The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 06-20-2002Secretary St. Lucie County Planning and 'Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor Roger Poitras Annex June 20, 2002 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: / A. Pledge of Allegianc B. Roll Call V- C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — May 16, 2002 Action Recommended. Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of May 16, 2002, meeting AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE NO.02-002 - Future Land Use Change — Lin Indrio, Inc. J Continued from May 16, 2002, Meeting. This is the 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). Dennis Murphy will present staff comments. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE NO.02-003 — Extension of the Urban Service Boundary — Lin Indrio, Inc. v Continued from May 16, 2002, Meeting. This is the petition of LIN INDRIO, INC. / PHOENICIAN COUNTRY CLUB for an Ordinance extending the Urban Service Boundary of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Dennis Murphy will present staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report AGENDA ITEM 4: EMILIO MARTINEZ — FILE NO. RZ-02-012 This is the petition of EMILIO MARTINEZ, for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 5: EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC. — FILE / NO. CU-02-006 This is 'the petition of EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #5: Staff Report and Site Location Maps Page 1 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor Roger Poitras Annex June 20, 2002 7:00 P.M. AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 6: ORDINANCR NO, 02-015 — Amend Land Development Code — Interim Communitv Architectural Standards Continued from May 16, 2002, Meeting. This is an 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. Dennis Murphy will present staff comments. 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 July 18, 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 appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (561) 462-1777 or T.D.D. (561) 462-1428. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at (561) 462-1586. Page 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commissionl Local Planning Agency Members ciz� FROM: Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary DATE: Thursday, June 20, 2002 SUBJECT: P&ZAttendance Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Jones will not be attending this evenings P&Z meeting. Their absences are with notice. t '_3 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME —MIDDLE NAME E OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ] atthes, Stefan . _Lucip. Count; Piann ,ng and. Zoning CoMUps; MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, M SSIO , AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 2980 S . 25th Street WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY + e CITY X COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: St. Lucie Count DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: June 20, 2002 e ELECTIVE CX 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 mint itPc 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 I, Stefan Matthes , hereby disclose that on .Tune 20 ., 2002 (a) A measure came orwill 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 eoployer who does engineering work for Petitioner ' by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: AGENDA ITEM 5t EAST FLORIDA P=TIVE'BAPTIST 'DISTRICT 'ASSOCIATION.,'INC. ^ FILE NO. CU=02=006 This is the petition of EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC., for the Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Date Filed S' ure , NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 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 comrnittee_ 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 ttie 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 an a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or foss. 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: "' .. ' ' •• -I... —";..,, �"Pmmt lm influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the 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 DISCUSS ION AT THE MEETING: - You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and fife 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. i DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL. OFFICER'S INTEREST I, rarglnn mr-ni * , hereby disclose that on Jung 20,E 1 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 io the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss id �bU eA�ak-!nq f; u n, nni n '13 mz^-r by wham I am retained: or inured to the special gain or toss 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 ' 3: • •ORDnMC E •NQ: 02=003 •-= pension ,o£ 'the 'Urban 'Service BoUrAary •- 'Lin Indrio,. - - - Mc. Continued rCat1 May 16, 2002, Meetir .. s is fh+epe tit�.on_ o LIN TNDRIO, INC./ POMR ICIAN COUNTRY CLUB for an Ordimnce ext endim the Urban. Service Ba mda y of the St. Lucie County Cmprehensive Plan. Date Filed NOTICE, UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR ANO1.MAY. BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL, OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL. PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 WHO MUST FILE FORM HB 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 forth. INSTRUCTIONS FOR C�MPLIANCE 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. 163.35h or 163.3S7, 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 ffom 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: . t e-mmolete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the . ..a. _, ..-I -- -1 tier 4ielA1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form Is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Caram McCurdy , hereby disclose that on June 20, 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.oi �fi»arcing f „ti r P1CAI* - by whom 1 am retained; or , _ inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. , (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my contlicting interest in the measure Is as follows: AGMMA ITEM ' 2 t! ' 'ORDMMCE 'NO: - 02-002 ruture 'Land 'Use '2]t Lira. Tndrio ' Inc. Continued Fran may 16, 2002, Meeting. This is the petition of LIN =RIO, IN ICLAN C ouNMY CLUB f=Dr an Ordinance granting a change in Future Lu d Use Designation from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban). . 6 -c�_�?-0 Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PAOVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY AEQU' IRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES'GROUNOS FOR ANO MAY BE 06NISHEd BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: .IMPEA,CHMENt. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, ReOUCTiON IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. Ct: FORM 88 - EFF. 112000 PAGE 2 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME—MIOOLE NAME gtAME F BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE . Jones, Fred "Rudd" - �u cie CQunt planning and Zoning CcRT ssion MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR commiTTEE ON 5409 Sunset Boulevard WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY + ❑ CITY HCOUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Fort Pierce P1 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: 1-0 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 '-.;... — - +ham . --hnn who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) tr 0 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 gWloyer Who is doing the engineering work for h '_ PPt-i t-i me* 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. ITF,Ni 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). nk _-Q 2— � & Date' fled ' . . Signature .�`NOTICEb1N0 �R VISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE `'tf✓ON FLIT UNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, `AEMO ALt SPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A �CLV4 ` E Pi4L NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE�-W98V- EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 0 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCALPUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME —MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Jones, Fred "Rudd" St. Lucie Count Planning and Zoning Commi:ssi MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL. OM SS10 . AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 5409 Sunset Boulevard WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY ❑ CITY COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: St. Lucie Count DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: May 16, 2002 t ❑ ELECTIVE cg 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 -later, 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 measur6 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 ttoc of tha meptina. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) a 0 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 May 16, 2002 I, ,hereby disclose that on 20C (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 Petitioner 8?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 - l 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 NOTICE: UNDSPf PROViS.IONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONS`( ITUT1r,S GROI:' FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, RfNOVAL:-OR SUSPErISION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVpT,,TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FO1/2000 PAGE 2 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING May 16, 2002 Commission Chambers,Roger3rd Floor Ro Poitras Annex C®is'$�1� 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 Chance: 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 18th, 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 continatu -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. «r 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 Count} -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 an&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 1-95 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/1-95 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 grantapproval 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/1-95 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. ,pones 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_ihe 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 tffe 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 tl:c -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 22e 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 whaf 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 honcs'L 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 authat_ ime. 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 i 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. P & 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 h. 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 agrPec_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 30`h 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 3& 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 beeause 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 indivirt»11 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 Mf. 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 Approved by: Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 40 Planning & Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Review: 06/20/01 File Number PA-02-001 COMMUNITY DEVELOMENT DEPARTMENT Administration Division MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency FROM: Planning Manager DATE: June 12, 2002 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-002 amending the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan by extending the existing Urban Service Boundary of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to encompass additional property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Johnston Road, in Unincorporated St. Lucie County Attached is a copy of the submitted application of Lin Indrio Inc., a Florida Corporation, to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan by extending the Urban Service Boundary of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to encompass additional property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Johnston Road, in Unincorporated St. Lucie County. This proposal to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan has been filed concurrent with an application for a Change in Future Land Use for this same land parcel and an application for Planned Unit Development Approval for a 799 unit residential project to be known as the Phoenician Country Club. The specific purpose of this public hearing is to: Determine if the proposed amendment is consistent with the general Goals, Objectives and Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; • Provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on whether or not the proposed amendment should be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review and processing consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. In reviewing the submitted application for amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, staff at this time finds that it cannot support the requested amendment without additional information. In response to staff's request for additional information, the applicant submitted the "Comprehensive Analysis of Modification to the June 12, 2002 Page 2 Petition: Phoenician USB Modification File PA-02-001 Planned Urban Service Area (Attachment "A"). A review of this document by staff finds that the following issues/questions are outstanding and need to be addressed prior to a full analysis of a modification to the Urban Service Boundary of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan can be completed: 1. The justification report does not provide an analysis of the existing vacant lands within the north county (study area). This information is necessary in order to establish a base mark for the justification for moving the Urban Service Boundary. As part of this analysis, the existing density ratio must be applied to the existing residentially zoned lands to determine the maximum development potential for the area. This information would either support or disprove the theory that the existing urban service boundary should be modified. 2. The analysis for modification to the Urban Service Boundary is based on a density of 4 — 8 du/acres. According to this analysis, St. Lucie County has a deficit of 597 acres of land, accounting for a deficit of 2,388 residential units. The proposal submitted for the Urban Service Boundary provides for an additional 490 acres of land, which decreases the future need for additional land to 107 acres. Yet, the request is for 682 residential units, which translates to only 1.52 du/acre, way below the density referenced within your analysis. Based upon this proposed density, the request adds significant land to the Urban Service Areas without providing the County with the level of additional housing that might otherwise be expected. 3. An analysis of all properties located between the existing discontinuous Urban Service Areas along Indrio Road should be incorporated into the supporting documentation. This information would help to support the analysis of the deficit of residential land within St. Lucie County to the year 2010. 4. A more thorough traffic analysis should be completed on the proposed area. It most include an analysis on whether or not if a shift in the location of the Urban Service Boundary, and its associated greater densities, would affect the existing LOS on Indrio Road; and if an increased density would cause Indrio Road to fail in a shorter time frame than was originally determined by the County and require road repairs and widening prior to what was previously envisioned. 5. A justification of the impact of modifying the Urban Service Boundary on Police, Fire, Schools, etc., should be submitted. The analysis should provide documentation on how this modification to the Urban Service Boundary will affect the county's ability to serve the .population within the growth area. 6. An analysis of existing recreational amenities within the north county area should be completed to determine how the modification to the Urban Service Boundary would affect the county's ability to provide sufficient facilities to support the population within the area. 7. On page 16 of the report, you state that an analysis should be provided that any changes will maintain the viability of adjacent agricultural lands. This supporting analysis was not provided. June 12, 2002 Petition: Phoenician USB Modification Page 3 File PA-02-001 In addition, as part of the EAR -Based Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, the Board of County Commissioners has committed to conducting a series of local area planning studies to evaluate the existing Urban Service Area and Land Use Plan designations on a more parcel specific basis than staff was able to do as part of the development of the general County Comprehensive Plan. The County has submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the St. Lucie County Urban Service Boundary Study (RFP #02-059). The closing date for the RFP was May 15, 2002. The RFP is currently reviewing seven bids submitted to determine if there is an acceptable proposal for the County. Upon completion of the Urban Service Boundary Study, if the Board of County Commissioners determines that any alteration to the existing Future Land Use designations or Urban Service Boundary lines is warranted, then the appropriate amendments to the local comprehensive plan will be initiated. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency take one of the following actions on this petition to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan: A. Defer any action, without prejudice, on this petition until the completion of, or in conjunction with resolution of the Comprehensive Plan Compliance issues and the planned St. Lucie County Urban Service Boundary Study. This study is scheduled to be commenced within the FY 2002/03. The RFP for outside planning assistance on this project has been completed and the RFP Committee is currently reviewing the submitted proposals; or, B. If the Local Planning Agency feels that they would prefer to forward this matter to the Board of County Commissioners for further review and transmittal consideration, consider responses to the additional questions provided to the applicant on June 5, 2002 and staff's subsequent recommendation. Without adequate answers to these questions, staff must recommend that the petition be forwarded with a recommendation of denial. Our reasons for this recommendation are as follows: • The applicants have failed to demonstrate how their proposed amendments to the County's Urban Service Boundary are consistent with the general Goals, Objectives and Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. There has been no demonstrated need to expand the urban service boundary line in this area. The fact that a simultaneous application has been filed with this petition, that would amend the Future Land Use Maps of the County's Comprehensive Plan and permit the development if a 799-unit Planned Unit Development does not in itself support the contention that the development conditions in this area have materially changed to support the requested urban service boundary. The analysis submitted as supporting documentation was not conclusive and staff had a number of issues or questions that still needed to be addressed, prior to a full analysis could be completed on the project. June 12, 2002 Petition: Phoenician USB Modification Page 4 File PA-02-001 The recently approved utility master plan for this area of the County does not contemplate any service extensions into the petitioned area until at least the 2010/2015 time period. