierce"will adhere to the statewide minimum security standards..., St. Lucie County owns no land designated for cargo port use at the Port of Fort Pierce." Attachments to this memorandum included excerpts from the Statewide Security Assessment of Florida Seaports (Camber Corp., September 2000), which revealed that (1) the Port of Fort Pierce consists of three privately owned and operated terminals responsible for their own security, and (2) the City of Fort Pierce Police Department regularly patrols the area. Also attached was the complete "Port Security Standards — Compliance Plan," which currently serves as the Port's minimum security plan. Most of the minimum state standards described in the following text are not applicable at this time because the land is privately owned. However, said standards will have to be met if and when the county purchases for development any port property in the future. It is also noteworthy that port management has met the requirements for (1) periodic stakeholder forums for those involved in port security issues, and (2) the inclusion of security -related initiatives in the port's master plan (see Port Security Standards — Compliance Plan, minimum standards numbered I l.a. and 12.a.). Note that the state is currently considering implementing increased port security measures in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In a recent press release by the American Association of Port Authorities (2001), appropriations bills H.R. 3338 and in S. 1214 were mentioned. The bills in question for the Department of Defense appropriations included provisions for Federal funding to enhance seaport security. Below the minimum standards required by the statute, what the port must do in the future as it grows and how the legislation affects county owned and private owned land is outlined in regard to the current regulations. 95 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 Statute Overview The first requirement of section 311.12 is that all seaports must maintain a security plan relating to the specific and identifiable needs of the seaport, with the minimum standards requirement. These minimum standards requirements are set forth in "Port Security Standards -Compliance Plan." To ensure compliance, each plan adopted must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Drug Control and the Department of Law Enforcement. These seaports shall allow access by the Department of Law Enforcement to the affected ports to allow inspections. In each seaport security plan, the port may establish areas with restricted access. In these cases, a Restricted Access Area Permit shall be required for entrance to these areas by employees. The security plan must set forth the conditions and restrictions to be imposed upon others visiting the port or any restricted access area. The next requirement is that any applicant for employment, every current employee and other persons designated pursuant to the security plan for each seaport perform a fingerprint -based criminal history check by January 1, 2001. This check should be run on people who require entry into a Restricted Access Area that was identified in the security plan. If no area is identified, then a check should be run every five years or less. To conduct these checks, each employee shall provide fingerprints to be checked by the Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who shall perform a federal check. These results shall be reported to the seaport, and the costs of these checks shall be paid by the seaport or other employing entity or by;the person checked. Also each seaport'security plan shall identify criminal convictions that shall disqualify a person from either employment or access to restricted areas. The statute then requires the Office of Drug Control (ODC) to complete a report on each seaport by December 31, 2001, and an evaluation annually thereafter. These reports shall make any recommendations that the ODC has for compliance with the minimum standards. Funding is discussed in the last sections of the statute. The reports from the Department of Law Enforcement shall be consulted when considering funding. The allocation for funding for each seaport shall be jointly discussed by 4he Office of Drug Control and the FSTED Council. Any seaport that receives state funds for security projects must enter into a joint participation agreement with the appropriate state entity and must use the seaport security plan developed pursuant to Florida Statute 311.12 as the basis for the agreement. If funds are granted for more than one year, the agreement must reflect the entire scope of the plan. The joint participation may include timeframes and funding reimbursements. The agreement should also include penalties for not meeting the completion dates. Security Compliance A. 'Employee Requirements The Port Security Standards -Compliance Plan provides actual minimum standards for compliance with F.S. 311.12. This plan has many standards and covers many areas of security that are discussed below. 1) Identification (ID) badges- All workers should be required to show a picture ID badge when accessing or entering a restricted area designated by port management. Restricted areas should include at least the following: a) Cargo storage or staging yards; b) Docks/berths; c) Fuel storage or transfer M Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 yards; d) Cruise terminals. The ID requirement applies to all employees, including day workers and casual labor that work at the port more than 5 days in a 90-day period. These.ID badges should be color coded to represent the areas that they are given access. This can also be accomplished by holograms. The cards shall be laminated and issued by serial number. All lost cards shall be reported and a log maintained of all currently issued and restricted cards. 2) Fingerprint Check- The guidelines then discuss the implementation of the fingerprint background check discussed above. The ID badges will not be issued until the check is completed. 3) Criminal Background Check- The security plan, at a minimum, must also define all criminal activity that will exclude someone from employment. Applicants who have been convicted of the following crimes in the past five years shall be excluded from employment: a) dealing in stolen property, regardless of whether or not adjudication was withheld; b) any violation involving controlled substances; c) any crime involving possession of a firearm or similar offenses; d) conviction of conspiracy to commit the above crimes. An applicant convicted under the above crimes may be considered for employment five years after release from incarceration, if free from subsequent conviction since being released. 4) Denial of Employment and Appeal Process- The compliance plan states that all prospective employees must provide all background information during the application process. If the seaport has denied employment to an applicant, the applicant must give a full report to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement by the first of October in any given year. This report shall include the applicant's identity, the factors supporting the determination, any special condition imposed, and any other material factors used in making the determination. These policies, procedures, and criteria shall be included in the security plan. If a seaport refuses employment based on this criteria, its security plan shall provide a procedure of appeal. This procedure shall provide the person a means to gain conditional employment or grant waivers. Waivers may be allowed on a temporary basis, depending on the needs. 5) Visitors and Temporary Employees_ Port management must determine local procedures for permitting transient laborers or itinerant visitors and business people access to the port. Minimal requirements are to keep a logbook of such people. All personnel issued an ID badge must be logged into the book. ID badges will be issued on an annual basis, and any felony conviction within the proceeding year will be grounds for denial of renewal. B. Access Requirements 1. Visitor Access a. Visitors are required to check in, including a record of visitors name, purpose of visit, destination, vehicle tag number, and date/time of entry/departure. b. Visitors only allowed access to area specific to there business, and this access is granted by permit. 97 Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 c. Visitors not allowed on the dock or in restricted areas and must park in designated areas. 2. Access gates & Gate house a. Control access to restricted areas, and should be located at all perimeter access points and principal interior access points. b. There should be a minimum number of gates to allow for adequate access. c. Gates/gate houses should be locked or staffed at all times. d. Gates should at least match the construction of the fences. e. Gatehouses at all vehicle entrances and exits must be staffed during business hours unless controlled by electronic access. Should be situated so that exiting vehicles may be examined on seaport property. f. Each gatehouse shall be equipped with telephones or other communication devices. 3. Designated Parking a. Shall be severely restricted and authorized by strictly enforced gate pass and/or decal system. b. Passes shall be color coded to show restrictions for time and area of parking. c. Employee parking shall be restricted to designated areas, off doc and outside of fenced operational, cargo handling, and designated storage areas. d. Parking on port grounds shall be restricted largely to port authority, carrier, maintenance, and commercial and government vehicles, which are essential within the seaport or marine terminal. These areas shall be fenced or clearly marked. e. Vendors and visitors shall be issued temporary parking permits for parking in restricted areas. 4. Fencing a. Shall establish a secure perimeter by fences with controlled access. b. Height shall be 8 feet, and 9 gauge galvanized steel, of 2 inch wide chain link construction topped with an additional 2 feet barbed wire outrigger consisting of 3 strands of 9 gauge galvanized barbed wire at a 45 degree outward angle above the fence. c. Bottom of fence shall be no more than 2 inches from the concrete or asphalt, and the bottom surface shall be thick enough to prevent access from underneath. d. The exterior and interior sides of the fence should be cleared and uncluttered by not less than 5 feet to ensure the integrity of the fence is not compromised. Lighting a. Lighting shall be sufficient enough to adequately illuminate port operations and Cargo areas. These facilities shall be illuminated to at least the level of twilight and must comply with voluntary agreements such as the U.S. Customs Sea carrier or super Carrier Initiatives. b. Provided from sunrise to sunset. c. Shall be high -mast, sufficient for adequately illuminating exterior gates, cargo areas, cargo traffic areas, and all working and walking areas. d. Shall use updated lighting technology. Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 e. Shall be directed downward, away from guards or offices, and should produce high contrast with few shadows. f. Five foot candle illumination in dock work areas, including container unloading and loading areas. g. Security vehicles shall be equipped with spotlights. 6. Use of signs a. Signs shall be used throughout the port and wherever access is restricted. b. Signs conveying Customs authority and stating something of this nature, "This Port is a Border Entry Point and All Persons, Effects, and Vehicles are Subject to Search Under Federal Statute 19 U.S. Code Sec. 981(0," should be posted at main exterior access points, vessel gangways, and all restricted areas. c. Minimum standards for signs: be highly visible with high contrast background and lettering. Signs should be visible at night, illuminated by lights or iridescent lettering. Be of sufficient size and boldness. Signs should be bilingual where appropriate. 7. Locking Requirements The compliance plan requires the use of locks and keys to be used at the seaports. It requires that a key control should be implemented to delineate which personnel have the right of access to what specific areas. There should be a master ledger recording the -legitimate holder of each copy of each key, and management or security personnel shall control the issuance of each key. These control systems, including locking devices, shall be inspected regularly and malfunctioning equipment shall be repaired or replaced immediately. When cargo handling equipment and vehicles are not in use, the keys will be removed. Only case hardened locks and chains will be used, with chains permanently attached to fence posts/gates. C. Administrative Requirements 1. Maintenance An adequate maintenance system, comprised of regularly scheduled inspections to keep fencing, gates, lighting, and cameras in good working order, shall be implemented. 2. Security Committee A standing security committee shall be appointed. Port management will sponsor and conduct a regularly scheduled forum at least once every three months, inviting all stakeholders in port security to participate and discuss security issues. 3. Security Master Plan Port Management shall also implement a security master plan. This shall include security -related initiatives in the port's strategic or master plan. They should identify and prioritize projected capital outlays for security -related projects. 4. Operating Procedures Port Management shall also have standard operating procedures. They shall provide a current security manual incorporating standard operating procedures, standards of conduct, and responsibilities of appropriate security and management personnel. They shall also provide a definitive statement of what 99 Draft PortPlan April 26, 2002 management expects of its security force personnel. Managers will review procedures periodically to ensure that new threats and procedural vulnerabilities are identified. The Port Security Director shall formulate written operation procedures for security -related matters, including bomb threats and alert levels and should collaborate with relevant government and law enforcement agencies to develop an emergency response plan. Port Management shall also take steps necessary to ensure the routine, scheduled presence of port security patrols by sworn law enforcement personnel. Security Guards The compliance plan also addresses security guards. It requires that they wear uniforms that are complete, distinct, and authoritative. The guards shall provide adequate patrols to include roving security, building, perimeter, and wharf checks. They should be equipped with two-way radios to be able to radio for support. They should also control all exterior access points and principal access points to the seaport and also be sufficient in number to provide 24-hour security. These guards should be state certified class D license holders, and they should be properly trained. If a person is a local law enforcement officer and also working as a security guard, they are not required to be class D certified. Training for security guards shall include: a. Patrol methods b. Report writing, log and record keeping c. Identification of security problems and specific trouble areas d. Cargo handling and cargo documentation handling e. Federal security procedures, U.S. Customs, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U.S. Coast Guard requirements f. State procedures(including Port Authority) g. Local police procedures h. Hazardous material transport and hazardous materials response i. First aid j. Use of force and weapons ~ k. Explosives, nuclear, biological, chemical agent response 1. Terrorism response procedures m. Labor unrest. 5. Computer Security There shall be formal guidelines for computer security in place for each port and tenant activity. The computerized information access must be password controlled and should be restricted on a need -to -know- basis, which would include dissemination of information no sooner than required. D. Cargo Processing Gate passes shall be issued to truckers and other carriers to control and identify those vehicles authorized to pick up cargo. Cargo should only be released to the carrier specified in the delivery order unless a release authorizing delivery to another carrier is presented and verified. Personnel processing delivery orders should verify the identity of the trucker and truck company before allowing entrance to or exit from restricted areas. Also, cargo stored in open areas and 100 Draft PortPlan April 26,,;2002 palletized or stacked cargo stored in warehouse facilities must be properly stacked and placed within, away from, and parallel to fences and walls to ensure unimpeded views for security personnel. High value cargo and commodities should be stored in cribs or security cages designed to resist forcible entry from all sides. Separate logs and procedures for release and receipt shall be maintained. High value merchandise in mounted containers must be placed in a secure holding area where management or security personnel can observe it. Separate logs and procedures for the release and receipt of these containers shall be maintained. High value cargo containers requiring storage should be placed in a systematic manner such that their location is not readily apparent to criminals. Doors of high value containers should be stacked so that the doors of each container abut each other. Also, access and keys to cargo handling equipment such as yard mule tug -masters, trucks, or high loaders should be strictly controlled. Cargo handling equipment should be kept in a secure and specified area when not in use. E., Cruise Operation Security Cruise security is only required if the Port of Fort Pierce has cruise ship departures. It must adhere to 33 C.F.R. Part 120 and 33 C.F.R. Part 128, the U.S. Coast Guard regulations. Port Management will provide "SOPS," used at passenger terminals, to all security personnel. They will also provide and maintain physical security barriers, alarms, and lighting in accordance with IMO 443. Management shall also ensure that vehicular access to cruise ships, while in port, is strictly enforced and that only authorized vendors are permitted access to cruise ships. They must also provide communications between all security personnel involved with the security of passenger terminal and vessels. It is also Port Management's duty to establish a system of identification and control for all personnel authorized access to the terminal, designate restricted areas for the embarking and disembarking of both passengers and baggage, ensure that carriers provide timely, accurate, and complete passenger and crew arrival and departure manifest information to the Immigration and Naturalization Service arrd the U.S. Custom's Service. Port Management shall also restrict access to passenger terminal facilities and cruise ships through a designated screening point that includes a metal detector and x-ray systems for carry -on items. High Risk Port Requirements If the Port of Fort Pierce ever becomes a high -risk port, there are additional measures it to take to comply with security laws. The high risk designation would require an intrusion detection system. This system shall include: 1. Closed circuit television cameras to be used when warranted by security threat. They should be placed at main entrances and exits and in areas with high risk and/or high value cargo. 