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. June 12, 2002 Page 5. Petition: Phoenician USB Modification File PA-02-001 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE APPLICATION OF LIN INDRIO INC., FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO EXTEND THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, BECAUSE .... [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 -PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF LIN INDRIO INC., FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO EXTEND THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, BECAUSE .... [CITE REASON (S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] NOTICE OF CHANGE TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners propose to adopt the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 02-002 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF INDRIO AND JOHNSTON ROADS, UNINCORPORATED ST. LUCIE COUNTY AP UBLIC HEARING on Ordinance 02-002 will be held before the St. Lucie County Local Planningg Agency/ Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday, June 20, 2002, at- 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as possible, in the County Commission Chambers, 3rd floor of the County Administration Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FI. Matters affecting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider a proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to provide for an extension of the Urban Service Boundary of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan for property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Indrio and Johnston Roads, Unincorporated St. Lucie County; said request being filed as part of the Phoenician Country Club Planned_ Unit Development, and generally depicted by the map below: 4 ' �.------------------- ----------- d I ; o This proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, has been submitted by Lin Indrio Inc., a Florida Corporation, the applicant of record for the .proposed. Phoenician Country Club Planned Unit Development. If any; person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need record of the proceedings and that, for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include 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. This notice dated and executed this 3rd day of June, 2002. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY/ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Stefan Matthes., Chairman PUBLISH DATE: June 8, 2002 Saturday, June 8, 2002 The Tribune D7 " COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANNED URBAN SERVICE AREA Prepared in Support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment #PA02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. 1905 25t' Street South, Suite 206 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947 Prepared By: Thomas Lucido & Associates 100 Avenue A, Suite 2A Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Date: April 30, 2002 Revised: June 17, 2002 F 2W2coMMUNIIYEEVE�pPZtEN7 ST. Luck COUNITY. EL I rian Amenament 4uz-uu i Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Background & Purpose, 3 Project Description .& Study Area 3 Methodology 4 Analysis of North County Planned Urban Service Area 7 Population & Housing 8 Transportation 11 Employment (I-95 Mixed Use Development and Airport Related Development) 13 Utilities 13 Recreation 18 Solid Waste 19 Police 19 Fire 19 Schools 20 Agricultural Preservation 20 Land Use Compatibility 21 Proposed North County Urban Service Area Modification 21 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Existing and Future Population 8 Table 2: Existing and Future Housing 9 Table 3: North County Residential Land Deficit 10 Table 4: Seasonally Adjusted Traffic Estimates 11 Table 5: Traffic Impact 13 Table 6: Water and Wastewater Capacity Analysis 13 Table 7: North County Water Distribution Capital Expansion Plan 14 Table 8: North County Wastewater Distribution Capital Expansion Plan 15 Table 6: Inventory of County -owned Parks 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location 5 Figure 2: North County Water Distribution Capital Expansion Plan 16 Figure 3: North County Wastewater Distribution Capital Expansion Plan 17 Figure 4: Proposed Modification to the Planned Urban Service Area 24 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Plan Amendment #PA-02-001 — Original Application Appendix B: St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan Objective 1.1.5 and related Policies Appendix C: St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan related Level of Service Policies Page 2 of 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE St. Lucie County Application #PA-02-001, submitted by Lin Indrio, Inc., a Florida Corporation, proposes to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to change the land use on approximately 490 acres of land along Indrio Road from Residential Estate (lupa) to Residential Urban 5u a . In addition, Application #PA02-001 proposes to amend the Planned Urban Service Area boundary to encompass the 490-acre tract of land. The location of the property is reflected in Figure 1. A copy of the original application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is attached as Appendix A. Currently, the project is located outside of the Planned Urban Service Area of St. Lucie County. As a result, Staff directed additional data and analysis be submitted in support of the application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The additional data and analysis is to respond to the Comprehensive Plan requirements regarding amendments to the Planned Urban Service Area boundary. The application is scheduled to be presented to the Local Planning Agency in June 2002 as part of the second set of plan amendments for 2002. The purpose of this analysis is to present data and analysis in support of the applicant's request to expand the Planned Urban Service Area for the subject property. As such, the analysis will be guided by the requirements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan (SLCP). In addition to these requirements, the applicant has responded to a request for additional information from the St. Lucie County Development Department via correspondence dated June 5, 2002. Revisions to this report in response to this request for additional information are incorporated herein. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & STUDY AREA The project consists of approximately 682 residential units, a clubhouse, maintenance shed, and an 18-hole golf course over 490 acres. Design, permitting, and site development, including construction of the golf course, will take approximately two years. After completion of the site work and golf course construction, development of the housing units is expected to be phased over five to seven years depending upon market absorption. A planned unit development zoning agreement and master development plan will be presented for consideration upon completion of the land use amendment and concurrent extension of the Planned Urban Service Area, if granted. The project is generally located in northern St. Lucie County and is bound by Indrio Road to the south, Johnston Road to the west, Russos Road to the North, and Russakis Road to the east. The property is further bound by Fort Pierce Farms Water Management District canals on the east and west. Vacant land exists immediately adjacent on all quadrants. Urban residential development occurs within 1-mile of the property to the north within Indian River County. Within St. Lucie County, urban residential development occurs within 1-mile to the east as part of the Lake Park subdivision. Limited commercial uses also occur to the east approximately'/2- mile from the subject property. The Planned Urban Service Area associated with the I-95 interchange abuts the west boundary of the property. The I-95 interchange area is set aside in the Comprehensive Plan for future urban development. The north county area, in general, is developed with a variety of uses including urban, suburban, and rural housing; industrial, commercial, and office development; agricultural uses; conservation areas; and vacant undeveloped land. The residential uses are predominantly Page 3 of 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 contained within major subdivisions. The balance of the land is either set aside for future mixed use development associated with the I-95 interchange, is outside the Planned Urban Service Area, is environmentally sensitive, or is set aside for development associated with the airport. The project, in greater detail, provides 682 single-family home sites averaging approximately 65'x 125'. In addition, the development proposes a 10,000 sf clubhouse and 18-hole golf course. Approximately 1.2 acres are set aside for a maintenance facility. Internal roadways of the development account for 42.75 acres and required stormwater management features (both lakes and dry retention) account for an additional 68 acres. The resulting net residential density is 2.84 dwelling units per acre. Additional details regarding the proposed development are summarized in the report section titled Land Use Compatibility. METHODOLOGY The methodology utilized within this analysis is designed to address the specific Comprehensive Plan requirements for developments within the Planned Urban Service Area. An excerpt of the Comprehensive Plan policies addressing these requirements is attached as Appendix B. The methodology also addresses the level of service requirements for new development. A summary of the Comprehensive Plan policies addressing these requirements is attached as Appendix C. Finally, additional information has been provided in response to the request for information from the St. Lucie County Development Department via correspondence dated June 5, 2002. With these Plan requirements as the basis, the following specific issues are addressed within this study. Population & Housing Population and housing data for existing and future conditions was obtained from the SLCP. This data was used to determine the adequacy of the existing future land use map designations and Planned Urban Service Area to accommodate the future housing needs of the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. The SLCP does not require evidence of a deficit of residential capacity prior to expanding the Planned Urban Service Area. Consequently, estimates of population and housing for the north County area are not required. However, an analysis of this type is beneficial to the County when requested to make such determinations. Since the SLCP does not present population or housing statistics by planning area, the year 2000 census population by census block was obtained to provide an estimate of the population of the north County area. In addition, a parcel -based analysis of housing units was also performed to obtain a north county housing unit count and vacant land status. Finally, the housing unit and population data from the St. Lucie County MPO was obtained to develop estimate of north county population and housing and provide a comparison against similar data obtained from the census and parcel -based analysis. The various data sources provided estimates of population, housing, and vacant land independently for specific points in time. From these points, interpolation provided data for common year analysis. The vacant residential land was converted to a housing unit capacity with typical development densities and was then converted to a population carrying capacity based upon population per household data. A direct comparison can then be made between the carrying capacity of the north county vacant residential land and the estimated future population in the north county area. A deficit or surplus of residentially designated land can then be determined. Page 4 of 28 0 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 Transportation A traffic impact analysis has been prepared for the proposed project identifying the trip generation and distribution of the proposed project and applying such estimates to the future roadway conditions. The analysis is based upon standard ITE trip generation values and traffic engineering methodologies. In addition, a detailed traffic report for the planned project was submitted with the original application. This report indicated that, with minor intersection modifications along Indrio Road, the area roadways would operate within their level of service standards. All transportation concurrency requirements must be met prior to the issuance of any development permit. Consequently, the applicant will be required to construct all off -site projects required to maintain the level of service standard at time of development approval. Impact fees will still be required to ensure that the proposed project will bare its fare share of the transportation infrastructure costs in general. Employment (I-95 Mixed Use Development and Airport Related Development) The analysis of existing and future employment within this study is limited to the identification of future employment opportunities within the study area and the need to provide housing for employees and executives. The proposed project does not contain any non-residential uses. The analysis identifies the extent of the employment opportunities within the north county area to highlight the future urban vision contained with the current Comprehensive Plan. The analysis .does not identify the related residential land to accommodate the housing needs of these employment centers. Utilities A primary consideration for expanding the Planned Urban Service Area is the provision of central water and sewer. The analysis presented herein compares the existing excess capacity of the North County Utility District to the estimated demand for the proposed project pursuant to the level of service requirements of the SLCP. The analysis also presents the planned service area as identified in the Utility Service Master Plan to the proposed project and the surrounding areas identified for future urban development. Recreation Another primary consideration for expanding the PUSA is the provision of community services such as parks. New development is required to maintain the adopted level of service standards for community and regional parks. The analysis presented herein compares the existing capacity of the County's community and regional parks to the estimated demand for the proposed project pursuant to the level of service requirements of the SLCP. The analysis also presents the planned service area of the proposed development in relation to the existing park supply and addresses the adequacy of the existing park system to serve the recreation needs of the proposed project. Solid Waste The analysis contained herein presents the long-term capacity of the solid waste repository as compared to the SLCP level of service requirements. The analysis does not attempt to identify the estimated demand for the proposed project over the next thirty years. A project specific Page 6 of 28 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 analysis is not required since the landfill needs of the expected residents of the proposed project are included within the planning estimates of St. Lucie County. In other words, the residents are not in excess of the population estimates of St. Lucie County but are an assignment of the future population to this development. Population estimates are not based upon the buildout capacity of an area unless that area is at or near buildout. St. Lucie County is not at or near buildout. Police The SLCP does not provide a specific level of service standard for police services nor does it present specific service -related data. The SLCP also does not contain objectives or policies requiring that a specific level of service be maintained to modify the Urban Service Boundary either at the countywide or planning area level. Not withstanding these constraints, an analysis of the police service response times and call capacity was developed based upon conversations with Sgt. Black of the St. Lucie Sheriff's Office. Fire The SLCP does not provide a specific level of service standard for fire and emergency medical services nor does it present specific service -related data. The SLCP also does not contain objectives or policies requiring that a specific level of service be maintained to modify the Urban Service Boundary either at the countywide or planning area level. Not withstanding these constraints, an analysis of the fire service response times and call capacity was developed based upon conversations with Captain Amerson of the St. Lucie Fire District. Schools The SLCP does not provide a specific level of service standard for schools nor does it present specific service -related data. The SLCP also does not contain objectives or policies requiring that a specific level of service be maintained to modify the Urban Service Boundary either at the countywide or planning area level. Not withstanding these constraints, an analysis of the school system in relation to school capacity was developed based upon conversations with Marty Sanders of the St. Lucie School Board. Agricultural Preservation An analysis of agricultural capacity of the proposed site and the surrounding area was performed based upon the St. Lucie County Soil Survey and an inventory of existing uses. Land Use Compatibility A qualitative discussion of land use compatibility is provided in relation to the proposed project and the surrounding existing and future uses. The existing uses were identified by a field inventory. The future uses were obtained from the SLCP related to the designated mixed -use area at I-95 and Indrio Road and the future land use designations on the surrounding properties. ANALYSIS OF NORTH COUNTY PRIMARY URBAN SERVICE AREA The analysis of the north county Planned Urban Service Area is presented below in context with the requested plan amendment. The analysis is specific to the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for modifications to the Planned Urban Service Area boundary and the Page 7 of 28 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 request for information from the St. Lucie County Development Department via correspondence dated June 5, 2002. Population & Housing The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan reports that 33,648 dwelling units existed in 1995 within the unincorporated area (Table 5-26, SLCP) accommodating a permanent population of 61,676 residents (Table 5-18, SLCP). The number of dwelling units differs slightly from that reported elsewhere in the SLCP (30,016 in Table 5-3, SLCP) but is used within this analysis because it provides the most conservative result. The SLCP does not present population or housing statistics by planning area. However, the year 2000 census population by census block was obtained to provide an estimate of the population of the north county area. St. Lucie MPO data on population and housing was also obtained to provide an estimate of the north county area. Table 1 provides a summary of the population estimates for existing and future conditions. Table 1: Existing and Future Population Year( ) Countywide Population Unincorporated Population North County Population 2025 319,685 94,999 25,933 2020 286,400 89,445 24,041 2015 265,185 83,205 22,150 2010 245,542 77,400 20,258 2000 198,143 67,765 18,366 2000 192,695 See Note 1 16,474 1995 171,003 61,676 14,582 1. Census block population was not calculated for the unincorporated area as part of this analysis. 2. Contains approximately the following census blocks: 1000-1058, 1086, 1088, 1091-1130, 1133, 1306, 1999-2042, 2997-3032, 3994-4032, 5000-5030, 6000-6025 excluding a portion of Ft. Pierce city limits. 3. Contains TAZ's 1-14. 4. Values interpolated from 2000/2025 data. 5. 2025 value interpolated from 1995/2020 data. 6. Obtained from US Census. 7. All data obtained from SLCP unless otherwise noted. A parcel -based analysis of the north county area was performed to determine the housing and vacant land status of the north county area. Table 2 presents existing and future housing data. Note, direct comparisons of the population and household data are not appropriate. The data are obtained from disparate sources with differing methodologies and different geographic extents. No single data source exists for direct comparison of population and housing over time and space. Nevertheless, with these constraints, the data are within appropriate ranges and are adequate for long range planning purposes and general comparisons over time. Page 8 f 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 Table 2: Existing and Future Housing Year(5) Persons per Household(4) North County Dwelling Units (2) Countywide Dwelling Units(3) Unincorporated Dwelling Units 2025 2.41 11,680 132,385 NP 2020 2.33 10,481 124,470 NP 2015 2.25 9,282 116,555 NP 2010 2.18 8,083 108,640 40,413 2005 2.23 6,884 100,725 37,144 2000 2.29 5,685 92,810 33,747 1995 2.37 4,486 84,895 30,016 (1) 5,223 single-family parcels; 237 mobile home parcels; and 104 multifamily parcels (multifamily parcels with total improvement assessed value of $5.629Million at $25,000 per unit results in 225 MF units) (2) 2025 dwelling units from St. Lucie WO; 2000 dwelling units from parcel -based analysis; remaining values obtained from interpolation. (3) Interpolated from 1996/2025 St.Lucie WO data. (4) 2025 calculated from St.Lucie WO data; 2020 and 2015 interpolated from remaining data obtained from SLCP. (5) All data obtained from SLCP unless otherwise noted. The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan reports that 45,303 dwelling units will be required by 2010 (Table 5-22, SLCP) accommodating a permanent population of 77,400 residents (Table 5- 18, SLCP). These figures provide a market flexibility factor to account for housing choice and typical vacancy rates. The net additional units required through 2010 to accommodate the estimated population is 11,655 (Table 5-29, SLCP). Objective 5.1.1 identifies a need for 8,775 single-family units and 1,622 multifamily units through 2010. To meet this need, Policy 5.1.1.1 sets aside 1,868 acres for single-family development and 754 acres for multifamily development. This policy assumes future development densities at 5 and 9 units per gross acre for single and multifamily developments respectively. However, a review of recent major residential subdivisions indicates that the gross density being developed is approximately four units per acre for single-family housing. Land development regulations and requirements for roadways, drainage and utilities preclude the ability to achieve the maximum allowable density. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan (page 5-48) acknowledges that recent residential development has occurred at approximately four and eight gross units per acre for single and multifamily developments respectively. The proposed project, though, is to be developed as a golf course community with substantially lower gross densities due to the land set aside for the golf course and related facilities. However, the net residential density as presented early remains approximately 4 units per acre (excluding land set aside for the golf course and related facilities). From an unincorporated countywide perspective, the net additional land required for new dwelling units, assuming four or eight units per gross acre for single and multifamily developments respectively, is 2,465 acres (2,194 acres for single-family and 271 acres for Page 9 of 28 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 multifamily). Under these assumptions, a deficit exists countywide for land needed to accommodate single-family development. The deficit for single-family housing through 2010 is approximately 597 acres or 2,388 units. The proposed project encompasses 490 acres with 682 proposed residential units for a gross residential density of approximately 1.39 units per acre. Again, the density is limited by the recreation, open space, roads, drainage, and utilities provided within the proposed 450-acre golf course community. The proposed development would provide for approximately 29% of the single-family housing deficit as measured in housing units. From the perspective of the north county planning area, approximately 1,701 vacant single- family lots exist. Single-family lots were defined by the Tax Collector's data, and for this analysis, any vacant lot five acres and smaller was considered a single-family lot. Lots existing on land with a nonresidential land use designation were not included. An additional 260 acres of vacant residential urban land also exists. Assuming four dwelling units per acre for this land results in an additional 1,040 dwelling units. The residential carrying capacity of rural and suburban lands was not included in this analysis. To include these lands would imply their build -out prior to expanding the urban service line, but in doing so, expansion of the urban service line would no longer be viable, as rural and suburban sprawl would have encompassed the land. From the ,previous paragraph, the carrying capacity of the north county vacant residential land is 2,741 dwelling units. From the data presented in Tables 1 and 2, the north county area must accommodate an estimated population in 2015 of 22,150. The existing population is 16,474. The net increase in population that must be accommodated is therefore 5,676 new residents. With 2.25 persons per household, 2,523 dwelling units will be required. However, to accommodate typical vacancy rates and market flexibility as reported in the SLCP (87% occupancy), 2,900 housing units should be available. From the analysis, the existing carrying capacity of the north county area is not adequate to accommodate the future population. This is expected given that countywide a deficit also exists. Table 3 below presents the residential land deficit in the north county area over time. Table 3: North County Residential Land Deficit Year Persons per Household') North County Dwelling Units(l) North County Population(l) Net Population Growth(2) New Dwelling Units Required(3) Dwelling Units Deficit 2025 2.41 11,680 25,933 9,459 4,511 1,770 2020 2.33 10,481 24,041 7,567 3,733 992 2015 2.25 9,282 22,150 5,676 2,900 159 2010 2.18 8,083 20,258 3,784 1,995 Surplus 2005 2.23 6,884 18,366 1,892 975 Surplus 2000 2.29 5,685 16,474 - - - 1995 2.37 4,486 14,582 - - - Page 10 of 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 (1) Data from Tables 1 and 2. (2) 2000 considered the base year to determine the net population growth. (3) Based upon population per household contained in Table 2. TRANSPORTATION The site is located along Indrio Road and contains approximately 2,500 feet of roadway frontage. The proposed project identifies one access road leading from Indrio Road into, the site. The subject site is approximately one mile from the I-95 interchange. Currently, Indrio Road through the planning area is a two lane rural roadway. The interchange at I-95 provides full access. The access ramps are stop controlled at Indrio Road. Johnston Road and Emerson Avenue at Indrio Road are stop controlled while Kings Highway at Indrio Road is signalized. No substantive road projects are identified within the five-year road program for Indrio Road or the I-95 interchange. The long-range plans for Indrio Road as identified on the 2025 LRTP of the St. Lucie County MPO reflect a 4—lane facility from just east of I-95 to Kings Highway. The proposed project acknowledges this future need through right-of-way protection. The need for four-laning Indrio Road is derived from the future urban development planned for the I-95/Indrio Road interchange and the airport environs. Details of these development plans are provided below in the section entitled Employment (I-95 Mixed Use Development and Airport Related Development). The staging for the long range widening of Indrio Road is approximately the year 2010. The study area for the traffic analysis encompasses a two-mile radius, the approximate impact area of the proposed project. The analysis year is 2010, the expected build -out year. An analysis period for peak hour/peak season and average daily is provided. Trip generation rates are obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation, 61h Edition, as land use 21.0 —.Single-Family Detached Housing. The independent variable, units, is used for the proposed development. The existing development is assumed to be vacant land. Trip distribution and assignment is performed manually guided by the traffic analysis conducted for the concurrent PUD previously submitted. AM Peak Hour Trips: T = 0.700(X) + 9.477 PM Peak Hour Trips: LN(T 1) = 0.901 LN(X) + 0.527 Weekday Trips: LN(T2) = 0.920LN(X) + 2.707 The trip generating characteristics of the proposed future land use for the proposed project is shown in the table below. The trip generation is based on 682 units and equates to 606 peak hour trips in the afternoon peak hour or 6,072 daily trips. The driveway directional distribution reflects 64% of the peak hour traffic exiting the site as reported by ITE. The project traffic is divided between the two site access points with 37% to Johnston Road and 63% to Indrio Road during the afternoon peak period. The peak directional distribution on the area roadways was obtained from the traffic analysis conducted for the concurrent PUD previously submitted. The peak directional distribution on the area roadways varies. For the critical project link, Indrio Road between Johnston and Emerson, the roadway directional distribution is 68% in the peak direction. The net peak directional impact for the project link (Indrio Road between Johnston and Emerson) is thenl67 peak hour trips (606 peak hour trips x 64% driveway directional distribution x 63% access point distribution x 68% roadway directional distribution). Page 11 of 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 Collector and arterial roadways within the study area along with peak hour and daily traffic estimates for the base year and analysis year are provided Table 4. Table 5 which follows presents the directional impact on each roadway along with the directional roadway capacity. Roadway data was obtained from the St. Lucie County and the FDOT Level of Service Guidelines Manual generalized level of service tables. As demonstrated in Table 5, no significant impact occurs. Table 4: Seasonally Ad_lusted Traffic Estimates Roadway (from -to) Generalized Capacity 2000 Peak Hour Directional Volume 2000 Daily Two-way Volume 2010 Peak Hour Directional Volume 2010 Daily Two-way Volume Indrio Road West of I-95) 1,280 43 1,649 58 2,228 Indrio Road (I-95 to Johnson Road) 1,280 545 7,469 736 10,091 Indrio Road (Johnson Road to Emerson Ave) 1,280 452 6,930 611 9,362 Indrio Road(Emerson Avenue to SR 713) 1,280 373 10,476 504 14,153 Johnson Road (CR 614 to IR County) 1,280 141 4,590 191 6,201 Emerson Avenue (CR 614 to IR County) 1,280 218 3,510 295 4,742 Note, a 3.4% annual growth rate as calculated from annual traffic counts from 1997 through present was used to obtain the 2010 traffic estimates. Link volume estimates could not be obtained from the St. Lucie MPO. Table 5: Traffic Impact Roadway Capacity 2010 Peak Hour 2010 Daily Project 2010 V/C (from -to) Directional/ Directional Two-way Impact Project (Dail) Volume Volume Volume Indrio Road 1,230 58 2,228 9 583 0.47 ( West of I-95) Indrio Road 1,230 736 10,091 60 609 0.49 (I-95 to Johnson Road) Indrio Road 1,230 611 9,362 232 596 0.49 (Johnson Road to Emerson Ave) Indrio Road 1,230 504 14,153 60 596 0.49 (Emerson Avenue to SR 713 Johnson Road 1,230 191 6,201 27 696 0.55 (CR 614 to IR County) Emerson Avenue 1,230 295 4,742 60 751 0.60 (CR 614 to IR County) Italics represent project link The St. Lucie County International Airport exists within the study area. The proposed project does not impact the future aviation needs. Therefore, future aviation needs are not related to the request for expanding Planned Urban Service Area. Page 12 of 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 EMPLOYMENT (I-95 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND AIRPORT RELATED DEVELOPMENT) Within the study area, three employment areas exist or are identified on the future land use map. The first occurs along US-1. This area is predominantly strip commercial. The second area consists of the St. Lucie County International Airport and the surrounding industrial area. The airport contains approximately 32 businesses employing over 400 residents. Surrounding industrial lands, which cover approximately 180 acres, contain an additional 52 businesses employing over 868 residents. The planned nonresidential development associated with the airport extends to within 1-mile southeast of the subject project and provides nearly 2,000 acres of land for future urban development associated with the airport. The third area is set aside on the future land use map for mixed use urban development associated with the interchange and encompasses over 1,200 acres. This land borders the western boundary of the subject parcel along Indrio Road. Currently, none of this land is developed as urban uses. A majority of the land is fallow or actively being used for agricultural purposes. UTILITIES The site is currently vacant, and development under existing rules and regulations for Residential Estate land uses would proceed with wells and septic systems. The proposed project is for an ::urban development requiring connection to a central water and sewer system. Central sanitary :sewer and potable water within the study area are primarily served by the North County Utility District (f.k.a. Holiday Pines Service Corporation). According to representatives of the North .bounty Utility District, the current three month average demand for the sewer plant 0.111 mgd '•with a permitted capacity of 0.210 mgd, which is equivalent to the plant's design capacity. Currently, the water plant operates at 0.118 mgd with a permitted capacity of 0.288 mgd. The table below presents the estimated water and sewer demands of the proposed project based upon the following level of service standards: Policy 6.A 1.2.3 Policy 6.D�1.2.3. Sanitary Sewer — 280 gallons per each equivalent Potable Water — 88 gallons per day residential connection with 100 gallons per day per capita per capita for all other systems Table 6: Water and Wastewater Capacity Analysis Development Persons Potable Excess Water Sanitary Excess Sewer Per Water Plant Sewer Plant Household Demand Capacity Demand Capacity 683 equivalent 2.23 134,032 gpd 170,000 gpd 191,240 gpd')99,000 gpd residential 152,309 gpd(b) connections (a) Based upon 280 gallons per equivalent residential connection. (b) Based upon 100 gallons per capita with 2.23 persons per household. Page 13 of 28 a. aY41a a ulaVala.{laaV11Y !/ V4—VV 1 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 The St. Lucie County Water & Wastewater Master Plan identifies expansion of the North County water and wastewater plants and distribution system. Figures 2 & 3 and Tables 7 & 8 are excerpts from the Utility Master Plan indicating the proposed expansions through 2005 and through 2020. Given the phasing of the proposed project, adequate facilities will be in place when needed. Payment of required utility connection charges ensures the development bares its fare share of the utility expansion costs. Water and sewer concurrency requirements will further ensure that the development will proceed only when necessary facilities are in place to serve the proposed development. Table 7: North County Water Distribution Capital Expansion Plan Implementation Project Description Capital Costs B 2005 Rehabilitation of existing distributions stem $110,000 2005 24-inch main from the HP WTP South to Indrio Road $126,000 2005 16-inch main east n Indrio Road to US-1 and 12-inch main $1,600,000 west to the I-95 Interchange 2005 12-inch main from the intersection of US-1 and Indrio Road $550,000 north to Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and south to St. Lucie Village 2005 Extend 6-inch main serving the Heather Way apartments west $4,800 to connect to the proposed 12inch water main at Indrio Road 2005 12-inch main from Indrio Road at Turnpike Feeder Road to $400,000 Deer Run Drive and 6-inch at Sunset Drive 2005 Connect 8-inch water main at Lakewood Park Elementary to $8,500 the 12-inch main along Highway 713 at Palomar Parkway 2005 Expand the existing Hol4day Pines water treatment plant $2,420,000 from 0.288 mgd to 0.75 mgd including 1MG storage 2008 Expand water treatment facility from 0.75mgd to 1.75 mgd $5,060,000 including Floridian wells 2015 Expand water treatment facility from 1.75mgd to 2.75 mgd $3,190,000 including Floridian wells 2020 SLC Airport Loop $1,412,000 2020 1 Panther Woods Loop $1,215,000 2020 Turnpike Feeder Road Loop $829,000 2020 Lakewood Park Area $3,000,000 Page 14 of 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 Table 8: North County Wastewater Distribution Capital Expansion Plan Implementation Project Description Capital Costs B 2005 12-inch force main from the existing WWTP to Indrio Road $1,850,000 then east and west on Indrio Road to US-1 and I-95 2005 Expand the Holiday Pines WWTP from 0.210 mgd to 0.50 $1,480,000 mgd, including combined headworks and 0.3 mgd reclaimed water pumping capacity 2005 Decommission Lakewood Park WWTP and construct lift $616,000 station and force main to connect into regional system 2005 Decommission Orchid Acres WWTP and construct lift $220,000 station and force main to connect into regional system 2010 Install force main on US-1 from Indrio Road to Harbor $435,000 Branch and Fairwinds WWTP. Decommission Fairwinds WTTP and construct lift station and force main to connect into regional system 2010 Construct 1.5 MGD regional WWTP including deep injection $10,040,000 well and reclaimed water pumping station 2010 Construct 16-inch force main from the proposed WWTP and $400,000 construct lift station and force main to connect to regional system 2020 Decommission Spanish Lakes Country Club WWTP and $240,000 construct lift station and force main to connect into regional system 2020 Construct force main to collect wastewater flows from the $260,000 Airport Industrial Park 2020 Construct force main on Johnston Road Woo 2020 Force main south on Kings Highway and west on St. Lucie $1,100,000 Blvd., Decommission Panther Woods WWTP and construct lift station and force main to connect into regional system Page 15 of 28 Lakewood Park WTP _ lndlon Rlver County 8" Nort Si. Lucle ouC pty Spanish Lakes _ = Fairways WT — 0 O O — c L O O p Eo ' W I Co 12" iv v 0 a� 0 W95 ,l v Panther Woods o WTP r VA7 - s N 12" Ivd Spanish Lakes Country Club WTP SCALE _ , , �• 60 1 "= 5,000' i 12p \� N ' Potenti I Intercohnect �{ Hutchi,son Island N Storageank/ 6" Harbor ' 12 i Branch 4` Ocean. Institute 16' N 6" 16" Indrio Road o �� I Holiday Pines WTPu _! 6" 0l St. Lucie Blvd. Angle Road `�j' LEGEND ® Existing Year 2000 Proposed 2005 Proposed 2020 WTP's Existing and Proposed North County Water Distribution System ST. LUCIE COUNTY WATER FIGURE 4-4 ' & WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Page 16 of 28 Existing Spanish /ndlon Rlver Coin North Blvd Lakes WWTP F U1 1 t-f. St. Luce County ;_ --- - �'1= ,- i \ \ r— -�- L SCALE I �;_ �- •-' - ' � Orchid � » , Existin Existing Lakewood _ i` 9 j �9Wi (� I`� t �• i �\ Acres 11 =5,000 Spanish Lakes Park P j �,-- _ _ / ti� Mobile Fairways WWTP �� )•` �`� - S€ Home Park I � t-� a Z p �-01, `� Harbor -•6" \ Branch ` - � n ^j. \Ocean. (\1 Cr 0 e ir' e \ \ Institute n Existing o o f 7 II �ti� j Holiday Pines Y !j! CountClub w WWTP ` (y(i > J�mo 7 ` } 8" 12" 12" i Indrio Road 16" o o Proposed of ; 8 fi Regional WWTP i 01 6" o 95 I o } �s . o aEi 0 o Existing` I to Y 5 Fairwinds I I I`• ' o I I I� WWTP �' I Existing Panther - , Woods WWTP E ' t —i--�� i-- - } Z� 6" St. Lucie Blvd. o• W �� --- - ---- -Angle Road_fif_�----- "' LEGEND Existing Force Main 5 Yr. Force Main �...� 20 Yr. Force Main ® Existing WWTP ® Future WWTP Existing and Proposed North County Force Main System ST. LUCIE COUNTY WATER FIGURE 5-1 �''"� ASTER PLAN „,,,,�,.�.,,,� & WASTEWATER M N pAnin, 17 _-F no I� i 1�. E7Osym EDGE OF PAq/ENT j fr. Ir; EXISTING AMUSE: RE lit EXISTING ZONING: AG-1 f :' If. � lr a fill 11 - - - - _LFPFI/CD CANAL 8 (R/W VARIES) - — -- — - ---- —------- ------------ ------------- p `1J 0 s a at = - - - - FPFWCD CANAL 7 (94' R/W) - - - - - - - — EXISTING IANDUSE: T SITE DATA EXISTING ZONING: RS-2 General Description Tax 1.10 Notes I. FWW AA&M 2O4E W IOR W PROJECT Wr IS allM OR PLOOD IZLM CE RAZE LHP AWE7. F211ICO070 F 07ET.7NE DME 4/19/v1. 1 SW rWROYEL6 M 10 1L COYPIEM I1 ONE ANUE 3 Aft 1R11T1E5 6aETUUAVER^RO" PCRSNNTD SECRLW 10 E or ORO9NNCES FOR ST. UVE CO M .. 4. RE COWANCIOR 51NIL YIELD LOCALE AIL fiNSW Mffr DIET AW STREACROWS PROW 10 COA157WCUM S AIL 5196 AND P11NEYf1TT AARMW WAU W N ACOOR"VX NAH RE mom of lMi'm" IRARIC CwzRCL mvm i DOW AW ND ENOWNW ING1LY SOYST W AREAS N TFAS PROTECT 7. OWER WL NOW LAW UIN1rY CO WAWS R1 L/MFY EASEIENIS m W ALAWEP CDAWM-tr WIN RE PRaECT DE9M A ALL PANOW SPACES WIH RE EXCDgAW Or MNOA WPED SPAM WIML BE ME= N NUN& IEIRO-AMEL71W MUM PAW AAA BE N ACCORDANCE WIN 1W F XQ.T. STANDARD SPECIPCA1RW5 FOR ROAD AAD a2DCE CTNSIRUC11aN. 199f6 sEcnw 77a A All HANDICAPPED PATIXNC SPACES snA L BE PRonenr SM,AEO N Accom F E Nlnl F.aa T. STANDARD W" 17J16. 