2. Cameras should be able to record at relatively low levels of light. 3. They should have remote control and zoom lens capability when used for surveillance. 101 `Draft Port Plan April 26, 2002 = 4. Cameras should have video tape recording capabilities and be capable of being monitored at same time. 5. Cameras should be positioned with a recording mechanism to video record vehicles and pedestrians entering and exiting the facility. Applicability of Security Plan These security requirements only pertain to property owned by St. Lucie County. Since the county currently owns only twenty acres in the port, they would only have to make this area compliant with the standards set forth above. The privately owned land would not have to be compliant with the state standards. However, noncompliance with state standards means that they may not receive state funds. If the county purchases any of this land in the future, the cost restraints of bringing the land purchased into compliance should be considered. Approval of the security plan must be obtained from the Office of Drug Control and the Department of Law Enforcement. Funding from the Florida Legislature is contingent upon seaports submitting plans that include "baseline measures and standards data for FY 2001-2002 relating to the effectiveness of security in each port." 102 M s, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: May 17, 2002 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Director DATE: May 9, 2002 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-015 Amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by Creating Section 7.10.24, Interim Community Architectural Standards and by Amending Section 10.00.04, Nonconforming Lots of Record, to Provide for the Elimination of the Restriction Effecting Contiguous Ownership of Nonconforming Lots of Record Attached is a copy of draft Ordinance 02-015 which proposes to make two changes to the County's Land Development Code. The first proposed changes is to the County's Non -conforming Lot Restrictions. Section 10.00.04 of the Land Development Code addressees Nonconforming Lots of Record. A Lot of Record is defined in the Land Development Code as follows: LOT OF RECORD: As used in this code, a lot of record shall mean: (1) Any contiguous quantity of land that is part of an approved subdivision recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court; or (2) Any contiguous quantity of land which is capable of being described with such definitiveness that its location and boundaries are established, and which has been so recorded in the public records in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court prior to January 9, 1990, unless otherwise considered to be a nonconforming lot of record as described in Section 10.00.04 of this Code; or (3) Any contiguous quantity of land which is the subject of an agreement for deed or otherinstrument of conveyance properly executed prior to January 9, 1990, and which describes the parcel with such definitiveness that its location and boundaries are established and recognized by Florida Law, unless otherwise considered to be a nonconforming lot of record as described in Section 10.00.04 of this Code. A Nonconforming Lot of Record is any lot that fails to meet the current minimum yard requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, butthat because of when it was created, is afforded some latitudes in the ability of the property owner to obtain an building permit. However, these same regulations that afford some use of the property, also currently treat contiguous ownership or groupings of non -nonconforming lots as essentially one parcel for development purposes. Division ,, May 9, 2002 Subject: Draft Ord. 02-015 Page 2 of those properties, even back to the lots platted or described parcel lines, is not allowed unless the parcel to be separated can be made to conform with the current zoning requirements for the area in which they are located. Recently the County has been approached about a situation in the south /central part of the County, where a group of parcels that failed to meet the minimum road frontage requirement of the County's Land Development Code and were under common or contiguous ownership and therefore considered to be one parcel for the purposes of our codes, were later redivided and sold to a third party with the intention of that third party of building a home on the property. When the new property owner came to the County to inquire about a building permit, after they had already bought the property without checking with the County as to the building potential of the parcel, it was reported to that party that the parcel was not considered eligible for a building permit since it was the product of an illegal division of an nonconforming lot of record. The recreated parcel lacks frontage onto a County roadway or a private roadway built in accord to County codes. The unimproved dirt tracks accessing this property serve as a means of legal ingress/egress, but because the parcel was the product of an unsanctioned division of a non -conforming property, current County codes do not allow us to consider the parcel as buildable. To address this situation staff was asked to review our codes and propose an amendment that could make this re-created parcel buildable. In reviewing our codes, and given the particulars of the case that brought this matter forward, the only way that we have been able to determine to make the parcel in question buildable, is to remove the current restriction of treating contiguous ownership as one parcel. There are no other alternatives to "get around" this basic restriction. Draft ordinance 02-015 provides for the deletion of the relevant language of Section 10.00.04 of the Land Development Code. The second change included in this ordinance provides forthe establishment of Interim Architectural Standards that would apply to all areas of he unincorporated County as minimum criteria for all new construction or substantial expansion to existing building or structures or building in areas zoned Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Office, Commercial General, Institutional, Religious Facilities, Planned Unit Development (Commercial Components Only), Planned Non-residential Development and Planned Mixed Use Development. These design standards are not intended to stifle imagination nor curtail variety but ratherthey are forthe purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community appearance. These interim design standards are patterned after the existing community architectural standards found in the City of Port St. Lucie and are intended to serve as a short term regulation until a broader set of community design criteria is developed. It is anticipated that this boarder review process will be conducted within the next 12 months. Staff recommends that your forward draft Ordinance 02-015 to the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions, please let us know. DJM OR02-015MEM01(H) cc: County Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 02-015 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CREATING SECTION 7.10.24, INTERIM COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND BY AMENDING SECTION 10.00.04, NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE RESTRICTION EFFECTING CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD; PROVIDING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determination: 1. On August 1, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2. The Board of County Commissioners has adopted certain amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, through the following Ordinances 91-03 - March 14, 1991 91-09 - May 14, 1991 91-21 - November 7, 1991 92-17 - June 2, 1992 93-01 - February 16, 1993 93-03 - February 16, 1993 93-05 - May 25, 1993 93-06 - May 25, 1993 93-07 - May 25, 1993 94-07 - June 22,-1994 94-18 - August 16, 1994 94-21 - August 16, 1994 95-01 - January 10, 1995 96-10 - August 6, 1996 97-01 - March 4, 1997 97-09 - October 7, 1997 97-23 - September 2, 1997 99-01 - February 2, 1999 99-02 - April 6, 1999 99-03 - August 17, 1999 99-04 - August 17, 1999 99-05 - July 20, 1999 99-15 - July 20, 1999 99-16 - July 20, 1999 Underline is for addition Sbike Through is for deletion Ordinance #02-015a Page 1 Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/10/02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 99-17 - September 7, 1999 00-10 - June 13, 2000 00-12 - June 13, 2000 01-03 - December 18, 2001 02-09 - xxxxxx xx, 2002 99-18 - November 2, 1999 00-11 - June 13, 2000 00-13 - June 13, 2000 02-05 - xxxxx xx,2002 3. On , 2002, the Local Planning Agency/ Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance after publishing notice in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune at least 10 days prior to the hearing and recommended that the proposed ordinance be approved. 4. On . 2002, this Board held its first public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune on XXXX, 2002. 5. On , 2002, this Board held its second public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune on XXXXX, 2002. 6. The proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code are consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the health safety and public welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: PART A. THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO READ AS FOLLOWS, INCLUDE: Ordinance #02-015a Draft #1 Underline is for addition Strikh is for deletion Page 2 PRINT DATE: 05/10/02 2 3 4 CHAPTER X HARDSHIP RELIEF 10.00.00 NONCONFORMITIES 10.00.04 NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD A. LOTS OF RECORD CREATED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1984 In any district, principal permitted structures and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record existing before July 1, 1984, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this Code. Sueh lot mtjst be in separate ownership amd not eentiquetis to other lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area, or width, or frontage or any combination of the three that are generally applicable in the district, provided that yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area, or width, or frontage of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. Variance of yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area, width, and frontage shall be obtained only through action of the Board of Adjustment. If however, the lot has no frontage as defined in Chapter 11, then proof of recorded legal ingress and egress acceptable to the County Attorney must be furnished before a building permit will be issued except for nonresidential accessory structures in AR-1, AG-1, AG-2.5 and AG-5 zoning districts. - •:= .. B. LOTS OF RECORD CREATED BETWEEN JULY 1, 1984 AND JANUARY 9, 1990 In any district, principal permitted structures and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record created in accordance with the requirements of the St. Lucie County Zoning Ordinance between July 1, 1984, and January 9, 1990, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this Code. Ordinance #02-015a Draft #1 Underline is for addition StrikeThrough is for deletion Page 3 PRINT DATE: 05/10/02 I CHAPTER V11 2 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT 3 STANDARDS 4 5 6 7.10.00 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 7 8 7.10.24 Interim Community Architectural Standards 9 10 A. General 11 12 The Interim Community Architectural Standards setforth in this section are to apply to all areas of 13 he unincorporated county as a minimum crtiera for all new construction or substantial expansion 14 to existing building or structures or building in areas zoned Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial 15 Office, Commercial General, Institutional, Religious Facilities, Planned Unit Development 16 (Commercial Components Only), Planned Non-residential Development and Planned Mixed Use 17 Development. 18 19 These design standards are not intended to stifle imagination nor curtail variety but rather they are 20 for the purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community appearance. 21 22 23 B. Site Plan Submission Standards: 24 25 (Insert page 2) 26 27 28 C. Interim Design Standards: 29 30 (insert page 3) 31 _ 32 33 ******«***«***************** 34 35 PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. 36 37 Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, 38 County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are Underline is for addition Strike Through is for deletion Ordinance 802-015a Page 4 Draft k1 PRINT DATE: 05/10/02 hereby superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. PART C. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall beheld to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance. PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 323( PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State. PART G. ADOPTION. After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows: Chairman Doug Coward XX Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XX Commissioner Paula Lewis XX Commissioner John D. Bruhn XX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX Underline is for addition Strike Through is for deletion Ordinance #02-015a Page 5 Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/10/02 I PART H. CODIFICATION. 2 3 Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, 4 and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the 5 sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided, 6 however, that parts B through H shall not be codified. 7 8 9 PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this day of , 2002. 10 11 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 13 14 15 16 BY: 17 Deputy Clerk Chairman 18 19 20 21 22 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND 23 CORRECTNESS: f 24 25 26 27 BY: 28 County Attorney 29 30 31 32 33 34 16 Dim 01-015a(Lndcod0l-H) Underline is for addition StrikeThrough is for deletion Ordinance #02-015a Page 6 Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/10/02 Ci •ry W I .O .Pon( c c c0 ai 6. f1 N 4. o v'o cc > n. o ca � o b U �m 4 •3 .d N "d vi � c •b EnY � U U cc aS tu � 01 c v � cd U � Q ~ O .j-- o an a.) a) s~ = U r +C� d yc� bA cc cn a� k ti U N cd 4C13-� O • al O O •� o ;= o > a� o O > 0 .Y � 'bo b a°)i 3 b C b vi Cd N y d d N .0 U U O a� En O O " cd 'O0 _ V) C's— CA a ca aU v, 4, = a0i Cd _ O O O y 5 N O '� N O G .N U p CO C w (0 C �' N • 3 d 'n En O a� U D CL O UO � 0 sz: O Cl)0...._. O En .0 v� t7 vz b bD d 3 a� o � CO d OA . � � d • tU.. U a Cd Q.) cd Cd, 0 o CO s' a� ._OGd,:,r U CL C�gz . U v 3 :5 o. —cls O QJ O+ CIS vn El) -C-- U N 3 o ; txp cc C;5 3 N i* Cn 'O d4 -- co O N .D .� .0 .� O ..." U G r N � O t~ ct N b -O > U � ti n. c c� w n. a�Ca En ca •i-� .0.. O ' Q) tV.. U 4'i VV, "� .N-. 4-a 'U asbb In ts C N O N txG r y 0 G1 V O> N cd to 4r 0 D cd bA b V N on on o N C: co id V aVi 4- V U cn U O O .0 O U)O cd " N r~ 'Z! N CQ O ,� CC N � 0 cn En 0 Enlr O .1 t� b � cis " •v °' cd a� o x cd O 4; cd .b a" O o °� c''' •� cd N En � G L• '� O ,�, cd ... y.. O• •� cn ti N cd O >, .� O cH , , a .N p cd CIS OD N .b cd U a) V) a ::j v n cv V A cd 0> W a �� o I cd y N o C t _..•.d�nog uii�e� �- (n t« 3AIUG SS33JV a3HVHS -----i. En 0 z .Se '� �' a. a�i a�i cd c� • � `� � � mid U � .+ y y � •cam cd cc U sue. cd cd CXO b.0 cd U o 'd O O cd O id w b O O � N v1 v � • � �' ~ N on � 3 0 pI O r- co O co v a o 0 o.-- O N -0 O -, O � � N O [i. O U .. as .0 d v i y on awn o !' a.. c tzt C: t3 cc c cfi) aI-' �w v a� C c a v ro U G U ,J 0 C C O O NLcls 14 a. -0 SM.. cad -0 U � � cd N cl) x Ll W Q u N W i.. bA r4 M t 3 W) '-• O = v) 'O _ b N C cd > 3 'C U _c - �0 b CIS dA CU R O .D N h a C2 A U¢cc00.3 yr > Q co 0 N "O O cl En co 't7 O in O U t1 N co U U O /1 �. En Cd Cf) O .U. O O o �o -o � U U U> tea, 4 E cd L. ri W H o o U o °' 3o O o o a� C'3 Cd . .� 3 co U �+ sU. O 4-4 G .. O N '� 3 cc h � Obc`'" a —Q 3 —• id Cn cd v� Q U y by n 3 -0 CKS ol o c, n� CKS Q, _ 3 ., o CO as cd CKSCO U cu ZS o .-C O p CIJ O p U 'l7 Y C 0)� 3 w > CO o v co Ei 3 w •� -0 3 a� v 3 a0i c o >, o (1) , aY En N ;b " N y O rn •«, s a a�i is o ao an o > cKS c� v) �G as �- 'OICJ 'C3 O N O b v) ,C -0 O C0 � � ¢ N N U � Cn o C]. N O b °o° o o w y `� o v [. o o a�i y o o n ❑ '� — cO—J—� " O a ZS O p a -d OD w cz a- a� co co w 0 v� O cn �.. w -5 L5.. a� o .-: Q • . . • • • . . • . W ^i N n uiul �Zl ra T N C o. w a U L a C O .a 00 ,0 �`�o o o cv� 0 oo o _ can o � al o _ > td 0 cd N i s o p� 3 �_ ca cd .0 a) b v' . ' cd cd a) E "o to ricd U v cd $:: " N ^o va ai >a� En wCao a� -� ° �• ai co En o Ed 4 * 00 ti cd U _o F" N N OU N ' a) O Ei N w. N off~+ Cfi to bU O ° 4, cc U d cd dA >c3 O � N bO +> 0 cdo CKS c° 7:1 o Cl) 0 OcU U `+ o d Oa) cn a) 4 N O ,~ N C p> aS cd Oo c. b N> o o o oa cU Ei M o � o > �� h ~° bM )oC a - 4 O � O O � O cd Op cl b0 cd • N cd w W � N W w O Q s O _ _ _ Uj _C bo.0 v t cd fl U 'O Q.)4� 03 U G4 e o "L7 -o au � o w co o y o U 0 �- 4) 0 3 a� � 3 v_.� o a) 00 C—) u4 w 0o O� O •--� N M d' -- •-•• N N N N N -C..1 y ^ma�yy O W (� "'' i•-M iJ a� 0 = 1. $.. O E Y co O vyi O v! �r.y ��yy �El M .� b U w co a o O I CISV � • . N cV a. [o a� °�° ;a °= 00 rs 00 o r- o N cd c2 i 0 o a' a� OD -0 m a) (U �„ �„ ) C . — 00 :M . N R. o . N Y 3 i-- Q, cu . — aN' 3 " c.> O o a� d c ..o 0 ,, U c N 0) o c. O � � � a. b- G a v ca .D O .1 cd c O w NO3 co� " U Q) C O -• N &0) N b C� cc •r�1 cu , � p e M cC C3. c �i+ y co cS o � � x w c co .D p. O .to En 03 aY O a -0 N M v OO V tj cad Cj O W c.. w O t. O O U t. U 0 0 4) Ncu y� �• ai • 3 M � °' p o co U co N O N O V Y ) cd bA 0 O v) ap4 O O O OA n r:: M `' O � N U ti O co -C: �` d OJ O 0 N En t- p O U as U O En 0 o w 0> w 0 c 03 cl,Q c r-4 Umw 3 h L- o .E O 3 ��+ 4r O - Q N L1, .-p•. •.� O Q) Ctu w N O O ao �0 0 on No > of N O. ,n U t N 00 OU ..0 .. ra. OA vi En" -0 En . W CZEn o 0 co U U (A m At a, .D 0 CL O .0 E N tL., CL O V C. ro cu R. rA _A v u C�) .f� Cd Cr ca _ O .OU . cn Ai O 0.>\O N CS C V CC • A CC 'co 4 0 'U CC one N°a.o 0 U 3 C a0 0 O O O rr CZ c bD u ..0.. C .N O 4r .0 �. CO cl �. 0 U °Y' ti 0 h E °N° °' ca ° �' o " V Q 0 U i]. " u 0 0 •'� 0Ln O ca `� N 3z " � .co 3 �. c° r 4 NEn Y o> .� o Q) o p on c o Y c . _ cn C -,0u C] U N p c Y o m o i b m ?� LL C v X ro E v N c ro G E L 00 2 L a J W CL v c m 0 a, a t- C .o O b0 O J v E m Z N � •--' cri O u O 0 co co ca 0 -f. 4-4 s. t--. +� s. 0 u O O > t.. O O 4� Y >~ O O C; O Q.)O N u � Y O O TCc �C O Lr Ej _'. _O OD Cd vi O Y O C rA d o N O > u as L. o 'c7 O Y 3 cd C S.w N D s V :? O CO U -o cd dA O Cn w . O . E 0 0 o c 0, n o bo cs. ^ a� v OD $- a •0 -0 in -cs uo En u N «S - y bA 'C� w U 0 O D E O� O N 'fl O Op - CiA �' 3 r+ ci NO o vi E cn °) & o . N O co" C cui o_ �- 0_ D O �. a' O O u ap C O cn CI 4~ c .� -& Oroo r .N 0 c" cz' Q o u cn o U �, on c u c n :: Sa. 0 C C �j A C�� cn rn u. N O i. C1 Q C's cn cn r i .0 Q � � ' cn � ' o 0 3� v 0 Lc. N u 0 '� � � _ o •' L.t. � 0 'C3 ._U h -- rV M rf w r-� 00 w 7-2 O t: C > ti ca Chi C OJ OA II. CXO C x .ob oA o0 0 — N bA> o o is � Q U N .b �O N N 'U V O U co co 4r 4 w ca > U Cd co o w, ti CO (°Saoc-i-o U •� N � d Op O U w U N N d X z (U�. 1- b O 0 0 0 8.�.42 -0-0w 116 V o c o cn � En)co w 3 U -0 O N . OA c� kkn o kn Lo .b 3 O a o ca N o' o o .COCd U v C >, 0) , En o cn E O OQ C C U_ y O OD ODD CID In cl, En • -" ca .—. N M l O 0 — s. r 0.> -v — 0) 0) � cn C &. w of '� 3 ca = O Y� 0 0 o w ccli � 3 o ,� 0 0 � o w 3 Cli r �. cq o 3 ai o o ca a� 0 OD -� o cv On N - o as 0 CD m cn O O O ..co b CO -0 -b cn -p ?, co RS fn Oo�o OA _O a o N 3 0 [ X o> ca W 4ca v) any V : o o Q M y " �; o ti C O C OD N 0) C N O ZS o O d vi cq O t Ei Qv i W Op p C CZ 3 Q o > o O h Q 0 cOa 00 -2 J Ln z a) x • � z a�i w x •h q cNo _� �t- Nn "D cz ._O O 9 ^L7 1`. ca cis 4-1 Cl) tb A a cl Ci] bA A LJ � cdEn a �. • '> O cn 0 3 o o .g o -a kn Cd -izl � -0 3 '�? o a� u to c _ 0 o N cn N w X � � G _N N N CO cd O N 0. O C L7 , 0 .a bD w b :,. N G +� b G ' -0 0 -0 ' cd 1 O U bD co G U L U '� •h0 Cd o d0 cd w N cNd m L -0 N N L N O o �. a' w Q. yUy C. U cd •N b LL'N O p 0 N O «S O w 0 jj v En �o w -now En U U .�+ O o .+ C's b N • y ."''. cii tn O O O 0 w U Cc -Q .to N o En N cd Q. bcr° > :x o'D-b.N O cz r- cadCc -. c.. cd CIS O N N •b oD Q 44: cd y� cd G G O ~O G N N bA CZCA O C c 4] Cd Q W1 . a N N 0 co ..fl cz Cd a� 0 co G OD CC66 OA cd N N O � X x �. .Ui a • tCjj G _ ta0 ca N U L G � N G N N C OGO o cd S. ca N vczF-�w . . . . N by CaA G " cd� Y N CO 0 r G O G? G ob CO C]..0 N U X �C/) C1-. C/] Cn co S 40. A N ON N t%j Un PP4- IV C I w w W Baal, 1110 r Vvrnt:::F•;�� w � � Dal zl- MWE 9 I 4 TJ • a. .or ob oil w_.; v � elolo-7 I M ca 4 -0 o o o o i ^ U 0 O � c - c a4 c E a� U � , . E Cs O U L a� N cd X UU cU C Y UO O O Cca c L i O N 0 O -a -6 C bU cd CO U N D o NC IIvC co �O °v . C UO OD = dU O 4. d - E bU O •b vi y U y C h G .'t7 C •_� E 44� cd vi cd C O 0 as L N O r .O cu cc -0 t c r 0) E .0 co Cd w 'cd 'N .0 C cd 3 y k 8 0 _ � Y 0 ,^ N `� �„ u cd c� cd n. O y o .� L a) L Y °' . td � y •c H. L L iy O y � C cn L v'Ji cO. O En OL �, �.: N C C cd C +-' C >> cd U E' cd 3 G ' O L c .D L u E 0 L o n a� cd t3 ca - L O C u N n Y N ° L `'-, 0 0 0 ° L, d0 x a+ En a `n =� cd O U 0 CO C N C> CCU OL 0 O 0 E L-.= op L 3 •� .c`d, c4+C N O c GD 0 G ' O �+ o- C aS O CO c; C N 0 3 C id Y U 0 0 .d �. - L C C— cd pD 0. Y 3 `'-' L O 0 0. O acd , - o 3 .0 u cd rn U c id v) 3 .__. ¢ .D C -0 O G U 0. C C N cEA 0 � I •r ,, �' ec_n oco cs to Q u o �' ' Q o b a�cl a� _ cnaNi bU .L. O U a U 3 O U h L3. A Cd w �}: w o O = •� 44 .o -0 y, 3 w m C7 t. cd C7 w 0 cn x '> x L r., O O cd �O -p cd N cd cd U L V CU N GQ p as 0 O O Gam. bQ O xi N N y .... O 'O C O E L O O 3 L 4. C. O cri - = G •cj R C b o cz cd O x on c ca. 03 a L. ,, 3 o co afA i cc o r_ i L O cz 0 a`a 0 o .�' c%J-0 Y 0 o 0 E v[ w H ccl N n u U U c'' o w C O m CC = 3co.. c s > c c N c c 0 oU o n on o 3 to u �; c o o c cn u o > `� > °c_° �' onx a E >l C 4. G cd a °' o L C—+ cd 00 00 0 CC7 p_ 0 to a. 0 > cd > 0 > :3 N" N 3 o cKIc c o �d o:3 in o C 0 0 E tCL LA En al C > o 0 O N U fl. U tC. N O y L N °° 'L3 L y E c 3 Ln 7 Y �, h as Ems- a — °c' ai c > • 1�1 N L .U. U N 'C7 _ N •> N co N y C O U OU > N ` T G Q •^ cd C R Q O N N c.U., N N O U = r•y _ O N U U •�y cd CU (— V pp �_ y¢ C O O U O = U U & C Q 0L a. � caQ03 ca Ccd Ca .3 InCO - a o o c LE o n 0cd"O cl C In oU 0 cd � c aU QO , >, cz cLULy„ >1 Q E . O c0 OCc ..bC_ 0ca cLa .00 0 u'r O uc L CC CJ d N an 0 L ZN Q v > o co C q o U C U 3 U E n QL .0 ° -0 N N EM 1 St. Lucie County � 2 Ott NXa�VA< Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minn REGULAR MEETING May 16, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Jones, Mr. Akins, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Hearn, Mr. McCurdy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Matthes and Mr. Trias (Both Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman McCurdy 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 Mr. Lounds stated that he had seen a news article covering a Board of County Commissioners meeting and their comments concerning the Property Maintenance ordinance that was previously handled by them. He stated that he felt there was possibly a misunderstanding by the Board regarding the information they had worked with. He also stated that he felt the Planning and Zoning Commission/LPA did an excellent job in what they were asked to do and was a little concerned as to why any Commissioner would question their ability to make decisions since they had reviewed and re -reviewed that ordinance for almost a year. He continued that they had been thorough many public hearings regarding that ordinance and handled it to the best of their ability. He stated that the Commission's discussions were with regards to air vents and he stated he was not sure they had ever thought about that. He stated that he felt himself and maybe some other members could have misconstrued the Commissioner's comments but they felt it sounded like they were stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission/LPA were not doing what they were asked to do. Chairman McCurdy 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 May 16, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: April 18, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Lounds moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE NO.02-002 — Future Land Use Change: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were both the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. He stated that Staff had asked for additional information from the petitioner and were originally under the impression that they had used up one of their DCA cycles. He continued that they found out that EAR based amendments do not count towards the two cycles they are allowed to submit each year and therefore have time to allow the petitioner more time to compile additional information regarding their requests. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 2 & 3 both be continued until June 20 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 McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr: Akins stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the June 20, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as recommended. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) to continue this Ordinance until June 20, 2002. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-003 — Extension of the Urban Service Boundary: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were both the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. He stated that Staff had asked for additional information from the petitioner and were originally under the impression that they had used up one of their DCA cycles. He continued that they found out that EAR based amendments do not count towards the two cycles they are allowed to submit each year and therefore have time to allow the petitioner more time to compile additional information regarding their requests. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 2 & 3 both be continued until June 20 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 McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the June 20, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as recommended. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) to continue this Ordinance until June 20, 2002. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 4: T&T LAND LTD. - FILE NO. PA-02-003: Mr. Jones stated that he would recuse himself from Agenda Items # 4 & 5. Mr. Kelly stated that Agenda Items # 4 & 5 are the application of T&T Land LTD. He continued that the applicant had requested a continuance to the July 18t", 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible to allow time for additional information. He stated that Item # 5 is a rezoning that relies upon the approval of Item # 4 and therefore could not be heard until the plan amendment request had been voted on and should also be continued. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as recommended. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0) to continue this Ordinance until July 18, 2002. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 5: T&T LAND. LTD. - FILE NO. RZ-02-007: Mr. Jones stated that he would recuse himself from Agenda Items # 4 & 5. Mr. Kelly stated that Agenda Items # 4 & 5 are the application of T&T Land LTD. He continued that the applicant had requested a continuance to the July 18"', 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible to allow time for additional information. He stated that Item # 5 is a rezoning that relies upon the approval of Item # 4 and therefore could not be heard until the plan amendment request had been voted on and should also be continued. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated that this petition should be continued to the July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as recommended. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0) to continue this petition until July 18, 2002. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 6: GLASSMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. - FILE NO. RZ-02-007: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application of Glassman Development Corporation for a Change in Zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Portofino Shores) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to be known as Portofino Shores — PUD. He stated that the property was located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Turnpike Feeder Road and Spanish Lakes Country Club Boulevard (opposite Holiday Pines S/D). He continued that the applicant was proposing a residential development of 519 Single -Family Units and a one -acre commercial tract on 185.91 acres of land. He also stated that the project would be known as Portofino Shores - PUD. Mr. Flores stated that the Land Development Code requires 35% of the site to consist of open space, a minimum of 15% of which must be native upland habitat preserved in its natural condition. He also stated that the planned development maintains 37% (38.50 acres) of the project area in total open space. He continued that wetlands account for 6.16 acres; developed lakes account for 28.99 acres; 23.90 acres of native upland habitat has been preserved; and 9.45 acres of common area landscape has been provided. He also stated that the remainder of the project of 117.41 acres consists of those areas designated for residential development. Mr. Flores advised that on November 15, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a previous submittal of this plan known as Silver Lake — PUD. He stated that plan consisted of 799- Total Units - 455 Single -Family Lots in Phase I, 344 Multiple -Family Units in Phase II, and one -acre of commercial use in Phase III. He also stated that the Board of County Commissioners directed the developer to resubmit their project with various revisions. He continued that the project was before the Planning & Zoning Commission as a part of that resubmission. He stated that the project was similar to, but less intense than, the project they had recommended for approval previously on November 15, 2001. Mr. Flores stated that Staff had determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan were compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. He also stated that the petition met the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and was not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, Staff recommended that they forward the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Lindsay Walter, Kilday and Associates, stated that they were the land planners for the Glassman Company. He stated that he would like to highlight the revisions and amendments they had made to the original plans presented back in November. He showed a color graphic side -by -side comparison of the original plan and the current proposed plan. He also displayed an aerial photograph that showed Spanish Lakes to the north, Lakewood Park to the west, and Holiday Pines on the opposite side of Turnpike Feeder Road. He stated that the previous site plan was similar to the current proposed plan but that the primary difference is that the entire multiple -family section has been deleted and the new development is solely single-family units. He also stated that upland vegetation has been added in the previous multiple -family unit area due to information obtained from tree surveys. He continued that a connection to Turnpike Feeder Road had also been deleted and now there are only three access points to the development. He stated there would be one at the south end, one at the main entrance and one to P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 8 the commercial piece. He also stated that the overall dwelling unit count was reduced by two hundred and eighty units. He stated that the density was reduced from 4.3 units per acre to 2.79. He continued that an access point to the commercial portion off of Spanish Lakes County Club Boulevard was also deleted. He stated that they have had numerous meetings with Staff and they also held neighborhood meetings with the residents of Spanish Lakes as well as other interested parties and everyone was fairly happy with the new plans. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr.. Bob Bangert from Holiday Pines questioned if the developer must come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission when they decide to develop the commercial portion of the property. Mr. Flores stated that was not correct and that their request this evening is for the residential portion, as well as the commercial portion. He stated that they would only have to go before the Board of County Commissioners for the final approval of the commercial area. Mr. Bangert stated that the original plan was asking for a convenience store with gas pumps and he questioned if they must come back before the Planning & Zoning Commission for that or not. Mr. Flores stated that the Commission would consider what possible uses there could be on that commercial site tonight along with the rest of the plan. Mr. Walter stated that they are asking the Planning and Zoning Commission for preliminary approval of the site plan. He stated that they have already submitted for final approval of the residential portion of the development but not for the commercial section because they do not have a user for that piece right now. Ms. Dorothy Davis, a resident of Spanish Lakes County Club Village stated that there were many residents present to give their support for this new proposal. She stated that their major concerns about the original project have been addressed and taken care of. She continued that they are a little concerned about a possible increase in traffic and also the speed limit on that road. She stated that they would like to see the County put in a blinking traffic light at the entrance of their development to help slow down some of the speeders on that road. She also stated that the new plan does include sidewalks and that helps the bikers and walkers along that area. She stated that they were delighted with the final plan especially because it allows for more open land. She continued that they had previously had busloads of residents come to the meeting and that there were quite a few residents with her who were in favor of the project. Mr. Hearn complimented the members of the public who participated in the process. He stated that he was excited to see a developer come together with the surrounding residents and come up with a revised plan that everyone can agree on. He continued that public input is very important to the process and he thanked the members of Spanish Lakes and the other surrounding property owners for taking their time to participate in the process. Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande asked Staff if the entire parcel is being submitted as a PUD and how the commercial section fits into a Planned Unit Development because he believed it should be a PNRD. Mr. Kelly stated that there is a provision within the PUD to allow for a limited amount of commercial property in the project and this project falls within those guidelines. Mr. Grande questioned if the PUD could be approved with the residential area planned out and the commercial portion not planned yet. Mr. Kelly stated that was allowed. He continued that preliminary approval of any planned development goes before the Planning & Zoning Commission for recommendation and then before the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that the final approval would only go P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 9 before the Board. Mr. Grande confirmed that the Planning and Zoning Commission would not see the final submitted plan with the commercial portion laid out because it goes before the Board only. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant has stated they would be willing to bring their final plan back before the Planning and Zoning Commission to show the plans for the commercial portion. Mr. Hearn asked Staff to explain why the original plan that they recommended for approval was changed so much and is now back before them again. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the previous plan but when it went before the Board of County Commissioners there was a significant number of people who asked for a change and the developer agreed to make the changes. He continued that the process just improved the project. Mr. Grande stated that he did attend the Board of County Commissioners meeting and that it was his understanding that there was some confusion regarding the Industrial Extraction land being used in the density calculations. Mr. Kelly stated there was a lot of discussion regarding those issues but as far as he could see the previous calculations were correct. Mr. Akins questioned if the configuration of the entrance was Suson and Indian Pines Boulevard were going to require any changes to the Turnpike Feeder Road. Mr. Kelly questioned if he was asking about turn lanes and Mr. Akins confirmed that was correct. Mr. Kelly stated he believed that turn lanes already existed on that road but he would review the plan. Mr. Walter stated that he did confirm with the engineer. that full turn lanes were going to be provided at those intersections. Mr. Lounds 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 Glassman Development Corporation, for a Change in Zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple -Family — 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Portofino Shores) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to the known as Portofino Shores — PUD because it is an improved site from what was originally approved and well suits the neighborhoods. He stated the public's comments regarding the applicant bringing the commercial portion of the plan back and making sure full turn lanes be provided before going for final approval to the Board of County Commissioners should also be included in the motion. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 6-0 and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM7: GULFSTEAM NATURAL GAS SYSTEM - FILE NO. CU-02-002: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a segment of the Gulfstream Natural Gas Pipeline to enter St. Lucie County. The subject property is primarily Utilities in zoning. She stated that the proposed pipeline is a 744- mile long interstate pipeline and would originate onshore in Mississippi and Alabama that would travel across the Gulf of Mexico and make landfall in Manatee County, Florida, extending across the state. She continued that the pipeline would enter St. Lucie County at the Martin/St. Lucie County jurisdictional line, travel north to the Midway Road/I-95 Corridor. She stated this is the first segment and once approved the applicant would submit a request for the second Conditional Use Permit for the next phase, which would go from St. Lucie County to Indian River County. She also stated that during the construction of the facility the applicant would be required to obtain all rights from each of the individual property owners in order to construct the pipeline across the properties. She continued that the pipeline would cross three roadways in St. Lucie County: Glades Cut -Off Road, Range Line Road and Commerce Center Drive. She stated that the applicant has already obtained the State and Federal permits for the proposed pipeline and that their request is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive plan. She also stated that it does meet the standards in the Land Development code and therefore recommending approval of the applicant's request. Mr. Brian O'Higgins, 1108 SE Lakeview Drive, Sebring, Florida stated he was the Director of Engineering and Construction for Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems. He stated that he had a large map to display and some aerial photography to the Commission and the public could review the entire project to understand it's conception and how it relates to St. Lucie County. He also stated that they had pamphlets, which give information regarding the company, the project and various other aspects regarding the entire project. He advised that this project extends crosses approximately fourteen miles of the county. He stated that the project was brought before several other counties within the State through the FEC and there was a lengthy permitting process through the Federal Government to prove there was a public need and necessity for the project. He also stated that they had to prove that the project was constructed in a manner that would minimize impacts to the environment. He stated the FEC issued a certificate of public need and necessity to the Gulf Stream Natural Gas System in February 2001. He continued that the certificate was amended in March 2002 to phase the project into two phases. He stated that the original application that was submitted was to begin construction in June 2001 and complete construction in June 2002. He continued that they elected to build the project in phases due to the size of the project and they will construct it over a two-year period. He also gave a copy of their amended certificate to each member of the Commission. Mr. O'Higgins stated that parallel to the FEC process the project participated in the team permitting process with the Florida DEP over the past two years. He stated that DEP did issue a permit to them through that process and was issued in March 2001, which included numerous mitigation sites that are currently nearing completion, the closest being in Lake Wales. He also stated that they are currently nearing completion of construction of Phase 1, which includes all of the facilities in Alabama, Mississippi, the portion that crosses the Gulf of Mexico, and the portion that is in Manatee, Hardee, Polk and Osceola Counties, Florida. He continued that the portion in Phase 2, which includes an extension out through Okeechobee County and into St. Lucie County, is currently scheduled to begin construction in February 2003. He stated they P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 11 would construct from the west to the east and that the pipeline consists of approximately 14.4 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline and would, for the most part, be co -located with the FEC railroad and the FPL power line right-of-way. He also stated that there is a .35-mile portion, which would extend under I-95. He continued that there is a one main line valve setting and a meter station, which would measure the gas that is delivered to the proposed customers. He stated there are two railroad crossings, two county highway crossings, County Road 609 and 709, and one crossing of I-95. He also stated that there are three horizontal directional drills proposed, which is similar to installing a fiber optic where they drill under the driveway, which would be located at I-95, Rim Ditch and County Line Canal. He continued that 3.5 miles of the pipeline parallels the FEC Railroad and 10.6 miles is located within FPL's existing right-of-way. He stated that they are scheduled to begin construction in February 2003 with a completion date of June 2003. Mr. Lounds questioned if they would be going under the SFWM canals and not bridging over them. Mr. O'Higgins confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lounds asked what the depth under the canal would be. Mr. O'Higgins stated it would be between forty to sixty feet below the depth of the canal. Mr. Merritt asked if the wetlands that would be affected would be bored under as well. Mr. O'Higgins stated they would not and that the wetlands that are crossed would be crossed using conventional pipeline construction techniques. He also stated they would strip off and store the topsoil and the ditch where the pipeline is located would be compacted, the topsoil would be placed back on top so that native base returns. He continued that the wetland would be allowed to re -vegetate back to its original condition. He stated that if it were a wooded wetland they would allow the ten -foot over the pipeline to revert back to an herbaceous wetland. He also stated that they would allow the trees to grow back to within twenty -feet in height and the reason for the ten foot section over the pipeline is because it is mandatory for ariel patrols that are conducted and also mandatory by the FDOT so that the corridor can be seen. Mr. Merritt asked approximately how much wetland would be impacted. Mr. O'Higgins stated that the exact figures were located in their submitted information and that it would be in an area that was already previously been impacted by the railroad as well as the power lines. Mr. Grande wanted to verify that the pipeline would be installed completely underground except for the meter station and valves. Mr. O'Higgins verified that was correct. Mr. Grande questioned if there would be any above ground storage facilities. Mr. O'Higgins confirmed that was also correct. Mr. Grande stated he would like those two items added as conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and Mr. O'Higgins stated that would not be a problem, with the exception of the pipeline markers or protection test leads. Mr. Lounds confirmed that they would be following the already existing utility and railroad right-of-ways and therefore would not be breaking any new ground. Mr. O'Higgins stated that was correct. Mr. Kelly showed the transparency, which illustrated the route of the pipeline. Mr. Kelly also stated that they were stating they would go under I-95 and they had the route turning left before I-95 and going north along the substation route. Mr. O'Higgins stated the portion that extends under I-95 is line 601, which extends to the meter and regulator station and is .35 or 1,800 foot of 24-inch pipeline and would lateral off of the main line. Mr. Kelly confirmed that the drawing for the main line was correct and Mr. O'Higgins stated that was right. Mr. Kelly asked what the terminal point was for that section and Mr. O'Higgins stated it would be near Glades Cut -Off Road. Mr. Kelly pointed out to Mr. Grande that section 3.01.01(d) specifically P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 12 explains the need for a conditional use permit. Mr. Murphy questioned if when you come up Glades Cut -Off Road the pipeline goes underneath I-95 and then moves left back towards the power station or if it would stop before I-95 and then make the left and follow the power line corridor up and then terminate at the substation. Mr. Liam Grear stated that where the lateral line extends parallel to Glades -Cut -Off Road to the east side of I-95 where it would meet the meter station and tie into a proposed power plant. Mr. Hearn questioned if their decision tonight was to be based on if the petition meets the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code or is it a matter of if they want this in their communities or not. Mr. Kelly stated their major responsibility is to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grande stated to Mr. Hearn that there is a list of criteria for decision making listed in the Land Development Code which are sufficiently broad and inclusive so that if they feel this is not the right project for the County, that is enough to base their decision on. Mr. Hearn questioned Staff if that was correct. Mr. Kelly stated this application would need to be considered just as any other conditional use application would be. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including Staff Comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.67.03, 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 grand approval to the application of Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a segment of a natural gas line from the St. Lucie/Martin County line north to the Midway Road/I-95 intersection in the U(Utilities) Zoning District because it is within the scope of the applicants request. Mr. Grande questioned if the motion could include as conditions that the pipeline will be installed completely underground except for the meter stations and valves and that there will be no above ground storage facilities, as agreed to already by the petitioner. Mr. Merritt asked the applicant if at some point in the meter station there would be a need to bring that gas to the surface or any storage in that facility. Mr. O'Higgins stated that within the meter station the piping is brought above ground and there are electronics on the pipe and they do include a two hundred and fifty gallon tank in the event there is condensate in the pipe because it is designed to be dry and that would be covered under the conditions requested. Mr. O'Higgins asked that they add an exception for those pertinences required by FDOT. Mr. Merritt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including Staff Comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grand approval to the application of Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a segment of a natural gas line from the St. Lucie/Martin County line north to the Midway Road/I-95 intersection in the U(Utilities) Zoning District with the following condition: P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 13 The pipeline will be installed completely underground except for the meter stations and valves and any pertinence required by FDOT. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 8: RAYMOND THOENNISSEN - FILE NO. RZ-02-010: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments stated that Agenda Item # 8 was the application of Raymond Thoennissen for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for property located at 3250 North Kings Highway, which is designated as MXD Airport (COM/IND) on the Future Land Use map. She stated that the purpose of the requested change was to allow the expansion of the existing Airport Storage facility. She also stated that the area in question has been undergoing a change from agricultural land to the more intense commercial industrial land over the past few years. She continued that the subject property is divided by the existing Airport Storage facility to the west, Pippin Tractor to the south, and citrus groves to the north and east. She stated that the County's Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.7.4 designates this area as MXD Airport Mixed Use Development Area and Figure 1-10D outlines the uses permitted as Commercial, Industrial, T/U, or P/F. This requested change in zoning is not expected to impact any of the public facilities in the area. She continued that the request is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and meets the standards as set in the Land Development Code. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of this request. Mr. Raymond Thoennissen, 5910 Silver Oak Drive, stated that this request is just an expansion of what they are currently doing. He stated that when they purchased the property the gentleman before them had it zoned so he could build a private residence on that portion but they would rather use it to expand their storage facility. Mr. Merritt asked who the previous owner of the property was. Mr. Thoennissen stated it was Adam Pippin. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bob Bangert, Holiday Pines, questioned how close this property is to the new proposed alternate runway, which is supposed to be 2,500 feet above and west of the existing runway that may be established. Ms. Snay stated she would have to check into that for a definite answer. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn questioned if there were any home in the immediate area. Ms. Snay stated that currently it is primarily grove land with Pippin Tractor and the existing airport storage near there and a church further to the north but no homes within five hundred feet. Mr. Merritt asked if this property borders the airport property. Mr. Thoennissen stated that to the north of the property is a grove and as far as he knows the grove owner still has that property. He also stated that there is approximately 13 acres surrounding this property and Pippin Tractor owns it all as far as he knows. He stated that he believes there was a different grove, which is further north that was included in the expansion of the airport. Mr. Hearn asked Staff what kind of access this property has to Kings Highway. Ms. Snay stated that when it is developed it would be part of the existing access right off of Kings Highway next to Pippin Tractor. Mr. Hearn questioned how that access is provided. Ms. Snay stated it is part of the same parcel of land owned by the airport industrial park. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 15 Mr. Jones stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including Staff Comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, 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 Raymond Thoennissen, for a Change in Zoning from the AR- 1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District, because it is an appropriate use for the site and is an appropriate change. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 16 AGENDA ITEM 9: PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE. INC - FILE NO. RZ-02-011: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items # 9 and 10 would be presented together. She stated that Agenda Item # 9 was the application of Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District and # 10 was for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris for approximately 9.9 acres of land. She stated the subject property is located north of Orange Avenue approximately 5 3/4 miles west of Minute Maid Road and one mile north of the entrance to Wynne Ranch. She continued that within the U (Utilities) Zoning District an air curtain incinerator is allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. She also stated the subject property is surrounded by AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) to the north, south, east, and west. She stated the current uses in the surrounding area are primarily of an agricultural nature. She advised that Table 1.5 of the Future Land Use Element indicates that the U (Utilities) Zoning District is an appropriate Zoning District for the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) land use designation. Ms. Snay stated that an air curtain incinerator as defined by Chapter 17.256, F.A.C., is a portable or stationary combustion devise that directs a plane of high velocity forced draft air through a manifold head into a pit with vertical walls in such a manner as to maintain a curtain of air over the surface of the pit and a re -circulating motion of air under the curtain. She continued that an air curtain incinerator is designed to destroy trees, brush and stumps in a safe controlled burning process. She stated that if the air curtain incinerator is operated correctly the increased combustion time and the turbulence of the air results in the complete combustion of the loaded land clearing debris with a significant reduction in emissions. She also stated that the air curtain incinerator is required to be permitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as well as St. Lucie County. She advised that the petitioner is seeking to operate the air curtain incinerator as an alternative to the open burning of debris resulting from the clearing of land. Staff has reviewed this petition and has found that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, therefore recommending approval of the applicant's request. Mr. Rick Farrell stated he was an attorney in St. Lucie County and would be speaking on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that the site is located wholly within Wynne Ranch, which is approximately 5,000 acres in the western part of the County. He also stated that the closest it comes to any property line is 1.400 feet and is completely surrounded by orange groves. He advised that the site is one mile north of Orange Avenue so it should not be visible from the roadway and would have negligible impacts on any surrounding property. He also stated that an air curtain incinerator burns vegetative material at between 2,000 and 2,800 degrees, which would essentially leave ash and is a desirable soil amendment that could be spread on the ground to improve soil. He continued that the site would limit its hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and are anticipating that approximately 15-18 loads would be delivered to the site during that time period, which averages less than two trucks per hour traveling on Orange Avenue to the site. He stated that there were some concerns that household refuse would be burned on the site. He advised that the only thing that would be burned would be debris from land clearing by Port St. Lucie Tractor Service. He also stated this would not be a wholesale operation where any company could bring their debris to be burned. Mr. Merritt questioned why they chose to go to the western boundary of the county when there are so many vacant groves that have been taken out of production that are closer to the need. Mr. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 17 Farrell stated that initially mostly Wynne Ranch would generate the vegetative material that needs to be incinerated. He stated there is already an existing relationship between them and there is a necessity for this type of operation on that site. He continued that he felt it was a good location for this operation because it has no significant impact on any residential or highly trafficked area in that section of the county. He also stated there should be virtually no smoke and no odor generated from this project. Mr. Merritt stated that if they were just burning material on site, they would not have to be before the Planning and Zoning Commission they would just go to the forestry service and get a permit. Mr. Farrell stated that in order to do open air burning they would have to go get a burn permit for the day and operating an air curtain incinerator requires a specific permit from the state. He stated that this facility would be utilized for incineration of vegetative material generated not only from the Wynne Ranch, but also from some other areas where Port St. Lucie Tractor Service does land clearing. Mr. Grande stated that it appears that a similar facility was approved but is not adequately monitored or controlled by the County. He stated that it is a nuisance and a health hazard to the surrounding areas and wants to be sure that any future projects would be maintained and not end up in the same situation. Ms. Snay stated that they would have to have stricter conditions of approval. She also stated that she is aware that Code Enforcement and the Department of Forestry have become involved in the issues surrounding Treasure Coast's incinerator operations. She stated that their violations stem from the pit not being the appropriate dimensions and they are stacking material over the manifold which causes the smoke to be more intense. Mr. Farrell stated there is no comparison between how his client operates a business and those who operate the business, which is in violation. He stated that his client has an outstanding reputation in the community and has been very active in the city of Port St. Lucie for more than twenty years. Mr. Grande stated that his concern is less with the operator of the facility but with the County's ability to monitor and control these types of operations. He advised that due to the previous problems he is not sure they should increase the number of facilities of this type until it has been demonstrated that the County can do a better job of controlling and maintaining these types of facilities. He stated that when an incinerator of this type is run correctly, it would be a benefit but when it is not, it is a major problem. Mr. Merritt questioned if the regulations they received with their information were County regulations. Mr. Kelly stated that they were State regulations. Mr. Merritt asked if the County has a set of rules regarding incinerator operation. Mr. Kelly stated that the County relies primarily on the State's rules and regulations regarding these types of operations. He also stated that they have placed items as conditions in the staff report, which are consistent with those rules. He advised that these were the same conditions as the other existing operation received and he stated that part of the problem is figuring out if there are technology issues or operator issues regarding that other company. He stated that the Commission has the option of requesting specific follow-up from the County within a particular amount of time as a condition of approval. Mr.. Merritt stated that he is concerned that there aren't any specific regulations by the County for these incinerators and that the Fire Department doesn't have anyone there to give their input regarding these issues. He also stated that he did vote to approve the previous request and is upset over the problems it has created and is concerned about approving another one. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed with Mr. Merritt and he feels he is not qualified to determine the risks of a facility like this. He stated that he also didn't feel they were qualified to establish the conditions that should be a standard part of a conditional use permit. He advised that he didn't P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 18 feel they should be hearing these types of petitions without some type of expert testimony from people like the Fire Depart and Solid Waste group. He continued that he is hesitant about this due to the problems with the first project that they approved. He stated that this type of facility is a benefit but doesn't believe the County is capable of controlling and monitoring the operation of them. He advised that he would not want to move forward with this until the County could demonstrate that the existing facilities could be run correctly and be monitored properly. Mr. Akins stated he is concerned with the issues regarding if the existing operators are the problem or the technology is the issue. Mr. Kelly stated that those are the main issues and he believes that air curtain incinerators can operate as advertised but he is not an expert. Mr. Akins stated that he is not sure they are qualified to make that decision at this point because there is no expert testimony that it is an operator error not technology issues. Mr. Grande stated that he feels there are problems on both sides because if it is operator error than the County has not shown an ability to ensure proper operation. He stated there has been no testimony in this application indicating there is any improvement contemplated in the County's ability to monitor. He advised that he too doesn't believe this is a technical problem and thinks the County needs to position their selves to make sure adequate inspection and control of these facilities. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt this application was being prejudged without hearing comments from the public or for the client to form a rebuttal. He advised that he is familiar with the current incinerator that is malfunctioning but would like the Commission to take a pause in their comments and take time to hear the public's input. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about the letter received from the concerns of the existing air curtain incinerator. He stated that he didn't feel the issue is if St. Lucie County can oversee every issue is as big of an issue. He questioned what could be done with the debris if it is not burned. Mr. Farrell stated that it would need to go to the landfill or be burned in the open air with the smoke and smell. He also stated that there is a crisis looming in the landfill in St. Lucie County and this is an effort to have any material that doesn't need to go to the landfill to be disposed of by other means. Mr. Hearn asked if this type of material could be ground into mulch. Mr. Kelly stated it could be made into mulch, but experience shows that it either doesn't get used or is illegally buried and causes problems. Mr. Hearn stated that he needs more information from experts regarding the operation of the incinerator before making a decision one way or the other. Mr. Grande stated that he does not agree with Mr. Farrell's statement that St. Lucie County is facing a landfill crisis. He stated that over the past few years the remaining life of the landfill has been extended by the effective work of the departments in that area. He also stated that the County has developed a lot of expertise in handling this kind of waste. He advised that he has no negative assumptions regarding this particular petitioner or these types of facilities if they are correctly run. He stated his issue is with the County's ability to oversee the operation. Mr. Kelly stated that it is his understanding that the other incinerator in question is the subject of an active code enforcement case currently and have been monitored, so the ability is there. Mr. Farrell stated that approximately two weeks ago Mr. Wazny was at the site meeting with the operator to correct the problems so the County has been trying to correct any oversight and deficiencies. Mr. Hearn stated that his observation about the Commission's ability to control what is being approved is not a reflection of the Building & Zoning Department. He stated he was mainly concerned with the historical concerns that the zoning laws are not enforced as strongly as they should be, especially along the corridors. He continued that he doesn't feel a project should be approved or denied solely on the basis of the control of the zoning department. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 19 Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jim Alderman stated he is an adjoining property owner of Wynne Ranch and regrets having to state that he is in opposition of this petition because they are friends of theirs. He stated he does not know the petitioner, Mr. Revels, personally but is against the change in zoning. He advised that the Staff report concludes that the activities are acceptable within agricultural zoning and generally agrees with that. However, this particular petition and location is not in the best interest of the public and St. Lucie County. He stated that the public policy of St. Lucie County is to preserve the environment. He stated that from Rim Ditch out Orange Avenue to the county line is all zoned agricultural and that this change would be the first breach in that zoning. He advised that once one change is made, there could be many more to follow. He stated that the landowners protect the agriculture in this area as well as the current agricultural zoning. He continued that he did not feel this would be in the best interest of the County and would be contrary to the public policy of the County to breach this solid zoning. He stated that the Staff report shows that Orange Avenue has a two hundred foot right-of-way, which is true, but it is still only a two-lane road that is deteriorating and there are no foreseeable plans to widen or improve that stretch of road. He also stated that road is heavily used at this time by citrus trucks and general traffic but adding 18-20 huge dump trucks to that road would have a major impact and should be considered. He advised that the report shows that the debris would be collected from St. Lucie County and the surrounding area. He stated that he is aware that the immediate plan is to just service debris from the Wynne Ranch and St. Lucie County construction sites, but once the zoning change is granted there is nothing to stop people from the surrounding counties to send their debris to this incinerator in our county. He also stated that there have been references made that there are no residences adjacent to the site. He stated that there is nobody living right next to the ten acres but there are many residences within a few miles surrounding the property. He asked that this petition be denied because there are other areas of the county that he could go to that are already zoned appropriately and could be used. Ms. Cynthia Adams, 25305 Orange Avenue, Adams Ranch, stated that the Commission was given a copy of her letter with regards to the problems they have had. She stated that in reading the petition she saw they want to utilize the trench system, which is the same system that the present violating site is using. She advised that Norbert Ferman, who owns a manufacturing plant in Palm City for air curtain incinerators, stated that the trench system does not work well for land debris. She also stated that there might be other incinerators that are monitored more closely and are not a problem, but that is not the case with the one near their home. She stated that Leo Cordeiro from the County's Solid Waste Department knows a lot about these incinerators because he had one at the landfill and doesn't care for them. She also stated that this petitioner should consider putting it out there so it could be monitored more closely. She continued that there is nothing listed in the application or Staff report with regards to the requirements of DEP concerning smoke emissions having 5% opacity. She stated that she spoke with Mr. Wazny and he stated he was aware of those standards. She also stated that the forestry department is not giving permits for air curtain incinerators because there is a ban due to dry conditions. She advised that Mr. Cordeiro told her that none of the land debris goes into the landfill and this it is all chopped, mulched and sold and costs St. Lucie County $20 a ton to do it. She stated that she is sure Mr. Revels runs his business the best that he knows how, but she knows that his trucks have been stopped by the Sheriff's department for not being in compliance with covering the debris in the trucks. She advised that the debris is falling out of his trucks and she feels that if she doesn't keep a watchful eye on these violations nothing gets done. She also P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 20 stated that the impact of the trucks on Orange Avenue would have an effect, especially with it not being repaired. Mr. Dick Wymer, 6675 Orange Avenue stated that approximately 4 miles down from him, Scott Ranch is putting all of the mulch on top of his range and when it rains it makes for top soil. He questioned why there is a need to burn the debris when there are people in the area willing to use it as mulch. He stated that the adding more trucks to Orange Avenue would not work because the road will not hold up. He also stated that there is a two -foot drop off of that road, which could cause a major hazard and there have already been several deaths on that road. He continued that he didn't understand why an incinerator would be needed because everyone else just gets burn permits to dispose of their debris. He stated that he feels if it can be mulched and made in topsoil that should remove any need for it to be burned. Ms. Jean Alderman stated she lives on Orange Avenue about a half a mile into Okeechobee County and has rode behind the uncovered trucks and feels they are dangerous. She also stated she feels there is no need to add more trucks onto that dangerous road where they can fall off of the side. Mr.. Paul Revels, owner of Port St. Lucie Tractor Service stated he has been clearing lots in St. Lucie County for twenty-one years. He advised that he agrees with the input of the public and that he runs his trucks to the best of his ability. He stated that he has spoken to the drivers with regards to covering their loads and also that the landfill does not want their debris. He continued that St. Lucie County has advised him that this request for an incinerator would be his best bet. He also stated that the DEP doesn't have problems with the incinerators and the Division of Forestry doesn't have any problems with them either. He advised that he is only looking to operate the incinerator for five years because he is aware it is a nuisance to the community. He stated that he was currently using an incinerator on Midway Road and thought that if he moved further out it would be better for everyone. He also stated that he doesn't have any other ideas on what to do with the debris and hauling issues. He stated that if his request for an incinerator isn't approved, then his next step would be to grind it into mulch, but he would still have the same amount of trucks on the road. He advised that he was born and raised in St. Lucie County and wants to do what is right for the community. He also stated that he is aware of how dangerous Orange Avenue is but doesn't know what else he can do. Mr. Merritt questioned why he couldn't work something out with the other operators of incinerators in the area to coordinate their efforts. Mr. Revels stated there is too much competition for that market and he has always worked for himself and would like to keep it that way. He also stated that he has worked with the City of Port St. Lucie for twenty years and they recommend him and the Wynne Ranch wouldn't allow him there unless they felt he would do right by the community. He advised that he doesn't believe in open burning and there is a stipulation that you can only haul out to an area for six months at time without this conditional use permit. He stated he could go and burn the debris for six months and then leave and come back for six months, but doesn't want to do that. He advised that he thought it was better for the county to go further west and that only his trucks are going out to Wynne Ranch. Mr. Merritt asked why he doesn't haul it to Martin County. Mr. Revels stated that they do not want the debris in Martin or Indian River County. Mr. Hearn asked if Mr. Revels would have any objections to some strict conditions of approval, which would include it being only his trucks, only land clearing debris and only for five years. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 21 Mr. Revels stated he would not have a problem with that at all and that is actually what is already requested in the conditional use request. Mr. Hearn stated that he is not in favor of making a decision yet because he does not have the expertise to make the informed decision and would rather postpone this petition until at least the June hearing to allow for expert testimony. He also stated that he would be in favor of seeing a demonstration of how an air curtain incinerator is supposed to work. Mr. Revels states that he has seen them work when they are used properly. Mr. Lounds asked if Mr. Revels is operating an air curtain incinerator currently. Mr. Revels stated that is correct and it is on Shinn Road just south of Midway Road. He stated the property belongs to Grades Brothers and he burns there for six months and then is off for six months. He also stated that he agrees with the public and their comments about the other facilities excess smoke but advised when the incinerator is operated properly that doesn't happen. He continued that he is not currently operating that incinerator on Shin Road because Mr. Wazny made him stop and he was told to move the operations further out of town so as to not bother anyone. Ms. Gloria Wymer stated she resides on Highway 68 and it is a peaceful, quiet, isolated country setting. She advised that she is living in the home of her dreams but it is a twenty-two mile drive on a very narrow road with a canal next to it. She stated that fuel, groceries, and newspapers are at least eight miles north of her. She also stated that she does not have pizza delivery or shopping centers where her home is located and that hospitals, police and schools are far away too. She continued that she chose this country life with a lot of inconveniences and if she wanted the city life with noise, pollution and convenience she would have reside on Indian River Drive where she owns real estate. She requested that pastures, farmland, and groves be kept agricultural because there are plenty of industrial zoned properties around for this petitioner to use. She also stated there are too many accidents with fatalities on that road already and the increased risk and traffic is not necessary. She advised that fire is a terror to agriculture and one error could wipe out miles or acres of land and destroy homes and livestock. She requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the petition. Ms. Maria Pinitsy, 12399 NE 220 Street, stated that she agrees with all of the public's comments. She advised that she has been doing a lot of reading about these types of incinerators and- she believes this site is too close to the main road. She stated that from the articles she has read from previous incinerators when the wind blows the smoke would come down into the roadway. She also stated that she is concerned about the increased traffic and the smoke coming down into that road would pose a much higher risk. She continued that she is concerned about who will be regulating and keeping track of this facility to be sure they are doing what they are supposed to. She also questioned what the company was planning to do after the five-year period and where they would be moving. She stated that she didn't understand why they would invest that kind of time and money for only a five-year period. Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated there was a development on Orange Avenue that he voted against because of width of lanes and the substandard conditions, so he could not approve this project, which would add more heavy traffic on that same road until the County widens and maintains the road. Mr. Grande stated that he feels there is no reason to doubt this operator but he did have an existing air curtain incinerator that was shut down by the County. He stated that he believes the applicant has attempted, in good faith, to move the operation further out west but from the public P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 22 testimony, that is not a suitable area either. He also stated that there are many problems with the previously approved incinerator and would be more sympathetic if he felt there was a great need for another one. He continued that he felt that the Wynne Ranch would rather have the mulch if they could and he doesn't understand why the need to burn it. Mr. Lounds stated that the Commissioners have been shown the deterioration of Orange Avenue and that there are plans from the County to improve the road. He also stated that the traffic on that road is horrible and does add to the problem. He continued that when an air curtain incinerator is operated properly, you don't know it is there. He stated that the key is proper operation and that he feels Mr. Revels is an honest, upstanding operator. He continued that there is the option of putting the debris and sewer sludge together and it is a great way to get rid of all of the waste. He stated that he is concerned about spot zoning and he feels putting utilities zoning in the middle of an agricultural area is an example of that. He advised that he believes the County is working on some issues to handle yard waste for the future of the landfill. He stated that if Mr. Revels agreed to work with the County he felt a lot of good could come of his operation of an incinerator. He also stated that he has mixed emotions about this request but he thinks Mr. Revels need is good but his main concern is the spot zoning issue. Mr. Jones questioned if there is an ability to but a sunset on this zoning change so that it would change back to its current zoning after a specified period of time. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not think there was a way to sunset zoning and the attorney agreed. Mr. Grande 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 deny the application of Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District because of the potential impact on the neighboring properties and the impact already experienced by prior facilities of the same type. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt, with further discussion. Mr. Jones asked how many of these types of facilities already exist in the county that are operating under a permit or that operate on a six-month on six-month off basis. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes that only the one other facility that is in violation was previously approved under a conditional use permit. He stated any others that would operate on a six-month on and six- month off basis would not have come before them and he is not aware of them. He advised that he was only aware of the one other facility. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Revels if there were ever any complaints filed by neighbors or anyone regarding his previous incinerator facility. Mr. Revels said he was not aware of any and he has seen that the State and everyone else just pushes it into a pile and burns it. Mr. Jones questioned if that is what he would end up having to do if this conditional use permit was not approved and Mr. Revels advised that was correct. Mr. Revels stated that he believes that the Division of Forestry is aware of problems with illegal burning. He also stated that he didn't want to have to bring this application before the Commission until the other company's facility, which is in violation, was corrected but he had to do it. He stated that according to DEP regulations, he wouldn't have to get the conditional use permit because he could move the incinerator around P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 23 each six-month period. He also stated that he could even lease three or four different parcels on Wynne Ranch and do it there as well. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Grande and Mr. Merritt would consider tabling their motion and follow Mr. Hearn's idea of gathering more expert testimony regarding the issues. Mr. Merritt stated that he would not withdraw his second because of the major traffic issues on Orange Avenue. Mr. Grande stated that he too would not withdraw his motion because he feels that if there was a need shown for this as well as some more expert information the applicant could resubmit an amended petition designed to convince the Commission to change their mind and come back at that time. Mr. Kelly stated that the petitioner could not come back on the same site for two years if denied. Mr. Jones stated that it was suggested that it might be more appropriate to have these operations on land that is already zoned for utilities. He questioned if there is any existing utilities zoning that is in a similarly relatively unpopulated area. Mr. Kelly stated there was not because utilities zoning is not pre -zoned. Mr. Jones stated that he concurred with Mr. Lounds statements and would not support the motion to deny but would rather table this until further information could be obtain. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt in fairness to the applicant, Commission members, County and citizens it would be best to find ways to make everything work together and find effective uses for land debris. He also stated that if this is denied we need to see if there is some other way to make this work for Mr. Revels. He continued that he feels everyone needs to work together with the land clearing industry and have everyone work together to make it productive. He also stated that he feels it would be best to have this continued and allow more time rather than deny it and stop Mr. Revels for two years. Mr. Merritt stated that he is not against the air curtain incinerator, but just feels it is the wrong location because of the traffic on Orange Avenue. He also stated that he believes there is a lot of other land in St. Lucie County where these operations could be put. Mr. Grande stated that he too felt it was the wrong time and place but not the wrong technology. He also stated that the two-year requirement is only for this one particular property and the petitioner could resubmit on another piece of property at any time. Mr. Revels stated that due to the comments of the public and the Commission members he would like to withdraw his applications to see if he could find a better location with more information. Mr._ Kelly stated that since there is a motion and a second, they would need to be disposed of. He also stated that traditionally if an applicant withdraws their application before the public hearing it is usually allowed but if it occurred during or after the public hearing then the Commission would need to give their approval for the withdraw. Mr. Grande stated that he finds it very heartening to have a petitioner be so cooperative and would be willing to withdraw his motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw his application. He also stated that he would like to add a personal recommendation that Mr. Revels work with the surrounding property owners at any site to get their support and with improvements. Mr. Revels stated that is agreeable with him. Mr. Grande withdrew his motion for denial. P & Z Meeting May 16; 2002 Page 24 Mr. Merritt stated that he still is very concerned about the traffic on Orange Avenue and that if this applicant were requesting this in any other area of the County, he would probably support it. He stated that he is sure that the technology is out there to do a better job than has been done. Chairman McCurdy stated that he too would support the technology and does thing it is probably in the wrong place because of the road and the distance from where the work is actually being done. He stated that a shorter haul would probably be more profitable if he could find the right spot. Mr. Lounds stated that he would move to accept Mr. Revels, Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. request to withdraw their petition for both the rezoning and conditional use permit. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0). Mr. Hearn questioned if the petitioner would receive a refund since the application was withdrawn. Mr. Kelly stated that he is not entitled to a refund because there were monies spent on advertising, letters to adjoining property owners, signs, and other items. Mr. Hearn questioned that if the applicant resubmits, he would have to pay the fees again. Mr. Kelly stated that was correct. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 25 AGENDA ITEM 10: PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. - FILE NO. CU-02- 005: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items # 9 and 10 would be presented together. & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 26 AGENDA ITEM 11: ORDINANCE 02-014 — Amend Coastal Management Element of Comp Plan to Incorporate Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan: Mr. David Kelly stated that Agenda Item # 11 was Ordinance No. 02-014 for an amendment to the Coastal Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan. He continued that the proposed amendment would fulfill State requirements and the St. Lucie County Coastal Management Goal 7.5 that directs the County to develop a new Master Plan for the Port of Fort Pierce. He also stated that the plan would be incorporated into the Coastal Management Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan as required by Section 163.3178, Florida Statutes since St. Lucie County is the local government entity responsible for the overall management of the Port of Fort Pierce. He also explained that the information provided to the Local Planning Agency was the Data and Analysis and the Goals, Objectives and Policies for the Plan and was generated following a February 19, 2002 joint workshop of the Board of County Commissioners and the Fort Pierce City Council. He stated that based on comments presented at that meeting, and the March 12, 2002 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, this final draft of the Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies is proposed for your consideration. Mr. Kelly explained that before any proposed amendment is transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for approval, the Local Planning Agency and the Board of County Commissioners must determine the plan's consistency with state, regional and local plans; that the adoption of the plan amendment will not adversely affect the public interest, health, safety, and general welfare; that the petition is consistent with the specific goals, objectives and policies governing the proposed amendment; and that the County's plan amendment review standards have been met. Mr. Lounds asked Staff who wrote the Port Master Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that the author was the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt the information provided was not very clear or easy to read. Mr. Grande asked if only the Goals, Objectives and Policies were under review by them. Mr. Kelly stated that the review is of both sections, but as with the Comp Plan, the intention is to adopt only the Goals, Objectives and Policies. He continued that the Local Planning Agency's action would be to make a recommendation on the Goals, Objectives and Policies. Mr. Grande stated he was concerned about the information included in the Executive Summary from the consultant and that he didn't believe that was official information and would not be included in the voting and modification process. Mr. Kelly stated that the LPA could make any recommendations they would like within the document but the ultimate goal was with regards to the Goals, Objectives and Policies. He also stated that the Executive Summary was there to give a brief synopsis of what the Plan included. Mr. Hearn stated that the document was the result of four meetings between both sides of the cargo port issue. He also stated that final report is not perfect because it doesn't totally reflect the public perception of how they want the waterfront in Fort Pierce developed but it is ahead of the 1989 Port Master Plan. Mr. Hearn asked if the wording is the exact wording that the Board of County Commissioners approved. Mr. Kelly stated that was correct. Mr. Hearn stated that the community has an opportunity to bring a minimum of four hundred jobs to the waterfront with the mega yacht industry. He continued that the type of people that will attract will increase land values in the community and in his opinion, will be the biggest economic benefit the community P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 27 has ever had. Mr. Merritt stated that Page 2 of the Staff report, under comments, says that the Data and Analysis section is provided as documentation to support the Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies and are not proposed for adoption and he requested clarification of that statement. Mr. Kelly stated that the Goals, Objectives and Policies are what are being proposed for adoption and the rest of the material was for their information in order to assess the GOP's. Mr. Merritt questioned who determines if the amendment furthers the public interest, health, safety and general welfare. Mr. Kelly stated that on this issue it would be the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Merritt then stated that on the same page, letter b was too vague. He also stated that he had a problem with putting all of the degradation of the Indian River Lagoon on the Port as stated on page 4, Policy 7.5.1.3. He continued that he did not care for the wording of that entire paragraph. Mr. Grande stated that the sections that Mr. Merritt was going over were relating to the GOP's that are not part of the Port Plan and are parts of existing parts of the Comprehensive Plan. He continued that he didn't believe they were part of this discussion and they were included in the document to demonstrate that the Port Plan itself is consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that those items have already been approved and adopted and are outside of the scope of this meeting. Mr. Merritt questioned who approved and adopted that information. Mr. Grande stated that he believed it came before them previously and that the information is really only included to demonstrate to the LPA that the information regarding Port Plan, which is located after the Staff report in the packet, and is consistent with the GOP's in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that was correct and they provided the information to demonstrate consistency with all of the previously approved State, Regional and Local Plans. Mr. Merritt stated that agreed with Mr. Lounds and felt the information was confusing. He also stated that he did not feel that he could make an informed decision tonight because of the way he felt the information was presented. Mr. Grande stated that the areas of the Port Plan are what they should be reviewing tonight. He continued that the Goals, Objectives, and Policies are in Part 2 of the Draft Port Plan and run from page 23 through page 44 and that is what they are being asked to review. Mr. Merritt stated again that he reviewed the information and really did not feel the information was clear. Mr. Hearn stated that this process has been ongoing for the last five to six years, at the minimum, and that he has been actively involved in it and can state, without reservation, that this plan is a compromise to what he believes the County should adopt. He also stated that he is willing to make the compromise because he believes the mega yacht industry has benefits for the community that are beyond anyone's imagination. He continued that he did not feel cargo ships are a benefit to the public or their safety. He stated that the plan has had thousands of hours of the public's and elected official's time put into it and finds it difficult to understand why anyone would hesitate to adopt this. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to have more time to study the information to see if he can truly comprehend all of the information included in it. He continued that he has reviewed the information several times over the last week but felt that more time would help him understand it better and would allow him time to make comments and ask questions. Mr. Murphy stated that under the Comprehensive Plan statute requirements, deepwater ports are given great latitude in development of their Master Plans. He continued that the deepwater ports set what they want to do within the port environment. Most ports are operated by a government entity that controls all or most of the property within the port. He stated that the authority of the Board of County P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 28 Commissioners manages the Port of Fort Pierce. He continued that their responsibility was to develop a policy plan for the operations of the Port. The implementation of the Plan, in terms of land use control, is the responsibility of the City of Fort Pierce. He also stated that part of the port planning areas lies within the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. That makes it necessary to include this Port Master Plan in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Merritt questioned if the hours invested into the port plan were by paid county employees. Mr. Murphy stated that it was not only Staff, but also many hours of public input. He stated that once the Port Authority adopts a Master Plan for the Port, the controlling Comprehensive Plan must be amended to include that plan. He continued that the County provided the Master Plan for the Port of Fort Pierce to be incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that the Local Planning Agency is being asked to determine if they feel that the Master Plan is consistent with the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies of the adopted St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Staff analysis points out why they believe the Port Master Plan is consistent with those previously cited policies. He also stated that the LPA is being asked to forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the Port Master Plan meets that criterion. He continued that any questions or comments they have regarding the specifics of any part of the Port Master Plan will be provided to Staff, to allow them time to respond, or to the Board of County Commissioners to send to the Port Authority to address. Mr. Lounds stated that others have had the benefit of many years developing this and he has only had• a week to review it. He stated that he would not be able to give an honest opinion, pro or con, regarding this without time to further review and come back with a list of questions. He continued that he would be able to compile that list between now and the next meeting. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about delaying this issue this evening because there are three corporations looking to develop the area and would bring economic prosperity that will never been seen in any other way. He continued that they have been patient over the past year waiting for this process to happen and he feels there has been sufficient time and effort by the public and staff and attorney's at Florida Atlantic University. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners has already approved this wording and been involved in the process over the past few years and he feels confident that this is as good a plan as they will be able to come up with. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn and has been involved in the process. He also stated that he would like to stress the fact that the parallel process of selecting the developers is under way and the developers have already submitted their qualifications. He continued that the committee has already met and eliminated one of four bidders and the three remaining bidders are going to be asked to submit detailed proposals that conform to the port plan. He stated that he felt it is extremely important that the port plan be put in place as a sub element of the Coastal Element as quickly as possible. He also stated that if there would happen to be any mistakes in the plan, it is amendable and fixable and doesn't need to be absolutely perfect right now. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the County owns the property. Mr. Murphy stated that the Board of County Commissioners would be asked to schedule additional presentations from the RFQ submitters. He continued that there were four RFQ's submitted, one was rejected as non- responsive and there are three others that the evaluation committee and the Board of County Commissioners will review in a workshop environment. He also stated that the County does not own, other than the Harbor Point property, any property within the port area. He stated that they P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 29 are ' looking into acquiring some property for port development. He continued that the Port Master Plan is more than the port activity area and includes issues regarding the jetties, beach re - nourishment issues and Taylor Creek restorations. He stated that those are ongoing projects and in order to secure State and Official assistance funding the port plan must be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that those areas are included in the proposed plan and are shown on by the blue dotted line on the map provided in the LPA packets. He continued that if the LPA feels they need additional time they could come back with their additional questions on May 30"' and then this could still be heard at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting on June 4". Mr. Merritt stated that he has been here for sixty-four years and has seen millions of dollars spent on port studies and that if the County attempted to obtain ownership of the property it would take probably two years to do if the owner is unwilling. He continued that he has not been party to the past port studies and feels that he is being asked to blindly forward something that he is not comfortable with. He stated that he felt the mega yacht corporations are aware that the County doesn't own the land, they couldn't make a deal with the landowner and that is why they came to the County and asked them to buy it so they could make the deal with the County. He continued that he would not blindly give his approval to a plan when he doesn't know what he is voting on. Mr. Hearn stated that he understood where Mr. Merritt was coming from but that their responsibility is to do the best they can with the information they are provided. He continued that the studies he referenced were on if cargo enterprises would be profitable in St. Lucie County and they all felt that it was inconclusive or non-profitable to the County. He also stated that he has participated heavily in the process of this plan and the public has been very involved. He continued that if the members of the LPA wanted more information they could appear at the Board of County Commissioners meeting as members of the public and voice their questions and concerns there. Mr. Murphy stated that the ports develop their master plans and then provide them to the respective unit of local government to be incorporated into their comprehensive plans. He stated that the LPA's role is to review that plan for consistency with the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies of the local Comprehensive Plan. He continued that if they find it is consistent or inconsistent with those, then they make their recommendation accordingly and it gets forwarded on to the Board of County Commissioners for further review. He also stated that if they have specific questions about the plan itself they need to be referred back to the port authority for addressing and clarification. He continued that County Staff does not have the authority to change anything in the Port Master Plan and the only one with the ability to do that is the port authority. He stated that the LPA should make a recommendation one way or the other but can add conditions or comments to the Board of County Commissioners to refer back to the port authority for review and refinement. Mr. Jones questioned that if the Board of County Commissioners refers it back to the port authority, would it be presented to the LPA for review again. Mr. Murphy advised that is correct. Mr. Merritt asked if a separate port authority would be established if the County acquires all of the port property. Mr. Murphy stated he does not have that information. Mr. Grande stated that he believes the structure of the port authority is mutually exclusive from the ownership of the property. He advised that there are four different methodologies for port authorities: elected, appointed, appointed locally, appointed by the Governor or having the Board of County Commissioners sit as the port authority. He continued that who the port authority is doesn't P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 30 depend on who owns the property and that the role of the plan is not dependant on who owns the property either. He stated that whomever controls the development of the property would have to comply with this master plan. Mr. Lounds questioned if that was correct. Mr. Murphy stated that the plan establishes the basic policies for development of the port and those areas under the port's authority. He continued that the land use control, building, permitting and those types of issues, would be the regulatory responsibility of the appropriate permitting authority. Mr. Grande stated that this plan would be complied with no matter who owns the property. Mr. Akins stated that he agrees with Mr. Merritt and that the port has been in flux for the forty years that he has been in St. Lucie County. He also stated that he agrees with Mr. Hearn too and that this probably the most dynamic opportunity that the port has had and he would be willing to take a chance on the proposal tonight and put it up for a vote and move on. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Shirley Burlingham of 5312 Loggerhead Place stated that she has been to every one of the meetings that the consultants had. She stated that there were people from all over the County who were very involved and concerned that attended those meetings. She continued that they went through it and there had been several very long evenings going over these issues. She stated that this is probably the best document that could be developed. She also stated that she felt they had taken everything into consideration and it was well publicized and had been a very long process. She stated that her recommendation would be to send it to the Board of the County Commissioners for review. Mr. Lounds asked Ms. Burlingham if the adoption of this plan would take the opportunity out of this plan for cargo shipments out of the port. Ms. Burlingham stated that she did not believe so and it only limits them to 28 feet in depth. Mr. Lounds stated that deepwater cargo would not be able to come here because of that restriction and this would only allow for light cargo. Ms. Burlingham stated that it does allow for cargo, scientific organizations and university sites too and this opens up many other areas as well. Mr. Hearn stated that the developers that want to come into the Fort Pierce waterfront and build upscale, quality developments don't want to do so next to large cargo operations. He continued that when Nancy Graham, a representative for the former owner of the port was here she was asked to follow a mixture of upscale development and cargo development on the same piece of property and she advised them that she didn't believe it could be done. He stated that many upscale developers have walked away because of the cargo issue that was always there. He also stated that the community has made it known over the years that cargo development was not favorable because it is degrading to the environment and the adjacent waterways. He continued that the plan being presented is flexible enough to allow the existing cargo development to continue and also gives some protection to the mega yacht industry. He stated that there are people who have invested a lot of money in this community to live here, to work here, and to enjoy the Fort Pierce waterfront. Mr. Grande pointed out that Policy 1.2.3 on page twenty-four is intended to ensure that the existing citrus cargo facility is protected and the intention of the majority was that none of the existing facilities that are serving the citrus industry in the area would be adversely affected. Mr. Merritt stated that the mega yacht industry was not able to come to terms with Lloyd Bell because of money. He stated that he felt they went to the County so that they could make a better deal with the taxpayers subsidizing it. He stated that he would not blindly approve this. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 31 Mr. Lounds stated that his problem is not with the mega yachts because they bring class and stability to St. Lucie County. He continued that he has a problem with limiting the Port of Fort Pierce to the development of mega yachts. He stated that he felt the port could be designed to be mixed -use as was voted on by the citizens of St. Lucie County. He continued that everyone thinks of a giant steam ship coming in when they speak of cargo but that would not be able to happen due to the size. He stated that island transportation is a different class of freight. He also stated that the citrus industry is not a big user of the port today because most of the citrus shipped out goes through the ports in Palm Beach and Melbourne. He stated that he feels the future of St. Lucie County is being based on a mega yacht deal and that he needs more information to show that the port can be utilized for a true mixed use as was voted on. Mr. Grande stated that the master plan is geared towards the marine industry and not to the exclusion of cargo but with the aim of co -existing with the existing facilities. He also stated that those developers who are capable of bringing mega yacht facilities would not co -exist with neighbors who negatively impact their facilities. He continued that they are saying they need enough room for their workspace and would like to have recreational areas too. He also stated that it is not one particular company, but the entire mega yacht industry that feels this way. He stated that he feels their request is reasonable and pointed out that they have tried to come to an agreement with the existing owner of the property to no avail. He continued that he feels this is a private owner who has worked against the goals of the County, as a whole. He stated that this private owner has stated that he would like to see a liquid natural gas facility and tank farms. He also stated that he did not feel these types of uses would be beneficial. He continued that private owner's rights are very important but not at the expense of the public domain. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones stated that he is in support of the project but like Mr. Lounds and others, he doesn't feel he has had enough time to review the information. He also stated that he would be willing to come back in two weeks after he has had additional time to review the document thoroughly. Mr. Merritt asked why it is so important to get a recommendation one-way or the other right away. Mr. Murphy stated that there are some other issues with regard to this issue that are being presented during the month of June and some other matters relative to permitting that require a transmittal action by the Board of County Commissioners in June to keep everything moving. Mr. Merritt questioned if there is a commitment in writing from the mega yacht industry with the County. Mr. Murphy stated that he has not seen one but does not know for sure that there is not one. Mr. Jones asked why the LPA has received this information with such a time constraint. Mr. Murphy stated that the Port Authority acted on this in April and this is the first meeting it could be brought too. He also stated that he realizes there are some time issues but there is are some funding deadlines and other schedule issues but if the LPA needs additional time, he understands. He stated that if they would like to have a special meeting on May 300' to discuss this issue further after they have all had additional time to review the material, he would schedule it. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Hearn if he would have any issues with them continuing this issue until the 30t' so they would have additional time to compile some questions and discuss this issue with some people for some information so they could be more productive. Mr. Hearn stated that it is P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 32 not up to him to decide that and that he has been involved in this plan since day one and feels he is an expert on this issue, as well as Mr. Grande and other members of the community. He also stated that some people in the community want to see a large industrial cargo port in Fort Pierce, but he does not think that is what is best for the future of the County. He continued that this document should be sent to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval and doing so does not take away the right of future boards to make amendments to it. He stated that he is asking the LPA to have faith in the public's input and forward the plan to the Board for their review. Mr. Hearn made a motion to forward Ordinance No. 02-014 to amend the Coastal Element of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Grande seconded the motion for further discussion. Mr. Grande stated that he felt there were two policies listed that he thought were redundant. Mr. Kelly stated that on page 27, Policy 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 appear to be very similar. He stated in the first policy, "service and repair yards, marina facilities" is included but not in the second policy. He also stated that the second policy includes "marine research vessels" which is not in the first policy. He stated he couldn't determine what the writer of the plan intended and just wanted to point it out. Mr. Grande stated that he would leave the motion and leave the wording the way that it is written thus far. Mr. Grande stated that he felt the motion should be made to include a change in wording for Policy 1.2.3 on page 24. He stated that he felt it should be changed to read, "The Port of Ft. Pierce shall continue to support limited cargo operations up to but not exceeding their existing level in the Port Operations Area." Mr. Akins asked if that amendment to the motion would affect the progress of this plan. Mr. Murphy stated it would not and would be a comment that is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their direction and review. Mr. Lounds questioned what Mr. Grande's interpretation of that change is. Mr. Grande stated that change would protect everything that is currently there now and the current owners of property that is being used for cargo facilities. This would allow them to extend to the extent that could within their current areas of operation. He continued that the current wording, as it is, is ambiguous because it strictly depends on what a person's interpretation of limited cargo operations is. He stated that there should be a finite limitation and that should be what we have now use to it's highest and maximum use. Mr. Lounds questioned if someone is currently operating a cargo area would be allowed to continue to operate and expand under this changed wording. Mr. Grande stated that is correct and they can expand to the extent that is physically possible in that area. Mr. Hearn stated that he would amend his motion to include the requested change in language. Mr. Hearn made an amended motion to forward Ordinance No. 02-014 to amend the Coastal Element of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to change the wording of Policy 1.2.3 on page 24 to read, "The Port of Ft. Pierce shall continue to support limited cargo operations up to but not exceeding their existing level in the Port Operations Area." and it does meet the criteria listed below: P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 33 1. The plan is consistent with State, Regional and Local Plans. 