71E APPUGNr PLANS TO SOBMW DE SW"r PROPERTY TOTALING I08 ACRES NRT 6Bl SPOGLE FAW.Y LOTS WTN A M Wp1 OF L;6.N MNW FEET EACH AND AN 18 HOLE FEARW GOEF COURSE RESIODMAL HDUSMIO KIIL BE COA57RL CIW ON THE LAND LISE LOTS AND HE AW"T 6 10 BE Od6ELOPED N ONE RASE: IDTAL AREA OF PLANNED NON-IESIVOOM OEYE10PMEW 6 E6.JS ACAM WWU IS USED FOR CLUB HOf6E cosrm i ZONING OMWW RAID& POOL. AW MAWS QOlW CROSS QMWW 6 PROPOSED TO Bf 1.67 ., LNMTS PER ACNE SIREEW WTDW HE PRaW ARE ID RMW PRNAIE IXLm Flood Za{ Owper/Applicant Traffic; LN LN0190. NC. P.OBOX 691784 . SEE TRAPY ( IXI� 69-1769 Gross Engineer OR= AM AKSIB"W2205 14 , � "'a Densit MW BEAOX FL 32M Amorm FAIC,( 79f-1106 lye -RE,' Surveyor TOTAL UI ( NO NA YE)illiE NEWAAW R= ANC: PRWECT vERU BL-4M FL 32960 (560 561-SM P.U.D � R£OU/RE� Site Address PROPOSE N. OF RVORID Raw BETWEEN JOHhWM $ RUSSAW ROAD FOW PIERCE FLONDA Wetlan £XISANG, Hmm MASTELLER & MOLER, INC.I CIVIL ENGINEERS PH REVISIONS R.. 9..K Fkdk 32M r i �'°'; T"- i i06 ST. LLKAE COUM' 1 LKii l 1111Vii�Li11V114 J/ VL.r-VV 1 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 RECREATION Table 9-1 of the SLCP provides a list of all County -owned parks and conservation areas by facility type and amenity. A summary of this table is provided in Table 9. From this data, the County has approximately 160 acres of Community Parks as of April 1, 1997 with an estimated permanent population of 63,058. This equates to approximately 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, which is below the 5 acres/1,000 persons required as the recreation level of service for community parks. The County is considering the release of bonds for community parkland acquisition to achieve the desired level of service for existing residents. Elimination of the existing deficit is the responsibility of St. Lucie County. The County also has approximately 7,069 acres of Regional Parks. Regional parks rely upon a countywide population for their level of service. As of April 1, 1997 the estimated permanent countywide population was 179,133. This equates to approximately 39.5 acres per 1,000 persons, which is well above the 5 acres per 1,000 persons required as the recreation level of service for regional parks. Note, the population figures referenced above were obtained from Table 9-5 of the SLCP. Table 9: Inventory of County -owned Parks Recreational Facility Type Acreage Special Facilities 239.3 Neighborhood Parks 30.4 Beach Access 24.0 Beach Parks 243.2 Community Parks 160.3 Regional Parks 7,069.8 Environmentally Sensitive Lands 7,697 Total 15,464 The above analysis clearly indicates a deficit of community parks in unincorporated St. Lucie County. This deficit is mitigated to some extent by the availability of school facilities to the general public and the provision of private recreational facilities in planned developments. This deficit, however, is not required to be addressed by new development. The payment of recreation impact fees ensures that new development bares their fare share of the cost of providing recreation facilities. As indicated earlier, St. Lucie County is addressing the current deficit through a proposed bond issue. Regarding the location of existing recreation facilities, the SLCP (Table 9-6) indicates that community parks are intended to serve an area of approximately 10 miles and a population of 30,000 to 50,000 residents. The preferred size of a community park is 30 to 50 acres. According to the SLCP, the nearest community park is Lakewood Park located along Kings Highway. It is comprised of 7.3 acres and contains tennis courts, a ball field, parking, restrooms, play equipment, and two shelters. Using a proportional analysis, the park is approximately 25% of the minimum desired size. Consequently, this facility is expected to serve approximately 12,167 residents (maximum resident loading) from a two-mile mile radius. Lakewood Park is within Page 18 of 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 two miles of the proposed site via Deland, Emerson, and Russos and can thus be served from a distance perspective. The population within the two -miles service radius of Lakewood Park is approximately 7,836 residents. An additional 2,660 residents can be supported within the park's service radius on vacant residential lots. The excess service capacity of Lakewood Park is then 1,671 residents. From this analysis, the proposed project, which will contain approximately 1,541 residents, can be adequately served by the existing regional park through the planning horizon. Consequently, the reported countywide deficit is not geographically uniform across the county. Within the north county area and more specifically within the service area of Lakewood Park, adequate community park facilities exist. SOLID WASTE The SLCP reports that available capacity exists through 2030 for both Class I landfill and Construction and Debris. As indicated earlier, increased densities allowed by future land use amendments do not equate to additional population. As such, landfill capacities are not affected by the proposed project. The expected residents of the proposed project are contained within the County's overall population estimates and landfill rates used within the landfill capacity analysis. POLICE An analysis of the police service response times and call capacity was developed based upon conversations with Sgt. Black of the St. Lucie County Sherrif's Department. Unfortunately, a response could not be provided at the time of this report. An addendum to this report will be issued prior to the Local Planning Agency public hearing providing for a detailed response to this issue. FIRE An analysis of the fire service response times and call capacity was developed based upon conversations with Captain Amerson of the St. Lucie Fire District. The following service related factors exist in the north county area. The proposed project lies within the service area of Station #7 located at Ft. Pierce Blvd near Indrio Road and Kings Highway. The standard response time for this station is between five to seven minutes. The proposed project is located within a three to five minutes response time contour. As measured against response time contours, the proposed project meets the service standards of the St. Lucie Fire District. The number of calls for Station #7 is nearing the capacity of the personnel and equipment currently on site. No plans are currently in place to expand facilities or add personnel. No new stations are planned for the north county area. The nearest support station is located on Airport Road (Station #4) approximately eight to ten minutes from the proposed project. According to Captain Amerson, personnel and equipment capacity currently exists, but the specific impact of Page 19 of 28 rian Amenament *vz-vv i Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 the proposed project cannot be determined Without a detailed review of the project characteristics (housing type, access routes, etc.) and development timeline. As part of the Development review Committee, the St. Lucie Fire District will provide this level of analysis at time of development application. Impact fees will guarantee the fair share contribution of capital and equipment allocations for the proposed development, and additional tax revenues used to fund the St. Lucie Fire District operations resulting from the proposed development will address any personnel enhancements. SCHOOLS An analysis of the school capacity was developed based upon conversations with Marty Sanders of the St. Lucie County School District. Unfortunately, a response could not be provided at the time of this report. An addendum to this report will be issued prior to the Local Planning Agency public hearing providing for a detailed response to this issue. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION The Comprehensive Plan states "Approval for development outside of the Urban Service Boundary requires that the developer provide all necessary services at no cost to local government and the conversion of agricultural lands maintains the viability of adjacent agricultural lands." (page 1-12). In support of this requirement, the analysis that follows specifically addresses the agricultural viability of the subject site and surrounding soil types. The analysis also addresses the unique nature of this site as it relates to its adjoining neighbors. The soil types on the site are predominantly (54) depressional winder sand covering approximately 75% of the site. Approximately 20% of the site is evenly divided between (11) Chobee loamy sand and (16) Hilolo loamy sand. The remaining area is relatively evenly divided among the following soil types: (37) depressional Riviera sand; (4) Arents; (38) Riviera fine sand; (55) Winder loamy sand; (48) Wabasso sand; and (32) Pinoda sand. The surrounding land contains a similar mix of soil types except to the east where: (37) depressional Riviera sand; (38) Riviera fine sand; (48) Wabasso sand; and (32) Pineda sand predominate. None of the above soil types are suitable for agricultural uses without extensive soil management and water controls. This is evident in the field by the extensive drainage canals and structures and the reliance on fertilization for crop management. The site itself is surrounded on three sides by drainage canals. Access is to be limited to only two driveways: one on Indrio Road and another on Johnston Avenue. Consequently, development of the site will in no way impact the adjacent properties causing any existing agricultural use to be physically unable to continue. Buffers will be provided as part of the development to ensure compatibility with the proposed single-family homes and any adjacent agricultural use. Except to the east, the adjacent property is currently being actively used for agricultural purposes. Page 20 of 28 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The surrounding existing and future land uses are generally consistent with the applicant's request. To the immediate west lies mixed -use land set aside for future urban development associated with the interchange. The remaining adjacent lands have Residential Estate land use allowing for up to one unit per acre. Although the requested land use designation, Residential — Urban, allows up to five units per acre, the proposed development density is only 1.5 units per acre, compatible with the surrounding land uses. In addition, neighborhood commercial uses exist within one-half mile along Indrio Road, also within the urban service district. PROPOSED NORTH COUNTY URBAN SERVICE AREA MODIFICATION Based on the above analysis, the current Planned Urban Service Area boundary in north St. Lucie County should be revised to accommodate the proposed project based on the following findings. Population & Housing: Additional residential land is required to accommodate the countywide population through 2010. The proposed development would provide for approximately 29% of the single-family housing deficit as measured in housing units. A deficit of residential land also exists within the north county area. The deficit will materialize sometime during the 2010-2015 ,planning period. Additional residential land within the north county area will also be required to serve the planned nonresidential uses within the study area. Transportation: From a generalized capacity perspective employed for long-range traffic impact analyses, the proposed project will not impact the level of service of the area roadways. Even from°a detailed project specific short-term analysis, the proposed project, with specific intersection projects, can maintain the level of service standard on the area roadways. The proposed development is consistent with the assumptions employed within the 2025 LRTP providing for the future right-of-way needs of Indrio Road. All transportation concurrency requirements must be met prior to the issuance of any development permit. The payment of transportation impact fees ensures the proposed project will bare its share of the utility expansion costs. Employment (I--95 Mixed Use Development and Airport Related Development): The nonresidential land uses identified within the study area will require additional residential land to support the employee and executive housing needs and clearly indicate the planned urbanizing nature of the north county area in the near future. Utilities: The North Utility District water plant currently has excess capacity. The North Utility District wastewater plant is slated for expansion by 2005 and will have adequate capacity for the proposed project. Service to the property is consistent with the St. Lucie County Utility Master Plan. Concurrency determinations will ensure that adequate capacity exists prior to the issuance of any final development order. The payment of utility connection fees ensures the proposed project will bare its share of the utility expansion costs. Page 21 of 28 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 Recreation: The County has an excess of regional, resntirce-related parks. A deficit currently exists for community -based parks. This deficit is related to existing residents that are the responsibility of St. Lucie County. Payment of recreation impact fees ensures that new development bares its fare share of the cost of providing recreation facilities. St. Lucie County is proposing the release of a bond issue to address the current deficit. From a service perspective, the existing community park in the north county area, Lakewood Park, encompasses the proposed project within its service area and can accommodate the proposed residents. Consequently, for the proposed project, no deficit in community parks exists. Solid Waste: Adequate solid waster facilities exists through the year 2030. Police: An analysis of the police service response times and call capacity was developed based upon conversations with Sgt. Black of the St. Lucie County Sherrif s Department. Unfortunately, a response could not be provided at the time of this report. An addendum to this report will be issued prior to the Local Planning Agency public hearing providing for a detailed response to this issue. Fire: According to Captain Amerson of the St. Lucie Fire District, the proposed project lies within the service area of Station #7 located on Ft. Pierce Blvd and can be serviced with a lower response time than the average Station #7 response due to its close location. Personnel and equipment capacity currently exists, but the specific impact of the proposed project cannot be determined without a detailed review of the project characteristics (housing type, access routes, etc.) and development timeline. As part of the Development review Committee, the St. Lucie Fire District will provide this level of analysis at time of development application. Impact fees will guarantee the fair share contribution of capital and equipment allocations for the proposed development, and additional tax revenues used to fund the St. Lucie Fire District operations resulting from the proposed development will address any personnel enhancements. Schools: An analysis of the school capacity was developed based upon conversations with Marty Sanders of the St. Lucie County School District. Unfortunately, a response could not be provided at the time of this report. An addendum to this report will be issued prior to the Local Planning Agency public hearing providing for a detailed response to this issue. Agricultural Preservation: The soil types on the site and surrounding area are not suitable for agricultural uses without extensive soil management and water controls. This is evident in the field by the extensive drainage canals and structures and the reliance on fertilization for crop management. The site itself is surrounded on three sides by drainage canals. Access is to be limited to only two driveways: one on Indrio Road and another on Johnston Avenue. Consequently, development of the site will in no way impact the adjacent properties causing any existing agricultural use to be physically unable to continue. Land Use Compatibility: The surrounding existing and future land uses are generally consistent with the applicant's request. To the immediate west lies mixed -use land set aside for future urban development associated with the interchange. The remaining adjacent lands have Residential Estate land use allowing for up to on a unit per acre. Although the requested land use designation, Residential — Urban, allows up to five units per acre, the proposed development Page 22 of 28 rlall !]lllvilullivilt YtVG vV l Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 density is only 1.5 units per acre, compatible with the kiri ounding land uses. In addition, neighborhood commercial uses exist within one-half mile along Indrio Road, also within the urban service district. With the above findings, the modification of the PUSA, as presented in Figure 4, is justified and consistent with all applicable plan policies and additional issues as presented by the Development Department. As the Comprehensive Plan clearly indicates, "The Urban Service Area is not designed to be a permanent or static limitation on growth. Rather it is intended to indicate the areas of the County that can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of the plan." (page 1-32, SLOP). This analysis clearly demonstrates that the proposed project can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of the plan. The Comprehensive Plan also requires that "Approval for development outside of the Urban Service Boundary requires that the developer provide all necessary services at no cost to local government and the conversion of agricultural lands maintains the viability of adjacent agricultural lands." (page 1-12). With the payment of related impact fees and utility connection fees, the costs of all facilities will be born by the developer. Conversion of this property to residential uses will in no way hinder the ability of adjacent properties to remain agricultural uses. Expansion of the Planned Urban Service Area for the subject property does not constrain the County from further expanding the boundary in other areas to accommodate the remaining deficit of vacant land for single-family housing. Neither does it constrain the County from contracting the boundary in other areas if found to be justified by the planned Urban Service Boundary Study recently released by St. Lucie County. This property, separate from the specific request of Lin Indrio, Inc., is ideally suited for inclusion into the Planned Urban Service Area for the reasons summarized above. Most importantly, central water and sewer services are planned for the area, and higher density urban uses at the I-95 interchange and the airport environs must transition back to the suburban and rural developments that exists around them. This project serves that function with a lower overall gross density of only 1.52 units per acre while addressing an identified future housing deficit. This project is not premature but is a catalyst for the plans of St. Lucie County. A critical population mass in the north County area is needed to spur the nonresidential mixed use developments envisioned for this area. Page 23 of 28 m �i C -(D� CL a a_ r t - z � �I � -f k it-�•` 1 1 I L Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. June 17, 2002 every two years include as part of its Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the latest Urban Service Area Map. Any extension of the Planned Urban Service Area boundary beyond 1,500 feet will require a formal amendment through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Policy 1.1.5.9: In conjunction with Policy 1.1.5.9, new industrial development shall be located in those areas that are serviced with acceptable water and wastewater facilities that will not contribute to the degradation of surficial water quality, or in areas that can be provided those services concurrent with the development of the property. Policy 1.1.5.10: The use of individual on -site septic disposal systems for industrial development activities shall be in accordance with all applicable state ad local regulations, including but not limited to Rule 1013- 6, FAC., and St. Lucie Environmental Control Ordinance 89-02 (wastewater and sewage disposal regulations). Policy 1.1.5.11: As provided for under Policy 1.1.5.1, construction of new residential development at densities greater than two units per acre shall only be permitted when central or on -site water and central or on -site wastewater systems are available or will be provided concurrent with the impacts of development, consistent with the adopted levels of service found in the plan. Policy 1.1.5.12: Existing development will be required to connect to central water and sewer systems when such facilities are made available in accordance with applicable Rules and Regulations, e.g.; Rule IOD-6, FAC. Policy 1.1.5.13: All new subdivisions and site plan development projects that are proposed to take place within the approved service area of any duly authorized water/wastewater utility in St. Lucie County, shall be required to provide "dry -line" central water and wastewater distribution/collection system, and provide for the connection to centralized systems as they become available. The standards for construction of these systems shall be included as part of the County's Land Development Regulations. Policy 1.1.5.14: Local utility services (i.e., electric substations, wastewater lift stations, telecommunication sites, and other small scale utility service operations) necessary to provide for the utility service needs of the neighborhood area, may be approved without the need to amend the Future Land Use Element so long as the property on which the activity is to take place is less than five (5) acres in total area. Zoning compliance and review procedures are to be as described in the County's Land Development Regulations. Page 27 of 28 APPENDIX A APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Plan Amendment #PA02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. 1905 25th Street South, Suite 206 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947 ST. LUCiE COUNTY CHANGE IN FUTURE .LAND USE CLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Please complete the requested information below and submit all items to the St. Lucie County Department of Community Development, Planning Division, 2300 Virginia. Avenue, Room 203, Fort Pierce, Florida. All applications must be accompanied by the proper non-refundable fee or they cannot be accepted for processing. DETERMINATION OF PLAN AMENDMENT FEE r Small Area Amendment Residential - <' 10 acres and < 10 du. ac W (See 163.3187, FS) Non -Residential - < 10 acres $600 Regular Amendment , $1,000 NOTICE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUMS, THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE. CHANGES ON PARCELS ;IN EXCESS OF 10 ACRES ("REGULAR AMENDMENTS") ONLY TWICE EACH CALENDAR YEAR. IN MOST, INSTANCES, THE CO'MIMIISSION -WILL CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE CHANGBS'ON PARCELS LESS THAN •10 ACRES ("SMALL AREA AMENDMENTS' AT ANY TIME DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR. PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION (407/468-1576) TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE DEADLINES FOR REVIEW. For assistance in submitting this application, please contact the St: Lucie County Department of Community Development; Planning Division. Applicant's Name: Lin Indrio, Inc. Applicant's Address: 1905 25th Street South Suite 206 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947 Applicant's Phone Number: 561-465-2330 Fax 561-465-2342 I (We) do hereby petition the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency and the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to. change the Future Land Use Classification of the following property: Legal Description: (Type or print in black ink) SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED Property.TaxI.D. ##. Existing Land Use 13-10-311-0001-000/7 .13-10-211-0001-000/5 13-10-211-0001-000/0 RE My (Our) reason for making this request is: .Proposed Land Use: RU To -develop a residential community with approximately (681) lots and containing an 18 hole golf.course, club house, swimming pool, tennis courts, and maintenance building. Agent authorized by the Applicant to represent the Applicant, if any: Name Richard...D. Sneed, Jr. P.A. Address 1905 25th Street South, Suite 206, Mardi. Executive Centre Ft. Pierce, F1 34947 Phone Number 561-465-2330 Fax 561 465-2342 Email Rdsjrpa@aol.com Please answerthe following questions that are relevant to the provisions of. the Comprehensive .Plan. regarding future land use classifications. Please provide thorough answers, -that -.refer to specific policies and page numbers -from the Comprehensive Plan whenever possible. SEE EXHIBIT "B"FOR ANSWERS NOT ON FORM. I. Is the proposed future use compatible with adjacent future land use designations? 2. 'What conditions affecting.the future land use designation have changed since the. adoption of. the Comprehensive Plan? Describe any. changes in development patterns, utility availability, and public service capacity. 3. Where are the nearest public or investor -owned water and sewer services? Who is the service provider? Is the site included in the five-year expansion plan of these utilities? 'if private facilities are proposed, describe the capacity and type of water and wastewater services to -be'. provided. 4. If a .change to. industrial land use is. pr(5posed, explain how water and wastewater systems meet Future Land Use Policies 1.15.8 and 1.1.5.9 of the Comprehensive Plan 5. What is the general drainage pattern in the surrounding area, and what general approach to stormwater management would you anticipate if the. requested land use change is granted? What effects would the requested land- use change have on the volume and quality of runoff? 0) 6. Provide a projection of .the: average daily. -volumes of solid waste that would --be generated if the land use changes. 7. What demands for recreational facilities will be created by development in _ accordance with the land use change? Describe any available plans for recreation and open space. if you are requesting a residential classification, what recreational facilities and open spaces are available in the vicinity? 8. Is the property currently within the Planned Urban Service Area.Boundary? 9.. If you answered "no" to Question .8 above, will the ,property be. used. for "urban development activities" as defined in Future Land Use Policy 1.1.5.1? Check which urban development activities apply: X residential development in: excess of two .units to the gross acre any non-agricultural commercial activity any non -extractive, non -agriculturally related industrial activity 10. If any item in Question 9 above is checked, the property must lie within the Planned Urban. Service Area Boundary. If an expansion of the Boundary is needed and you propose a change .to a residential category, please refer to Future Land USe Policy, 1.1.5.7 and answer the following questions: A. Is the subject property contiguous to a residential land use classification? B. Can the owners of contiguous properties between your property and the present Urban Services Area Boundary assure that appropriate urban . infrastructure . and services can be provided? If so,' please* provide documentation. C. - To* what extent will the proposed expansion detrimentally impact the established character of the area? 11. If changing from an agricultural category (AG-5 and AG-2.5) to a non-agricultural category (all others) is proposed, please answer the following questions. A. How. is the proposed use compatible with existing and proposed uses of adjacent properties? How will this use impact on adjacent agricultural uses? B. How -will remaining adjacent agricultural uses affect the non-agricultural uses you propose? 3 C. Using the St. Lucie County Soil. -Survey, please provide documentation' of the soil type(s) found on the subject parcel and their suitability for the proposed use. D. "Describe how the proposed land use•fiesignation is suitable, recognizing site - specific land characteristics? ..71 E. How does the proposed. land use designation relate to other nearby -development plans that 'are approved or now being formulated? F. How do you propose to buffer adjacent agricultural uses from the effects of urban development? 12. Please provide any information and drawings that you have developed. as a concept Plan for the property, including type and size of project, .proposed roads and roadway improvements, location and types of public facilities, conceptual drainage information, development schedule, and proposed tenants or purchasers. , x I (We) do hereby certify that I (we) own in -fee simple all of the above described property and have legal right to request a change in Future Land Use of said property. I (We) do hereby certify that 'I (we) own in :fee simple that portion of. the. above described property for -which a change.in Future Land Use is requested, described as The remainder of:the property described in paragraph #1 above for which change in Future Land Use is.requested is owned by and that I (we) certify that the above legal description submitted by me (us) represents the property I (we) wish to -have reclassified. 'I (We) understand that T. (We) must be- present at the hearing or will be represented by my (our) agent. HAWP\PLAN.AME 4 acvLsed 1Z*BM 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIN INDRIO, INC., a Florida corporation Applicant (s)' Name October 18, 2001 Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Signature, Date Richard D. Sneed, Jr. P.A.. Agent's Name October 18, 2001 Agent's Signature 'Date SPECIAL NOTE: Under the .provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Cade, a petition for change in land use is considered to be a PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT ORDER Under the definition of Preliminary Development Order, and consistent with the County's concurrency regulations, St. Lucie County neither warrants nor represents that there are sufficient public facilities of services available to serve the property on which the change in land use is sought. Further, pursuant to Section 5.01.01(B)(3) of the Code, a signed Concurrency Deferral Affidavit must accompany all applications for land use changes and zoning amendments which acknowledge that no public facility capacity will be reserved for the subject property prior to the issuance of a Final Development Order. A $25 fee will apply. A determination of the availability of public facilities capacity will. be made prior to the issuance of a Final Development Order. A Final Development Order cannot be issued capacity. is available. For additional information please contact the Department of Community Development, Growth Management Division, Room 201, St. Lucie_ County Administration Building. Telephone (407) 468-1550. ' 5 Exhibit "A" Legal Description PARCEL I: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 10, Township 34 South, Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPTING the West 85 feet of the South 999.79 feet of the NW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 34 South, Range 39 East, less the South 20 feet thereof; and less the West 80 feet of the North 500 feet of the South 1499.79 feet of said NW 1/4 and less the West 75 feet of the North 1145.41 feet of said NW 1/4 less the North 25 feet; all less the existing right of way ofFort Pierce Farms Drainage District, and all less the existing right ofway for Johnston (Lateral "8") Road. Also LESS AND EXCEPTING the East 50 feet of the E %Z of the NW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 34 South, Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida. Excepting therefrom rights of way for public roads, drainage canals and ditches as shown on Plat Book 2, Page 7, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. PARCEL H: The SW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 34 South, Range 39 East, less and except rights of way of drainage, canals and public roads as per Plat of Fort Pierce Farms on file in Plat Book 2, Page 7, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. PARCEL III: The NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 34 South, Range 39 East, less canals and roads and excepting a one -acre square in the Southeast corner (said one acre exception being at the intersection of Indrio Road and F.P.F.D.D. Canal #7 and said one acre exception being described in Deed recorded in Official Records Book 220, Page 544, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida). EXHIBIT "B" Lin Indrio, Inc./ PHOENICIAN COUNTRY CLUB APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION 1. Yes. See generally Chapter 1, Future Land Use Element, June, 2001, pages 31 through 37 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update. Also see Map of 2000 Future Land Use General Amendments. 2. The main condition affecting the future land use designation that has changed since the adoption of the comprehensive plan has been growth. In addition, the development patterns in the county in the past ten years , especially in the South County ,indicate a trend towards mixed use planned unit developments providing various lot sizes, including recreational facilities such as golf courses, tennis courses and open space. Further, the market conditions in the past ten years , on average, sustained an upward trend in successful planned unit developments providing mixed use, golf course and recreational amenities. Although utilities are not of this land, they can be brought to the site and there exists public service capacity for that purpose. The applicant has simultaneously, with this application, to change future land use classification, filed a petition to encompass the land within the urban service district and an application to change the zoning of the land to planned unit development. 3. The nearest public -owned water and sewer services are located to the east of the proposed project in the vicinity of Indrio Road and King's Highway. The water and sewer service is part of the Holiday Pines utility system owned and operated by St. Lucie County. Proposed 12" diameter potable water piping and 12" diameter sanitary sewer piping systems to serve the proposed project are shown in the St. Lucie County Master Plan as part of the utilities expansion between now and the year 2020. See generally St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update Potable Water Sub -Element, June 2001, Chapter 6(d), page 6D-7. 4. Question number 4 as to industrial land use is not applicable to the application. 5. The general drainage pattern of the surrounding area consists of citrus groves with drainage ditches used for irrigation purposes and ultimate discharge to Ft. Pierce Farms Drainage District canals. Storm water management for the proposed project would be discharged to the Ft. Pierce Farms Drainage District canals paralleling the east and west boundaries of the project. The storm water management design would: provide that the pre and post drainage areas from the proposed project would be the same and the volume and quantity of runoff would be attenuated and controlled based on design criteria by the South Florida Water Management District. 6. According to the St. Lucie County Utilities Department, a typical household with 2.5 people produces 2,000 lbs. of solid waste per year. This equates to approximately 5.5 lbs. per day per household. Multiplying this by 681 lots or households results in the project production an average daily volume of solid waste equal to 3,745 lbs. 7. There will be little or no demand for recreational facilities created by this development in accordance with the land use change. The proposed planned unit development provides for recreational facilities in the forms of a golf course (which will be open to the public), a clubhouse with recreational facilities, tennis courts and a swimming pool. The proposed plan unit development offers extensive open space in the form of a golf course, ponds and lakes throughout the development. 8. No. However, the applicant has simultaneously filed with this application a petition to include the proposed development within the Urban Service Area Boundary, and the applicant is aware that the approval- of that petition is a condition to the consideration of the applicant's application for change in future land use classification, and the applicant's application for change in zoning to planned unit development. 10. A. -Yes. RE B. Yes C. Proposed development will not detrimentally impact the established character of the area. 11. A. B. Residential use is presently existing in the area, although the area is for the most part agriculturally zoned. The proposed use will not impact on agricultural uses in that the agricultural use in the area has for the most part been citrus. The citrus in the area, including the land in question, has played out. The existing land has had planted on it for many years, an orange grove. The orange grove is not economically viable and is in decline. Adjacent agricultural uses are in similar condition. The land is not well suited to the production of citrus in that the soil, the typography and the overall economic conditions will not support the past agricultural uses of the land. C. The soils survey of St. Lucie County Area (hereinafter referred to as "SCS") maps the majority of the site as Winder sand, depressional. The soil associations Hilolo loamy sand, Chobee loamy sand, Pineda sand, Riveria fine sand and Wabasso sand are shown to be intermingled within the eastern approximately one -quarter of the property. Each of the mapping units is described as being poorly drained, nearly level sandy soil containing appreciable amount of silt and clay size particles. Except for Wabasso sand, these soil associations are usually found in depressional areas, low hammocks, sloughs and/or drainage ways. The Wabasso sand, which encompasses a small area along the western boundary within the northern one-third of the property, is generally found in flatwoods. The SCS reports that, under natural conditions, areas of Winder sand, depressional re ponded for 6 to 9 months in most years. Within drainage districts, or other areas with surface water controls, these areas are usually not ponded. However, if the water system is not maintained, the soil can become ponded again. The ponded soils are suitable for the proposed use due to the project design and required permitting which will mandate surface water management, attenuation, and control. An engineered and permitted drainage system will result in the existing soils being suitable for the proposed use. D. The specific land characteristic of the proposed development is that it encompasses 450 contiguous acres along two major corridors in the north end of St. Lucie County. The proposed mixed use residential golf course community is well -suited for the specific characteristics of the land and its access to major corridors and Federal Highway 95. E. The closest planned unit development of similar size and characteristic to the proposed development is that of Panther Woods Country Club. Panther Woods Country Club lies to the south of the proposed development and is also located on Johnston Road. In addition, south of subject property there is a proposed amendment 00-041 to change the land use designation from MXD-Airport to: RE. See 2000 future land use general amendments map. F. Adjacent agricultural uses to the land under application as for the most part have played out and is not of much significance. The proposed planned unit development will have a significant berm and fence around the planned unit development. APPENDIX B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PRIMARY URBAN SERVICE AREA Objective 1.1.5 In coordination with the other element of this plan, the future development within the Planned Urban Service Area shall be directed to areas where urban and community services/facilities can be provided in the most efficient and compact manner so as to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Policy 1.1.5.1: Urban development activities shall be restricted to that area identified as the Planned Urban Service Area (Fig. 1-9). Urban development activities are defined, for the purpose of this Policy, as any residential development activity in excess of two units to the gross acre, any non-agricultural commercial activity or any non-extractive/non-agriculturally related industrial activity. Policy 1.1.5.2: Prior to development approvals within the Urban Service Area, the County shall consider the provision of urban and community services/facilities. Development which requires provision of these services over significant distances shall discouraged until other land within the Urban Service Area and is more accessible has been developed. Policy 1.1.5.3: Where regional water and wastewater utility service is not extended, the County shall allow for non-residential development, or residential development in excess of two (2) dwelling units per acre as per Policy 1.1.5.10, where the following factors are met: a) the development bears the entire fiscal impact of providing its own water and wastewater system; and b) the developer agrees to connect to a regional water and wastewater system when such system becomes available to the site with none of the cost for connecting to the regional system passed on to the regional system. Policy 1.1.5.4: The County's adopted potable water and wastewater master plan shall be considered a part of this plan based on the references contained here and in the Infrastructure Element, Policy 1.1.5.5: Not Applicable. Policy 1.1.5.6: The County shall not at public expense construct any new roadways which will extend public facilities to areas not presently served within the Urban Services Area unless such areas are immediately contiguous to existing non-residential or residential urban developments (those having density in excess of two (2) dwelling units per acre) or which have been identified by the Metropolitan Planning Organization as part of its area roadway network to meet area wide transportation needs. Policy 1.1.5.7: No urban development shall be permitted outside of the Planned Urban Service Area that does note address all of its community infrastructure impacts, both on -site and off -site. All development outside the Urban Service Area shall pay the entire cost of its fiscal impacts on public facilities and services. Policy 1.1.5.8: The Planned Urban Service Area is not intended to be a static line of development. This area may be extended or contracted only for a residential classification up to 1,500 feet from that which is indicated on Figure 1-9 without necessitating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan where the Urban Service Area lies contiguous to a residential classification, the owner of contiguous property can ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure and services, and the resulting change does not detrimentally impact the established character of the area. St. Lucie County shall be responsible for maintaining an updated map indicating the location of the approved Planned Urban Service Area boundary and once COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS .5 MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANNED URBAN SERVICE AREA Prepared in Support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment #PA02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. 