2. The adoption of the plan amendment will not adversely affect the public interest, health, safety, and general welfare. 3. The petition is consistent with the specific Goals, Objectives and Policies governing the proposed plan amendment. 4. The County's plan amendment review standards have been met. Mr. Grande seconded the amended motion. Mr. Jones stated that he is disappointed because he believes at least three people on the LPA would like to have additional time to review the document and make comments that would not delay the process. He also stated that he got the impression that Mr. Hearn felt it would be best to have a unanimous vote on this issue but doesn't believe that would be possible since at least three members have requested to have more time. He continued that he is in support of the project but would like the LPA to reconsider the motion and allow more time for review. Mr. Grande stated that he understands their point but this will go from them to the Board of County Commissioners for another public hearing. He continued that they have the same opportunity to speak and make their opinions felt at that Commission meeting as they have there. He also stated that he believes that at least he and Mr. Lounds have taken the opportunity to testify at the Commission meeting relating to items that have come before the LPA in the past. He stated that anyone who feels they don't have a sufficient handle here certainly has the ability to spend the time between now and the Commission meeting to prepare their comments or their suggestions and bring them up at the Commission meeting. He also stated that he too had hoped that they would have a majority tonight to move this forward so as to not threaten the progress that is very important. Mr. Merritt stated that he felt Mr. Grande was missing the point and that asking for a delay may enable them to send a unanimous vote or if they send it forward tonight, it would be a fragmented vote. Mr. Hearn stated that they are continually asked to vote on issues that they don't fully understand and don't have a lot of time to review. He also stated that many times they vote with the group so as to tell the Board they are unanimous and putting this off for two weeks would not be the end of the world. He continued that this item has been reviewed thoroughly by the public and he apologized that each member of the LPA was not involved because he felt it was an enlightening process. Mr. Merritt stated that it would not have been possible for him to be that involved due to his workloads. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt Mr. Jones brought up some very good points and he feels that he needs the extra two weeks to get some opinions from other people or else he would have to vote against forwarding it tonight. He also stated that he is sure that Mr. Grande and he have come before the Board only as private citizens in the past. Mr. Merritt stated that he is not against or for cargo operations but he stated he was concerned about the time constraints. He also stated that he felt that the mega yacht industry would be requesting tax incentives to be subsidized by the taxpayer because they were not able to come to an agreement with Lloyd Bell. Mr. Hearn stated that the cargo industry, in his opinion, would ask for many more tax incentives than the mega yacht industry. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 34 Upon a roll call vote, the motion was approved with a vote of 5-2 (with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Lounds voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 35 AGENDA ITEM 12: ORDINANCE 02-015 — Amend Land Development Code (Architectural Standards & Non Conforming Lots: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director stated that Agenda Item # 12 proposed two amendments to the County's Land Development Code. He stated that the first amendment deals with adjustments to the non -conforming lot restrictions affecting contiguous ownership. He continued that the County currently has a restriction that states if you have a non -conforming lot of record, if you have more than two or three parcels in a row, they are considered to be one parcel unless they are divided by a roadway or easement. He stated that they had recently been approached about a situation down in the south/central part of the County where an individual had three lots together, not separated by anything, and they sold parcels in a private transaction. Those individuals that bought the parcels tried to apply for a building permit and were told their parcel is considered to be part of the parent parcel and was never legally divided under the non- conforming statues. He then stated that Staff was asked by the Board of County Commissioners to bring forward a proposed amendment to address those types of matters. He also stated that this amendment would eliminate the contiguous lot prohibition. He continued that, if approved, a series of lots under common ownership, then it would revert back to the original legal description of the parcel. He stated that if you have five lots, under the current guideline, they would be considered one. He advised that under the proposed amendment it would be considered as five. Mr., Murphy stated that the second amendment is the establishment of Interim Community Architectural Standards that would apply to all areas of the unincorporated County as minimum criteria for all new construction or substantial expansion to existing building or structures or building in areas zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood), CO (Commercial, Office), CG (Commercial, General), I (Institutional), RF (Religious Facilities), PUD (Planned Unit Development), PNRD (Planned Non-residential Development) and PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development). He continued that these design standards were not intended to stifle imagination nor curtail variety but rather they were for the purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community appearance. He also stated that these interim design standards were patterned after the 'existing community architectural standards found in the City of Port St. Lucie and were intended to serve as a short-term regulation until a broader set of community design criteria was developed. Staff recommends that you forward draft Ordinance 02-015 to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Hearn questioned if the Commission could recommend approval with additions to the colors listed on the color chart because he would be hesitant to have such a limit on the colors allowed. Mr. Murphy stated that would be fine. Mr. Hearn asked if they approve the change to non- conforming lots, would they still have to have the proper area for width, depth and road frontage. Mr. Murphy explained that would not be correct this change would make them completely build- able. Mr. Hearn stated he would like to have the ordinance modified to read that it must meet all of the other building criteria too. Mr. Grande stated that he is disappointed that these two items are presented together in one ordinance because they are two very different issues. He questioned if he understood what was presented about a buyer finding that he was unbuildable. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Mr. Grande he felt this would be a risky change because that was an issue where the proper P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 36 disclosures weren't made and now this would change the Code to correct those types of buyer/seller issues when they aren't County issues. Mr. Murphy stated that amendments aren't usually used for correcting self-inflicted problems but this was an issue that has been a problem for quite some time and this would be the best way to resolve those situations. He continued that the Commission is being asked to review a proposal, if approved, would resolve those types of issues. He also stated that the reason they were brought forward in one ordinance is to help suppress excess paperwork and processing time as well as to save money on advertising costs. He advised that when these types of items are brought before the Commission they do not require a straight approval or denial and can be amended or part approved and part denied. Mr. Grande stated that he did not think the changes to Section 10, non -conforming lots, were warranted and that he is sure Staff can find another way to resolve those situations. He also stated that the standards are a good idea but that on page 3, paragraph d, regarding screening vegetation should not be six feet at time of planting but should have to grow to that height within a certain period of time. Mr. Murphy stated that there are already minimum height restrictions for vegetation but that this particular section only applies to drive-throughs that shall not be located between a primary collector/arterial street and a building and that if they have no other option than they must provide a six-foot minimum vegetation screening. Mr. Grande stated that he feels that request is logical and reasonable but doesn't believe they should have to be that high at the time of planting. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Grande is considering a large hedge area or screened area to hide ingress or something. Mr. Grande stated that was not correct and he was considering it was an area that would qualify for a requirement of six -feet but just not at the time planted. He continued that he feels the restriction should read that it would mature to six -feet within a reasonable specified amount of time. He stated that on page 4, section f, there was a reference to Chapter II.B, which should actually read III. B. Mr. Grande questioned why on page 5 there is a prohibited fagade feature of reflective glass and Mr. Murphy stated that was so there wouldn't be a glass box building. Mr. Grande stated that the way he was reading it, it sounded like no reflective glass could be used as a feature to a fagade. He continued that he was concerned about interpretation of that because that could mean there could not be a window on the front side of a building that has reflective glass in it. Mr. Murphy stated that he would have to review how the City applies that portion of the code. He stated that there is a difference between glass being reflective for solar treated purposes and mirrored glass. He continued that he felt this was intended to restrict the use of mirrored glass and Mr. Grande stated that he disagreed and could be interpreted differently. Mr. Grande stated that on page 7 they are prohibiting brightly colored glazed tile as a roof material and says that he doesn't feel it should be completely prohibited. He questioned Section B; number 6, on page 10, where it says signs should be kept below the top of roof. He asked if that meant the top of the roof or the bottom of the roof. Mr. Murphy stated that they wanted a roof line and did not want the sign above the top of the roof. Mr. Grande stated that on page 11, Section F, should have City Council replaced with Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Merritt stated that in all his years on the Commission he has never seen so many changes to the code as he has this past year and questioned where the requests are coming from. Mr. Murphy stated that these requests come from community interest and the interest of the County Commission. Mr. Merritt questioned how the word "drive through" on page 3 would be P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 37 interpreted. He stated that over on 25"' street the medical center has a drive through for ambulatory pick-up and Mr. Murphy stated that would not be considered a drive through. Mr. Merritt stated that the wording doesn't specify and Mr. Murphy stated that the intention is to cover a drive through pick up window. Mr. Merritt questioned if page 7, item E where it states "butler buildings" are permitted for warehouse use only applies only to the commercial district. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that under that same section and item that butler buildings cannot be used for anything other than warehouse use. He questioned those businesses that run their business out of those and how it would affect them. Mr. Murphy stated they couldn't build a new butler building in the commercial district unless it is for warehouse use only. Mr. Merritt stated that this could affect car dealers and Mr. Murphy stated that could happen. Mr. Lounds questioned if Edwards Road between US #1 and Oleander are commercial and Mr. Murphy stated he believed that area is industrial. Mr. Lounds asked if he wanted to go into a commercial area and put up a butler building for a repair shop, he would be denied. Mr. Murphy explained that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that he wasn't comfortable with that restriction. Mr. Lounds questioned if an example of a drive through pickup would be like what they have at Walgreens or Eckerds. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct but that most of them have their drive through on the side of the building and that the vegetative screening only applies if they have to have it on the front of a building. He continued that he tried to choose standards that have already been effectively implemented in other areas and the City of Port St. Lucie has used theirs for about five years. Mr. Lounds questioned if screening on the backsides of the buildings were a problem. Mr. Murphy stated they have other standards to address that, as does the County. Mr. Jones asked what the urgency of adopting an interim ordinance would be if they plan on creating a permanent ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that rather than have no standards at all until a finalized plan is ready; these were available in the interim. Mr. Jones stated that with regards to the non -conforming lots, he fears that passing that will cause more problems than it is correcting. Mr. Hearn asked if this new ordinance would eliminate manufactured commercial buildings. Mr. Murphy stated that would not happen because if they treat the facades in a way that meets the standards. Mr. Hearn questioned why they couldn't just do that for a butler building. Mr. Murphy stated there wasn't any real reason why they couldn't. Mr. Merritt stated they should probably remove the word "butler" from the standards. Mr. Murphy stated this is just an interim standard and could be changed at a later date. Mr. Hearn stated that he has been involved with non -conforming lot problems and if the language is changed to read; in any district principle permitted structures and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record existing before July 1, 1984 provided that the lot meets the provisions of area, width, and frontage for the district in which the lot is located. Mr. Murphy stated that the only problem with his suggested wording would be the term frontage. Mr. Hearn stated that it already states that if the lot does not have any road frontage, as defined in Chapter 2, then proof of recorded legal ingress and egress acceptable to County Attorney must be furnished. Mr. Grande questioned if right now an old platted piece of land was subdivided and each of the subdivided lots conformed to the current requirements for building in that location and each had P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 38 an accepted ingress and egress they could build on it. Mr. Murphy stated that if you have an non- conforming subdivision and have contiguous holding, you can only get one building permit on that contiguous holding unless it was separated by a recognized street or easement. Mr. Murphy stated that if it was re -subdivided and platted it would have to conform to all current standards but this doesn't apply to it being re -subdivided. Mr. Merritt questioned if this problem was created by the 1984 ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that he does believe it was about then and this was correct that. Mr. Hearn stated that he agrees that a permit should not be issued on a lot that is not big enough or has the right width or frontage or dedicated easement without getting a variance as provided. He continued that he does have a problem with if you own two lots and sell one of them that are totally acceptable in size and it is not considered buildable. Mr. Lounds questioned if those issues would be corrected by passing this changed ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Mr. Lounds questioned if the issue is a lot that does not have frontage to drive to and this change would allow it to be built. Mr. Hearn stated that is not what he was stating. Mr. Grande stated he doesn't know of anything existing that says that you cannot build on a lot if you meet the requirements of frontage. Mr. Hearn stated that such a lot must be in separate ownership and not contiguous to other lots in the same ownership because if they are and they are sold, that makes them unbuildable. Mr. Murphy stated that would be correct unless the sixty -foot right-of-way is a public right-of-way or a private roadway built to County specifications. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones made a motion to continue Ordinance 02-015 to the June 20, 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0) and would be continued to the June 20, 2002 meeting. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 39 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be June 20, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: n ilmore, Secretary Approved by: Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 40