1905 25'h Street South, Suite 206 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947 Prepared By: Thomas Lucido & Associates 100 Avenue A, Suite 2A Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Date: April 30, 2002 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 30, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background & Purpose Project Description & Study Area Methodology Analysis of North County Planned Urban Service Area Population & Housing Transportation Employment (I-95 Mixed Use Development and Airport Related Development) Utilities Recreation Solid Waste Proposed North County Urban Service Area Modification LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Existing and Future Population Table 2: Existing and Future Housing Table 3: Water and Wastewater Capacity Analysis Table 4: North County Water Distribution Capital Expansion Plan Table 5: North County Wastewater Distribution Capital Expansion Plan Table 6: Inventory of County -owned Parks LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: North County Water Distribution Capital Expansion Plan Figure 3: North County Wastewater Distribution Capital Expansion Plan Figure 4: Proposed Modification to the Planned Urban Service Area LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Plan Amendment #PA-02-001— Original Application Appendix B: St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan Objective 1.1.5 and related Policies Appendix C: St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan related Level of Service Policies Page 2 of 21 Page 3 3 5 6 6 8 9 9 14 14 15 7 8 9 10 11 14 4 12 13 17 Plan Amendment 902-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 30, 2002 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE St. Lucie County Application #PA-02-001, submitted by Lin Indrio, Inc., a Florida Corporation, proposes to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to change the land use on approximately 490 acres of land along Indrio Road from Residential Estate (1 upa) to Residential Urban. In addition, Application #PA02-001 proposes to amend the Planned Urban Service Area boundary to encompass the 490 acres tract of land. The location of the property is reflected in Figure 1. A copy of the original application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is attached as Appendix A. Currently, the project is located outside of the Planned Urban Service Area of St. Lucie County. As a result, Staff directed additional data and analysis be submitted in support of the application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The additional data and analysis is to respond to the Comprehensive Plan requirements regarding amendments to the Planned Urban Service Area boundary. The application is scheduled to be presented to the Local Planning Agency in May 2002 as part of the second set of plan amendments for 2002. The purpose of this analysis is to present data and analysis in support of the applicant's request to expand the Planned Urban Service Area for the subject property. As such, the analysis will be guided by the requirements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan (SLCP). PROJECT DESCRIPTION & STUDY AREA The project consists of approximately 682 residential units,'a clubhouse, maintenance shed, and an 18-hole golf course over 450 acres. Design, permitting, and site development, including construction of the golf course, will take approximately two years. After completion of the site work and golf course construction, development of the housing units is expected to be phased over five to seven years depending upon market absorption. A planned unit development zoning agreement and master development plan will be presented for consideration upon completion of the land use amendment and concurrent extension of the Planned Urban Service Area, if granted. The project is generally located in northern St. Lucie County and is bound by Indrio Road to the south, Johnston Road to the west, Russos Road to the North, and Russakis Road to the east. The property is further bound by Fort Pierce Farms Water Management District canals on the east and west. Vacant land exists immediately adjacent on all quadrants. Urban residential development occurs within 1-mile of the property to the north within Indian River County. Within St. Lucie County, urban residential development occurs within 1-mile to the east as part of the LakArk subdivision. Limited commercial uses also occur to the east approximately %Z- mile from the subject property. The Planned Urban Service Area associated with the I-95 interchange abuts the west boundary of the property. The I-95 interchange area is set aside in the Comprehensive Plan for future urban development. The north county area, in general, is developed with a variety of uses including urban, suburban, and rural housing; industrial, commercial, and office development; agricultural uses; conservation areas; and vacant undeveloped land. The residential uses are predominantly contained within major subdivisions. The balance of the land is either set aside for future mixed use development associated with the I-95 interchange, is outside the Planned Urban Service Area, is environmentally sensitive, or is set aside for development associated with the airport. Page 3 of 21 • t z -777r� 16 ULi i-oj Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 30, 2002 METHODOLOGY The methodology utilized within this analysis is designed to address the specific Comprehensive Plan requirements for developments within the Planned Urban Service Area. An excerpt of the Comprehensive Plan policies addressing these requirements is attached as Appendix B. The methodology also addresses the level of service requirements for new development. A summary of the Comprehensive Plan policies addressing these requirements is attached as Appendix C. With these Plan requirements as the basis, the following specific issues are addressed within this study. Population & Housing Population and housing data for existing and future conditions are obtained from the SLCP. This data is used to. determine the adequacy of the existing future land use map designations and Planned Urban Service Area to accommodate the future housing needs of the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. Although the Comprehensive Plan does not call for a specific analysis of residential capacity to justify expansion to the Planned Urban Service Area, an analysis of this type is beneficial to the County when requested to make such determinations. Transportation The existing, committed, and planned roadway network within the study area is presented for information. This analysis does not attempt to determine whether the transportation network, now or in the future, is adequate to accommodate the proposed project. All transportation concurrency requirements must be met prior to the issuance of any development permit, and impact fees will ensure that the proposed project will bare its fare share of the transportation infrastructure costs. Employment (1-95 Mixed Use Development and Airport Related Development) The analysis of existing and future employment within this study is limited to the identification of future employment opportunities within the study area and the need to provide housing for employees and executives. The proposed project does not contain any non-residential uses. The analysis identifies the extent of the employment opportunities within the north county area to highlight the future urban vision contained with the current Comprehensive Plan. The analysis does not identify the related residential land to accommodate the housing needs of these employment centers. Utilities A primary consideration for expanding the Planned Urban Service Area is the provision of central water and sewer. The analysis presented herein compares the existing excess capacity of the North County Utility District to the estimated demand for the proposed project pursuant to the level of service requirements of the SLCP. The analysis also presents the planned service area as identified in the Utility Service Master Plan to the proposed project and the surrounding areas identified for future urban development. Page 5 of 21 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 30, 2002 Recreation Another primary consideration for expanding the PUSA is the provision of community services such as parks. New development is required to maintain the adopted level of service standards for community and regional parks. The analysis presented herein compares the existing capacity of the County's community and regional parks to the estimated demand for the proposed project pursuant to the level of service requirements of the SLCP. The analysis also presents the planned service area of the proposed development in relation to the existing park supply and addresses the adequacy of the existing park system to serve the recreation needs of the proposed project. Solid Waste The analysis contained herein presents the long-term capacity of the solid waste repository as compared to the SLCP level of service requirements. The analysis does not attempt to identify the estimated demand for the proposed project over the next thirty years. A project specific analysis is not required since the landfill needs of the expected residents of the proposed project are included within the planning estimates of St. Lucie County. In other words, the residents are not in excess of the population estimates of St. Lucie County but are an assignment of the future population to this development. Population estimates are not based upon the buildout capacity of ' an area unless that area is at or near buildout. St. Lucie County is not at or near buildout. ANALYSIS OF NORTH COUNTY PRIMARY URBAN SERVICE AREA The analysis of the north county Planned Urban Service Area is presented below in context with the requested plan amendment. The analysis is specific to the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for modifications to the Planned Urban Service Area boundary. Population & Housing The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan reports that 33,648 dwelling units existed in 1995 within the unincorporated area (Table 5-26, SLCP) accommodating a permanent population of 61,676 residents (Table 5-18, SLCP). The number of dwelling units differs slightly from that reported elsewhere in the SLCP (30,016 in Table 5-3, SLCP) but is used within this analysis because it provides the most conservative result. See Tables 1 & 2 for a summary of the population and housing estimates for existing conditions. The SLCP does not present population or housing statistics by planning area. Neither does the SLCP require evidence of a deficit of residential capacity prior to expanding the Planned Urban Service Area. Consequently, estimates of population and housing for the north County area are not required. However, the year 2000 census population by census block was obtained to provide a check against the population estimates provided within the SLCP and to provide an estimate of the population of the north County area. The estimates provided by the census data are generally consistent with the data reported in the SLCP. A direct comparison of the population figures is not recommended as they were developed from different sources and methodologies and contain different geographic limits. They are provided herein for information purposes and to gauge the level of residential utilization of North County in relation to the County as a whole. Page 6 of 21 rLan tiliiGuUILLIU L rtvz--Vol Lin Indrio, Inc. April 30, 2002 The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan reports that 45,303 dwelling units will be required by 2010 (Table 5-22, SLCP) accommodating a permanent population of 77,400 residents (Table 5- 18, SLCP). These figures provide a market flexibility factor to account for housing choice and typical vacancy rates. See Tables 1 & 2 for a summary of the population and housing estimates for 2010. The net additional units required through 201.0 to accommodate the estimated population is 11,655 (Table 5-29, SLCP). Objective 5.1.1 identifies a need for 8,775 single-family units and 1,622 multifamily units through 2010. Policy 5.1.1.1 sets aside 1,868 acres for single-family development and 754 acres for multifamily development. This policy assumes future development densities at 5 and 9 units per gross acre for single and multifamily developments respectively. However, a review of recent major residential subdivisions indicates that the gross density being developed is approximately four units per acre for single-family housing. Land development regulations and requirements for roadways, drainage and utilities preclude the ability to achieve the maximum allowable density. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan (page 5-48) acknowledges that recent residential development has occurred at approximately four and eight gross units per acre for single and multifamily developments respectively. The net additional land required for new dwelling units, assuming four or eight units per gross acre for single and multifamily developments respectively, is 2,465 acres (2,194 acres for single- fatnily and 271 acres for multifamily). Under these assumptions, a deficit exists for land needed to accommodate single-family development. The deficit for single-family housing through 2010 is approximately 597 acres or 2,388 units. The proposed project encompasses 490 acres with 682 proposed residential units for a gross residential density of approximately 1.52 units per acre. The density is limited by the recreation, open space, roads, drainage, and utilities provided within the 490 acres. The proposed : development would provide for approximately 29% of the single-family housing deficit as measured in housing units. Table 1: Existing and Future Population Data Source Year Countywide Population Unincorporated Population North County Population SLCP 2020 286,400 89,445 See Note 1 SLCP 2015 .265,185 83,205 See Note 1 SLCP 2000 198,143 67,765 See Note 1 Census 2000 192,695 See Note 3 17,798 SLCP 11995 171,003 61,676 See Note 1 1. The St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan does not provide population statistics by planning areas. 2. Population estimate obtained from interpolation between 2000 and 1995 estimates. 3. Census block population was not calculated for the unincorporated area as part of this analysis. 4. Contains the following census blocks: 1000-1058, 1086, 1088, 1091-1130, 1133, 1306, 1999-2042, 2997-3032, 3994-4032, 5000-5030, 6000-6025 containing a portion of Ft. Pierce city limits. Page 7 of 21 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 30, 2002 Table 2: Existing Housing Data Source Year Persons per Household Households Housing Units Occupancy Rate SLCP 2010 2.18 35,523 40,413 87.9% SLCP 2005 2.23 32,650 37,144 87.9% SLCP 2000 2.29 29,664 33,747 87.9% SLCP 1995 2.37 26,052 30,016 87.9% TRANSPORTATION The site is located along Indrio Road and contains approximately 2,500 feet of roadway frontage. The proposed project identifies one access road leading from Indrio Road into the site. The subject site is approximately one mile from the I-95 interchange. Currently, Indrio Road through the planning area is a two lane rural roadway. The interchange at I-95 provides full access. The access ramps are stop controlled at Indrio Road. No substantive road projects are identified within the five-year road program for Indrio Road or the I-95 interchange. The long range plans for Indrio Road as identified on the 2025 LRTP of the St. Lucie MPO reflect a 4—lane facility from just east of I-95 to Kings Highway. The proposed project acknowledges this future need through right-of-way protection. The need for four-laning Indrio Road is derived from the future urban development planned for the I-95/Indrio Road interchange and the airport environs. Details of these development plans are provided below in the section entitled Employment (I-95 Mixed Use Development and Airport Related Development). The St. Lucie County International Airport exists within the study area. The proposed project does not impact the future aviation needs. Therefore, future aviation needs are not related to the request for expanding. Planned Urban Service Area. EMPLOYMENT (I-95 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND AIRPORT RELATED_ DEVELOPMENT) Within the study area, three employment areas exist or are identified on the future land use map. The first occurs along US-1. This area is predominantly strip commercial. The second area consists of the St. Lucie County International Airport and the surrounding industrial area. The airport contains approximately 32 businesses employing over 400 residents. Surrounding industrial lands, which cover approximately 180 acres, contain an additional 52 businesses employing over 868 residents. The planned nonresidential development associated with the airport extends to within 1-mile southeast of the subject project and provides nearly 2,000 acres of land for future urban development associated with the airport. The third area ea -e er is set aside on the future land use map for mixed use urban development associated with the interchange and encompasses over 1,200 acres. This land borders the western boundary of the subject parcel along Indrio Road. Currently, none of this land is developed as urban uses. A majority of the land is fallow or actively being used for agricultural purposes. Page 8 of 21 Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. Apri130, 2002 UTILITIES The site is currently vacant, and development under existing rules and regulations for Residential Estate land uses would proceed with wells and septic systems. The proposed project is for an urban development requiring connection to a central water and sewer system. Central sanitary sewer and potable water within the study area are primarily served by the North County Utility District (fk.a. Holiday Pines Service Corporation). According to representatives of the North County Utility District, the current three month average demand for the sewer plant 0.111. mgd with a permitted capacity of 0.210 mgd, which is equivalent to the plant's design capacity. Currently, the water plant operates at 0.118 mgd with a permitted capacity of 0.288 mgd. The table below presents the estimated water and sewer demands of the proposed project based upon the following level of service standards: Policy 6.A.1.2.3 Sanitary Sewer — 280 gallons per each equivalent residential connection with 100 gallons per day per capita for all other systems Policy 6.1).1.2.3. Potable Water — 88 gallons per day per capita Table 3: Water and Wastewater Capacity Analysis Development Persons Potable Excess Sanitary Excess Per Water Water Sewer Sewer Household Demand Plant Demand Plant' Ca aci Capacity 683 equivalent 2.23 134,032 gpd 170,000 gpd 191,240 gpd(a)99,000 gpd residential 152,309 gpd(b) connections (a) Based upon 280 gallons per equivalent residential connection. (b) Based upon 100 gallons per capita with 2.23 persons per household. The St. Lucie County Water & Wastewater Master Plan identifies expansion of the North County water and wastewater plants and distribution system. Figures 2 & 3 and Tables 4 & 5 are excerpts from the Utility Master Plan indicating the proposed expansions through 2005 and through 2020. Given the phasing of the proposed project, adequate facilities will be in place when needed. Payment of required utility connection charges ensures the development bares its fare share of the utility expansion costs. Water and sewer concurrency requirements will further ensure that the development will proceed only when necessary facilities are in place to serve the proposed development. Page 9 of 21 i Plan Amendment #02-001 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 29, 2002 Table 4: North County Water Distribution Capital Expansion Plan Table 8-2. Proposed Capital Improvements Plan for Water Facilities at ,North County Area. �_l{;�: •r��ft;y� .�%£^. .;.. �C—v..f�"' ,.�'�.. ;y.e.L-"iY tti.� :�Xmp�.em��iiatio � _ _[y. ,' �. �% 'iu::a. .��:'""—1.�s,:_i:i= ^i�C tn:.iL`. ?i: =&S�C^°.t�� -ua x�<r-F•n'a� :�• p£..: c...xiaw;n i �Ji .y ?w;� i.... '�$:,-•�. 1 'i �_�=��t�: r ��*:�.��r� �;�.'�-_-.'.'z�'_ ><: �,-a�^•��? _ �j'� '- c�v: ' '[ .y�._ •i - 4:'T:f 4rc'3`�`-�c.�•n ' j� �;Y��+�-� .....y....;•...�......=nLL-�..-:. -�;aS" `�t Lap7'`'. Jr[<• Y.:F�3n i: .:.�.._ =r�� _ �::; � <ii rtur..ti . •rF.'. y,•t , NY i£ � ��`• x� �' � �Ct•'�-�-'c4i�: ,�;�•. -a-tyi fir.-�.n.:=•F�IF�;r�._ yj.;7;�a :S�c r�F:; �'r.\._�:JA'ljS._C de:''� ''_�^` 'Y' Ti.4 ..,tip• af�^. Y3• r• ..��Fi!• d=;.,Fv..' "i;a 4tz:S'>':� Xae•r"XY -''�.''.`�-- ^'.�2._ �_� "`.=�?- `'�'-"�a�..: �-. �r,E'� €}yet, {�,��;�., _.x'.:Velp�t��141+1.SIw7"�+ t_•',t r....-.-.; ..t'.'-• :: �(.'iry['�._.-.. h�. �-�„u.ax�,.•^'.'"tN.'.•. 2005 Rehabilitation of existing distribution system $ 110,000 2005 24-inch main from the HP WTP South to Indrio $ 126,000 Road. 2005 16-inch main east on Indrio Road to US-1 and 12- $ 1,600,000 inch main west to the I-95 interchange 2005 12-inch main from the intersection of US-1 and $ 550,000 Indrio Rd. north to Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and south to St. Lucie Village 2005 Extend 6-inch main serving the Heather Way $ 4,800 apartments west to connect to the proposed 12- inch water main at Indrio Road 2005 12- inch main from Indrio Road at Turnpike Feeder $ 400,000 Rd. to Deer Run Drive and 6-inch at Suson Drive 2005 Connect 8-inch water main at Lakewood Park $ 8,500 Elementary to the 12-inch water main along Highway 713 at Palomar Parkway 2005 Expand the existing Holiday Pines water treatment $ 2,420,000 plant from 0.288 mgd to 0.75 mgd including 1 MG storage 2008 Expand the water treatment facility from 0.75 mgd to $ 5,060,000 1.75 mgd including Floridan wells 2015 Expand water treatment facilities from 1.75 mgd to $ 3,190,000 2.75 mgd including Floridan wells `. 2020 SLC Airport Loop $ 1,412,000 2020 Panther Woods Loop $ 1,215,000 2020 Turnpike Feeder Rd Loop $ 829,000 2020 Lakewood Park Area $ 3;000,000 Notes: 1. See Appendix E for a detailed cost breakdown of the capital costs reported in this table. 2. . Costs in this table are for planning purposes only, the estimated accuracy is —30 to + 50%. Page 10 of 21 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 29, 2002 Table 5: North County Wastewater Distribution Capital Expansion Plan Table 8-4. Proposed Capital Improvements Plan for Wastewater Facilities in the North County Area. �,Implementafa�on � ` F `r.: 'k� ti �Ac m '-� } t� T t � i � q9 r {-F s 'i ��i t1• J YPoject Description a {x,�Lr.0 ,� 'Ihi�Y'T r� � t i.�� t•zF:: xSCapialjyy�Costs�t�J�(' 1 , 'r{r}j - L.: 3��-i7��"•1 7k+(T{;�c �lYt��SLT�y� `Sf �1�'�'.L T1�*��`�'aiy�raM��9��} t�]�XT�fY- SYS �A/�4�i .I•=::. 2: .. }. s.,L .F; .tFit�{ ., ��l rr-I. �.r.i7= r. k,. \�..3 �`�l=V': , is .''.sr�r �!!!_• •& i4. } r i '`ifT,t.,.�� 2005 12- ach force main from the existing v .'VTP to $ 1,850,000 Indrio Road then east and west on Indrio Road to US-1 and I-95 2005 Expand the Holiday Pines WWTP from 0.210 $ 1,480,000 mgd to 0.50 mgd, including combined headworks- and 0.3 mgd reclaimed water pumping capacity 2005 Decommission Lakewood Park WWTP and $ 616,000 construct lift -station and force main to connect into regional systems' 2005 Decommission Orchid Acres WWTP and $ 220,000 construct lift station and force main to connect into regional system 2010 Install forcemain on US-1 from Indrio Road to $ 435,000 Harbor Branch and Fairwi.nds WWTP. Decommission Fairwinds WWTP and construct lift station to connect into regional system. 2010 Construct 1.5 MGD regional WWTP including $ 10,040,000 deep injection well and reclaimed water pumping station 2010 Construct 16-inch forcemain from the proposed $ 400,000 regional WWTP to connect to the proposed forcemain on Indrio Rd. 2020 Decommission Spanish Lakes Country Club $240,000 WWTP and construct lift station and forcemain to connect into regional system -- 2020 Construct forcemain to collect wastewater flows $ 260,000 from the Airport Industrial Park 2020 Construct forcemain on Johnston Road $ 400,000 2020 Forcemain south on Kings Highway and west on $ 1,100,000 St. Lucie Blvd, Decommission Panther Woods WWTP and construct lift station and forcemain to connect into regional system Notes 1. See Appendix E for a detailed cost breakdown of the capital costs reported in this table. 2. Cost estimate taken from the Lakewood Park Pump Over - Wastewater Facilities Grant Application (LBFH Inc, 1999). 3. Costs in this table are for planning purposes only, the estimated accuracy is -30 to + 50%. Page 11 of 21 Lakewood Park WTP Indian River CounfyA, North _Blvd Sk Lucie C u ty Spanish Lakes Fa'rways WTPCo-- - -—_ -- �_ (N W O ._ �� _$- o -.--s \ a> � Y 1 I w ! co a14 12' N 0jjjl 3 O O j L Q' 95 -0 �t t j = in O E Panther >1 Woods o1.2 WTP N Spanish Lakes Country Club WTP a' SCALE 5 000' 12- " so N� jJ6 1 - Harborer Branch Ocean. Institute 6- 16- Indrio Road Holiday Pines WTP 8' O id i 12- I �' St. Lucie Blvd. - -- 1" Angle Road nd LEGEND Existing Year 2000 Proposed 2005 Proposed 2020 WTP's ExistingNorth County and Proposed Water Distribution System l h ST. LUCIE COUNTY WATER FIGURE 4-4 x*=U„„q,-UX2.„ vxw�. ," ' & WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Existing Spanish j North Blvd Lakes WWTP I — /ndlan Rlven C�nfy.------�-�-'--- S�. Lucle ty Coun ! j=�i IL� _ , SCALE Existin j Existin Lakewood i -�• j 1 i; Orchid g gg - �- !� j i� Acres 1 "=5 000' Spanish Lakes Park VJWTP j-�-�- -- ' ---s -- r� \\ , r I- - - t �� 1 Mobile --[-- Fairways WWTP i i �-, .,��_ _� • 8- -.60 Home Park s Harbor v C� 6 branch � Ocean. U O 0 ��_ 7 �� 1 Institute n Existing c o ! �ti HolidayPines Y ` �1 _44 Ili, ! Country Club � wwTP o 8. Lr ' 12" � j�; ' i v � i 2" i 16- ! Indrio Road ' o 1 s' c. i s" 8" v i o o Proposed a w01 Regional WVVTP _ 95 v of 8" o .t C_ `o Existing 1 L to I Y Fairwinds c i �>, WWTP Existing Panther 0 ! ` Woods WWTP � � � � 6", 6" St. Lucie Blvd. 0 X �11C� 1l �� Angie Road LEGEND Existing Force Main -Torce Main 20 Yr. Fo Force Main ® Existing WWTP Z® Future WWTP Existing and Proposed North County Force Main System LLh ST• LUCIE COUNTY WATER FIGURE 5-9 & WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Pa! . 11 ..F 71 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 30, 2002 RECREATION Table 9-1 of the SLCP provides a list of all County -owned parks and conservation areas by facility type and amenity. A summary of this table is provided in Table 6. From this data, the County has approximately 160 acres of Community Parks as of April 1, 1997 with an estimated permanent population of 63,058. This equates to approximately 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, which is below the 5 acres/1,000 persons required as the recreation level of service for community parks. The County is considering the release of bonds for community parkland acquisition to achieve the desired level of service for existing residents. Elimination of the existing deficit is the responsibility of St. Lucie County. The County also has approximately 7,069 acres of Regional Parks. Regional parks rely upon a countywide population for their level of service. As of April 1, 1997 the estimated permanent countywide population was 179,133. This equates to approximately 39.5 acres per 1,000 persons, which is well above the 5 acres per 1,000 persons required as the recreation level of service for regional parks. Note, the population figures referenced above were obtained from Table 9-5 of the SLCP. Table 6: Inventory of County -owned Parks Recreational Facility a Acreage Special Facilities 239.3 Neighborhood Parks 30.4 Beach Access 24.0 Beach Parks 243.2 Community Parks 160.3 Re ional Parks 7,069.8 Environmentally Sensitive Lands 7,697 Total 15,464 The above analysis clearly indicates a deficit of community parks in unincorporated St. Luc-.', , County. This deficit is mitigated to some extent by the availability of school facilities to the general public and the provision of private recreational facilities in planned developments. This deficit, however, is not required to be addressed by new development. The payment of recreation impact fees ensures that new development bares their fare share of the cost of providing recreation facilities. As indicated earlier, St. Lucie County is addressing the current deficit through a proposed bond issue. SOLID WASTE The SLCP reports that available capacity exists through 2030 for both Class I landfill and Construction and Debris. As indicated earlier, increased densities allowed by future land use amendments do not equate to additional population. As such, landfill capacities are not affected by the proposed project. The expected residents of the proposed project are contained within the County's overall population estimates and landfill rates used within the landfill capacity analysis. Page 14 of 21 '•J scut ruti-caument iFVL-uu 1 Lin Indrio, Inc. AprH 30, 2002 PROPOSED NORTH COUNTY URBAN SERVICE AREA MODIFICATION Based on the above analysis, the current Planned Urban Service Area boundary in north St. Lucie County should be revised to accommodate the proposed project based on the following findings. Population & Housing: Additional residential land is required to accommodate the countywide population through 2010. The proposed development would provide for approximately 29% of the single-family housing deficit as measured in housing units. Additional residential land within the north county area will also be required to serve the planned nonresidential uses within the study area. Transportation: The proposed development is consistent with the assumptions employed within' i the 2025 LRTP and provides for the future right-of-way needs of Indrio Road. All transportation concurrency requirements must be met prior to the issuance of any development permit. The j payment of transportation impact fees ensures the proposed project will bare its share of the utility expansion costs. Employment (1-95 Mixed Use Development and Airport Related Development): The i nonresidential land uses identified within the study area will require additional residential land to ksupport the employee and executive housing needs and clearly indicate the planned urbanizing nature of north county in the near future. Utilities: The NorthCUtiliiy District water plant currently has excess capacity. The North Utility District wastewater plant is slated for expansion by 2005 and will have adequate capacity for the proposed project. Service to the property is consistent with the St. Lucie County -Utility 'Master Plan. Concurrency determinations will ensure that adequate capacity exists prior to the issuance of any final development order. The payment of utility connection fees ensures the proposed project will bare its share of the utility expansion costs. Recreation: The County has an excess of regional, resource -related parks. A deficit currently exists for community -based parks. This deficit is related to existing residents. Payment_of recreation impact fees ensures that new development bares its fare share of the cost of providing_ recreation facilities. St. Lucie County is proposing the release of a bond issue to address the current deficit. Solid Waste: Adequate solid waster facilities exists through the year 2030. With the above t findings, the modification of the PUSH, as presented in Figure 4, is justified and consistent with all applicable plan policies. As the Comprehensive Plan clearly indicates, "The Urban Service Area is not designed to be a permanent or static limitation on growth. Rather it is intended to indicate the areas of the County that can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of the plan." (page 1-32, Page 15 of 21 Lin Indrio, Inc. April 30, 2002 SLCP). This analysis clearly demonstrates that the proposed project can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of the plan. The Comprehensive Plan also requires that "Approval for development outside of the Urban Service Boundary requires that the developer provide all necessary services at no cost to local government and the conversion of agricultural lands maintains the viability of adjacent agricultural lands." (page 1-12). With the payment of related impact fees and utility connection fees, the costs of all facilities will be born by the developer. Finally, expansion of the Planned Urban Service Area for the subject property does not constrain — the County from further expanding the boundary in other areas to accommodate the remaining deficit of vacant land for single-family housing. Neither does it constrain the County from contracting the boundary in other areas if found to be justified by the planned Urban Service Boundary Study recently released by St. Lucie County. This property, separate from the specific request of Lin Indrio, Inc., is ideally suited for inclusion into the Planned Urban Service Area for the reasons summarized above. Most importantly, central water and sewer services are planned for the area, and higher density urban uses at the I-95 interchange and the airport environs must transition back to the suburban and rural developments that exists around them This project serves that function while addressing an identified future housing deficit. This project is not premature but is a catalyst for the plans of St. Lucie County. A critical population mass in the north County area is needed to spur the nonresidential mixed use developments envisioned for this area Page 16 of 21 4 Planning & Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Review: 06/20/01 File Number PA-02-002 COMMUNITY DEVELOMENT DEPARTMENT Administration Division MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency FROM: Planning Manager DATE: June 12, 2002 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-003 amending the St. Lucie .County Comprehensive Plan by granting a change in Future Land Use designation from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban) for certain property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Johnston Road, in Unincorporated St. Lucie County. Attached is a copy of the submitted application of Lin Indrio Inc., a Florida Corporation, to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan by changing the Future Land Use designation from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban) for certain property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Johnston Road, in Unincorporated St. Lucie County. This proposal to amend the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan has been filed concurrent with an application for a Change in the Urban Service Boundary affecting this same parcel and an application for Planned Unit Development Approval for a 799 unit residential project to be known as the Phoenician Country Club. The specific purpose of this public hearing is to: Determine if the proposed amendment is consistent with the general Goals, Objectives and Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; -- •---- -- Provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on whether or not the proposed amendment should be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review and processing consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. In reviewing the submitted application for amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, staff at this time finds that it cannot support the requested amendment without additional information. On March 5, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the St. Lucie County EAR -Based Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. On June 5, 2002, the Community Development Department was June 12, 2002 Page 2 Petition: Phoenician Future Land Use Change File PA-02-002 notified that the Department of Community Affairs found the EAR -Based Amendments not incompliance with Chapter 163, Part II, and Florida Statutes. As such, no modifications to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan can be processed until such time as an administrative hearing is conducted and the remedial actions take place which brings the Comprehensive- Plan _in_compliance with Chapter 163, FS. In addition, as part of the EAR -Based Amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, the Board of County Commissioners has committed to conducting a series of local area planning studies to evaluate the existing Urban Service Area and Land Use Plan designations on a more parcel specific basis than staff was able to do as part of the development of the general County Comprehensive Plan. The County has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the St. Lucie County Urban Service Boundary Study (RFP #02-059). The closing date for the RFP was May 15, 2002. The RFP committee is currently reviewing seven bids submitted to determine if there is an acceptable proposal for the County. Upon completion of the Urban Service Boundary Study, if the Board of County Commissioners determines that any alteration to the existing Future Land Use designations or Urban Service Boundary lines is warranted, then the appropriate amendments to the local comprehensive plan will be initiated. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency take one of the following actions on this petition to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan: A. Defer any action, without prejudice, on this petition until the completion of, or in conjunction with resolution of the Comprehensive Plan Compliance issues and the planned St. Lucie County Urban Service Boundary Study. This study is scheduled to be commenced within the FY 2002/03. The RFP for outside planning assistance on this project has been completed and the RFP Committee is currently reviewing the submitted proposals; or, B. If the Local Planning Agency feels that they would prefer to forward this matter to the Board of County Commissioners for further review and transmittal consideration, consider responses to the additional questions provided by the applicant on June 5, 2002 (see PA-02-001) and staff 's subsequent recommendation. Without adequate answers to these questions, staff must recommend that the petition be forwarded with a recommendation of denial. Our reasons for this recommendation are as follows: The applicants have failed to demonstrate how their proposed amendments to the County's Urban Service Boundary are consistent with the general Goals, Objectives and Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. June 12, 2002. Petition: Phoenician Future Land Use Change Page 3 File PA-02-002 • There has been no demonstrated need to expand the urban service boundary line in this area. The fact that a simultaneous application has been filed with this petition, that would amend the Future Land Use Maps of the County's Comprehensive Plan and permit the development if a 799-unit Planned Unit Development does not in itself support the contention that the development conditions in this area have materially _ changedAG-support_ the _r-equested-urban-ser-vice-boundary, The analysis -submitted as supporting documentation was not conclusive and staff had a number of issues or questions that still needed to be addressed, prior to a full analysis could be completed on the project. • The recently approved utility master plan for this area of the County does not contemplate any service extensions into the petitioned area until at least the 2010/2015 time period. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter June 12, 2002 Petition: Phoenician Future Land Use Change Page 4 File PA-02-002 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE APPLICATION OF LIN INDRIO INC., FOR AN CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RE (RESIDNETIAL ESTATE) TO Re (RESIDENTIAL URBAN), BECAUSE.... [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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF LIN INDRIO INC., FOR A CHANGE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RE (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE) TO RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) AMENDMENT TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO EXTEND THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, BECAUSE.... [CITE REASON (S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] 0 Any activity other than crop or food product related production, including combinations of properties/use, in excess of 200 acres should be in conjunction with D-7 the establishment of a Community Development District, _pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, . for the purpose of providing the necessary infrastructure facilities to support that development; and; o: Residential densities are set at a maximum of one (1). unit per 2-5 gross acres_ -4y RESIDMMAL ES9 &TE (RE) The Residential Estate (RE) land use - category is intended to act as •a transitional area between the agricultural areas and - - the more intense residential areas in the eastern portion of the County_ This category is found predominantly along the westerh edge of- the urban -form, but is also appropriate for * areas of special environmental concern such as along the North Fork of the St_ Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon- - The RE designation is intended for large - lot, single family detached -residential ..dwellings at a density of, one _ unit per gross acre. These areas are not required to -be served - with central- utilities, - however when at .- all practical, service connections should be provided_ The RE designation is acknowledged as -potentially suitable for limited residential development under the following criteria: o All residential development must be in accordance with applicable standards and restrictions as set forth in - the Land Development Regulations; L, o All residential development --proposals in excess of 10 units must be approved through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process as _provided for in the Land Development Regulations; o Any residential development in excess of 200- acres should be In conjunction with the establishment of a Community Development -District, pursuant to- Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing the necessary -Infrastructure facilities to support that -development; and, o Residential densities .are set at a maximum of one (1) unit per one (1) gross acre- January 9, 1990 1 - 47 LAND USE `�� RgszD�xz�.L smauR� (Rs) . +' The residential Suburban (RS) land use category is intended to act as a transitional area between the agricultural areas and the more intense residential areas in the eastern portion of the County. This category is -found predominantly along the western edge of the urban form, but is also appropriate for areas of special environmental concern such as along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon_ The RS designation is intended for large lot, single-family detached residential dwellings, at a density of one to two units per gross acre. These areas are not required to be served with central utilities, however when at all practical, service connections should be rem,; red_ RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RII) The Residential Urban (RII) classification is the predominant residential land use category• in. the County. This residential land use category provides for a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre. The RII designation is generally found between the identified urban service areas and the. transitional RS. areas. These properties need to be serviced with central water and _wastewater services. These services may be provided by either a public utility or through private on -site. facilities, as would be permitted in accordance with all applicable regulations. New development in the- RII areas can - occur using traditional single-family or multi -family zoning designations or -through the Planned Unit Development process_- /RESIDRNTIAX- MEDIUM (RM) The Residential Medium (RM) land use category is to be applied to those areas that are within, or planned to be within, areas 'of central community services. A maximum residential- density of nine dwelling units per gross acre.is permitted.under this land use designation_ If required, the actual density is subject to the satisfactory completion of the rezoning process, which would include complete review of the- physical suitability of the property for development at the proposed intensity. Medium density residential land uses .can act as a transition between the lower intensity RU areas and the more intense land use designations_ zoning applications within the RM land use area include single-family, multi -family, or.PUD zoning. January 9, 1990 1 - 48 LAND USE NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE. TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The St. Lucie County Boardl:of County Commissioners proposo to adopt* the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 02-003 AN ORDINANCE.... GRANTING. A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND -USE'--' -DESIGNATION :FROM - RE (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE) ",T0-.RU�;(REISIDENT-IALI..-.URBAN) FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY ' A PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance 02-003 will be held. before the St. Lucie County Local Plann* Agency/ Plannin ' -nd Zoning Commission on Thursday, June 20, a 2UO02 at 7!nOt PM. or. as soon thereafter as.possible", in the County Commission Chambers, 3rdl floor.of the Coynty Administration Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Fl. Matters affecting personal and* -.-property rights may be. heard q. MU9pr pE ' and acted upon. � All interestle persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. Thee purpose of this public hearing is to consider a proposed amendment to the St. Lucie.. County Comprehensive Plan to -provide for change in the future land use designation for a *parcel. of land located at. the northeast corner of Indrio and Johnston Roads from * RE (Residential Estate/ I du per Acre) to RU (Residential Urban/ .5 du Roads, said request being filed as part of the Phoenician;Courit.ry Club. Planned Unit Development; and, genetally.depicted by. the map below - V ie.t propei ndrio... F3 d fwo, A,& t is. proposed amend p :64-Nks. u",c7bunt. ;been j CO.0. prenensiv6 h y, C submitted by L jX ':,aj (6'�d5-C6ro6rati6h,,-'ih6'!apoli6aht of record for the Lin Ind Ai IF proposed .Ph6en1cla: Pl6n'Development Unit 0 elopmerit. w Witt A a. f dy'j I d' persory ppea any ecision .,made with respect to any. matter 'ii-tt tfidl.n I meetings 'or .:considered' of any board committees;-commi sidrlss. agency, ..'6buncil.'.":o"r.*'adVis'o'ry'��'group-j- that person" will need record _�f .. the proceedi.n'gs and that.for * h ;e may need to ensure that 'a verbatim: sue. purpose -.r.e(.-drd:-'df-.,,the :"proceedin s iirffiade Which record should include the testimony !i�and. ;,evidence, upon which ,the is to be*.4 sbd. Upon the r'equest of any ,:Thisnotice dated and' 'ekec LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AND ZONING COMMIS51ON' ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORID, /S/ Stefan Matthes., -Chairr PUBLISH DATE: June lividualls--testi.. :a. hearing will be sworn in. . .. wilybe . * 1; - , ;�. 19 W1 49199i- qunity:,to cross-�examine ge�nte. -,an,. OP110 hear'irig upon•reg tedthis-�-ed:day of June, 2002. PLANNING tf an A4 The Tribune Saturday, June 8, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 06/20/02 J�oE CO, File Number RZ-02-012 c n < .OR�oP MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager DATE: June 13, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of Emilio Martinez for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District. (File No.: RZ-02-012) LOCATION: East side of the Turnpike Feeder Road, approximately 300 feet north of Palomar Parkway EXISTING ZONING: CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) PROPOSED ZONING: CO (Commercial, Office) FUTURE LAND USE: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 1.08 acres PROPOSED USE: Dental Office PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A" - Section 3.01.03(R) CO (Commercial, Office) - contains the designated uses, which are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted through the conditional use process. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further review and approvals. Any use not found within the zoning district regulations are designated as prohibited uses for that district SURROUNDING ZONING: CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) to the South, north, and west. RM-5 (Residential, Multiple -Family — 5 du/acre) to the east. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property is limited commercial to the north, south, and west. Residential to the east. June 13, 2002 Subject: Emilio Martinez Page 3 File'No.: RZ-02-005 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions -have not changed so as to require an amendment. 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 publicfacilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage: facilities, water supply, >parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical` facilities; The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create significant additional demands on ;any public facilities in this area. Any development will need to demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities in the area to support such 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. Any future development of this site will be required to comply with all state and local environmental regulations. 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. 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 amendmentwould.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, Emilio Martinez, has requested this change in zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District on property located on the east side of the Turnpike Feeder Road, approxirnately 300 feet north of Palomar Parkway. The stated purpose for the rezoning is to develop the property into a dental office. Attached is. a copy of Section 3.01.03(R) - CO (Commercial, Office), of the St. Lucie County ,Land Development Code, .which delineates the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in this zoning district. If achange in zoning is approved, the applicant, by right, pd' ,.M x k Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning.., 0 MOTION'TO APPROVE: f�kT AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.0603, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 1 HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND. ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE 4 ..COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF EMILIO MARTINEZ, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CN (COMMERCIAL, . NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING; DISTRICTTO THE CO (COMMERCIAL, -OFFICE ) 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 11.06.03, 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 EMILIO MARTINEZ. FOR A' CHANGE IN ZONING. FROM THE CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CO (COMMERCIAL, OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE.... (CITE REASON[S] WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. Section 3.01:03 _ Zoning District Use RegulationsG� 4 1 �� ",, P t `� Q. GN K COMMERCIAL. NEIGHBORHOOD". ; 14 The purpose of this"district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for limited retail trade; and service, activities covering a relatively small area and p that is intended to"serge the o ulation p j f , t living in surrounding neighborhoods. The numberin "O" following each identified use corresponds to•the.SlC code reference described in Section 3.0102(B): The number 999, applies to a use<not, defined under the S!C code but may be further defined in Section 2-..00.00 of this code. z 7 2. Permitted a ; Beauty and barbersery ces. (72-W24i b. Civic, social and fraternal associations tssa» c. Depository institutions.jso) d. 'Laundering and drycleaning (self-service). p21-5> _ } e: Real estate tssi f. Repair services: (9 )' Electrical repair. r�sz> (2);. Shoe repairs pis> (3): Watch, clock, jewelry, and musical instrument repair. pss,i g. , Retail trade (each building shall be less than 6,000 square feef gross floor area, all uses inclusive); . (1) ; Antiques.tsq:3z) (2) Apparel and accessories. tsst Books and stationery. rsxz�ssas> (4) ; Cameras and photographic supplies. tssasi (5) - Drugs and propdetary. ,zi (6) ; Eating places tssxi Florists. t5ss2i (8) Food stores (64 (9) Gifts, novelties, and souvenirs. (5947) , (10), Hobby, toy and"game shops tssasr 01) Household appliances is zi (12), Jewelry. (5944) ` (13), Newspapers. -and magazines, (5994) (14)Optical goods. (s9s5) _ (15) Nurseries; lawn and garden supplies. (ems) (16) Radios, ws, consumer electronics and music supplies t03i (17) Sporting goods and bicycles. tss41i (! 8) Tobacco products tsss3i `; h. Video tape rental (784) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section'7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.64.00. Adopted August 1; 1990 114 Revised Through 08/01/00 i` Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations 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. Car Washes (Self Service Only) - subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.22. (999) b. Day care - adult (8322) - child (8351) C. Postal services. (4311) d. Retail trade: (1) Gasoline services - accessory to retail food stores under SIC-5411. (sue) (2) Undistilled alcoholic beverages accessory to retail sale of food. (5921- Except for Gquor) e. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00 and include the following: a. Drinking places (undistilled alcoholic beverages) accessory to an eating place. (999) b. One dwelling unit contained within the commercial building, for on -site security purposes. (999) Adopted August 1, 1990 115 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations R. CO COMMERCIAL, OFFICE Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for selected office and commercial uses, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with commercial office 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. Communications - except towers (oe) d. Computer programming, data processing and other computer related services (737) e. Contract construction services - office only (15,16.17) f. Duplicating, mailing, commercial art/photography and stenographic services (733) g. Engineering, accounting, research, management & related services (87) h. Executive, legislative, and judicial functions (91,92.93,94.95.96,97) i. Finance, insurance, and real estate services (60,61.62.63.64.65,67) j. Health services - except nursing homes and hospitals (so) k. Membership organizations, except religious organizations (86) I. Miscellaneous business services: (1) Detective, guard and armored car services (7391) (2) Security system services (7w2) (3) News syndicate (7m) (4) Photofinishing laboratories (7394) (5) Business Services - misc. (73e9) M. Personnel supply services (736) n. Social services: (1) Individual & family social services (e3mm) (2) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services (e33) o. Travel agencies (4724) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations 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. Adopted August 1. 1990 116 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations 7. Conditional Uses a. Child care services (m) b. Television and radio transmitting towers t999l C. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (M) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory use are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00 and include the following: a. Eating and drinking places (undistilled alcoholic beverages as an accessory to a restaurant). b. Postal services. (43) Adopted August 1, 1990 117 Revised Through 08/01/00 A Petition of Emilio Martinez for a Change in Zoning from CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) to CO (Commercial, Office). n 4 2\2A \\ 3 \ �. \ 1 \� 0- 23 22 2/ 20 /9 F18 p !6 /5 ro 4 5 6 7 B 9 e 29 2B 26 25 24 23 Miramar Avenue RZ 02-012 This pattern indicates subject parcel Grapefruit ro 19 18 _ J 1 6 15 14 3 2 1 / Street l'47V Map prepared May 21, 2002 71M mep r ease oor Vp frg—A pm q rN refamce wrnam� orty. WNe awry elks A teas made f awee Om most apart W soovala Harrtr,tlm pots 4k—HenCeC from n a bpaa/ b. 'v dacianort - 19 20 2 \\8\\ COr !\\ \\\\ 16 15 \ 21 22 \\\ N 9 a \ \\ 20pr !3\\ \\ 19\ 12 \\ 18 \\ \ L 12 16 /5 p 9 ro ,3 `O \ 14 13 \ 14 9 Q� \\\12 \\ \ 8\` /5 �O 11 \\ 7 \\ \ A6 \ 9 p \\ �0 6 \ \\ \\ 5 \ \ 6 A \\ 2 \ 6 ` 4 20 l �1 � 5 / 4 5 G / \ \\ �o� \ �3 y `\ J 4 1809 22 3 \17\1 8 \ 16 1 `\\ \ 1 23 1\\\ 1 12 77 1, \\\ ` �� \\ Parkway 13 `(,� \ 16 RK-5 /5 e \\ 9 8 9 8 1! /4 \ 10 13 7 p 7 10 7 10 7 9 \ 12 --- D \\ 11 N 6 9 6 /! --fr // 6 8 \J° b\\ \J0 \ 8 C N > 7 \\ Q 5 12 5 12 5 12 Q 5 \\ \\ 7 \\ 6 \\ 4 13 d 4 13 Q 4 13 4 (n —I C 14 3 14 3 14 L 3 4 \\ i�� ___ 0 \ \ \ 4 J \ 1a OC 2 15 2 15 2 /5 Y 2 -- \ \ \ 1 13 12 Q 1 16 / 16 1 /6 1 Miramar A/vee'nue Grapefruit Street C\JI p � I � B i 6 15 3 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 _J Zoning Emilio Martinez 1. 23 22 r--J 20 !9 18 n 16 15 3 20 2/� \ 22 �� \\ \4 \ Imperial ro 4 5 6 7 8 9 n 22 29 28 26 25 24 23 RZ 02-012 This pattern indicates Map prepared May 21, 2002 { subject parcel WQ.-W PW,--v"lef.—P�«� WTJe awry W.� mace b W..d. fe moatanen — roman \\ - i fo— 0ms�. 4 4 m —\ d W w b■ WQ&Qy Ordk. Cmnac - Land Use Emilio Martinez rg >X 4 3 23 22 21 ^ ZO l9 18 // 16 15 I- - -- Imperial +24 4 5 6 T79 e 29 28 26 25 RZ 02-012 This pattern indicates subject parcel Grapefruit GIST: � .�•'_�->. Map prepared May 21, 2002 Thm nup Iw Oeen OWV4d ks ga dplastg rN Marerce puN� oyy. W. itlanwion possbb, 2 a M Hx�EeE kr use +s . I gly bl� g I F .d & a 11PI"rOa �14 IN/ z �� ;� '� �a! ��,• � � � �, i'a t a has �� „ La, "' ��''•�.. ` �� a � � - .,`� n �� .� � °\ ,-St � � a �� °��' env ' 9 ''�'.�-� �>' S�``�. 4 f Vl� �✓ �'.'�., �� v "3� .� rr '� • 3�, ,� �, '+C .�. 'c �� "��a -s' 9• zj.FS�e � i"a a4 n axr ..' � s v � � � �,.`� : € �t`y'°�, �a� ' F Z Pew Ot � *" 71 `S` F a r A r ii a s Pi AL sue.. s. 7 4�. 4 7�4'_ ed' 3 �„. tt 4. �"3 'a 'r°N df F y 4 } N%^ 5 t[l �1hu> x k'' S' � � a' sf �, �, � '^ % a '�' vim• t iv � e � �a�`e � f "� ��• � � c 00, rbvt S /��0r %'�'a Ate;, !'� c� E i'> e �4 ��` =Lil ia,.L A` �`h..a,s,�' t.,a�• a z�,a -s� ^ a`" t. ; �,3e,�u ®% �� s� i,.,' "� 04, sa {¢ s AGENDA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION QUA cow ``e y� TIIURSDAY; June 20, 2002 P.M.'It-ii 7.00IRV- Div i 5R A bk T k EMWO MARTINET has etitioned.St. Lucie Coun P, ty for a Change m Zoning from the CN x `� ? ' (Commercial, Negh�iorhood) Zoning District to the CO (commercial, :C�ce) Zoning District for 1 A .` the following described property:{ f. t Location: 5106 Turnpike Feeder Road. sf Please. note thatall proceedings before "the Local Planning `Agency are electronically recorded If a person decides to appeal any decision inade by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any: matter considered at "such »reefing or hearing; he tivill need a record of 'the;.} i proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may. need�to ensure that a verbatim record bf '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 durirrgct -hearing's r 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 CoMmentsi received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent. to all adjdcent.property owners =-June-8,2D02 Legal. notice-wa-spublished, in The -News -and T-he Tribune,�rew s of general circulation in St. Lucie Co on June 8, 2002. File No. RZ-02-012 r N l- r- CD 00 CD�t ON 110 O" �O p to - to .-� (- V) rn d' O1 v 00 � M IT l-- 00 M 'IT O M N� to 00 N to 0O O to M N O o to N 00 NV- Cl? M (- M 01 O (- M V- M v) N l- •--� N O M 00 Cl)00 o 00 O cM M IO M er "t M r- tIl ON .--� "T00 M �' N M O to V N N .-y to ON 01 Vt ON ON t ON Oh N O ON N O N M ON N O ON N O N t` to 00 �10 IT to ON O to ON •-1 M It 0; l- ON 00 l- ON O\ �t 0% 00 V• ON w "T O\ N to ON M to O\ N �,p 0� N 00 ON � to O\ •--� to ON N 00 01 ^ to ON N M 1, M '1- M M M M M •-+ M M M M M_ i- O It M �t M M M M N M N M It M It M It M �- M It M N M It M It M It cn I• M V M I�W1 +0f'aaa(.aaQ.alaitiia'.-�la'aa'.ataa-aHaaaa'aaaQaaa t r�'iw A c1=.I of 0�� o� c� �f�� o 0 0 0 �i w 1 c�v '� a� o 0•yaa.v)ri)xaa.�aaa on 0 a`i a a do)C.) �,�•�aja a a.0.0 a rxa�aP'U Cd EnNa �U ^" 0 ww�waP.P,�a�aolP,wwmP.v)v)�wwxwwaa>ww3www 0 0 as ! a) 0 4) a) �� o{ 0 0� 0 a) 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I y " C) j I! i �M I�QQbbxbb Cd Aa >i M 00 M 00 o ,� M 00 M 0000 of O1 ¢.��AA � O 00 0 O O "O 0 M v 00 br. O O +-' U)~ P, N cC a rA P, 3 3 3 3ON b 3 00 x 00 x 0 N It x w U> o C' > o s. zzzz X ozz aw x 0Nwtn 0 0aaP0 cno ov)3 r� =3aaw �C "o O ON W) O\ to v o d O PQ T O 't o cFv t� U 00 t)q O z O N M MG� W to 0 0 o 00 \O 0 to 0 v) 0 N 0 NOR 0 0 N 0 NM Cl) 0 P. 0 ^+ 0 M to -'T 0 at 0 Pr - - N 0 P, o a h r- �O - 00 ct 00 to — �D "0 00 - to 1) xx bb U ( I ( cl Q f Z Z + oCc ' 0 0 0 o > w ,� r) U o 3 0 >~ a� a� 0 �, P. w a cd 0 0 0 c� cv 0 0 A ILI o b b o i o a a°i a�i o z AwwC7c7P:C7C7v)U P;zrracntiaaC7 A a4UcO M cn c as I f as �f 1 U)� I iz �► N O eK 0 NI 0 0 o o a .� v f o a o O � i Q w w 4, p U i v s x x ti G 0 O° O w o q p 'A >~ 0. v) v) W U) J 0. V] 1 GOw x x ci, N P, P. z z> U U .° P: w x v� 4 + O o a-t �D oio 00 to o,o , N M 0 (- C> V 0 ' 0 0 V 0 0 to 0 to 0 O\ 0 �O 0 M 0 O 0 ' I- 0 I- 0 00 0 W) 0 N 0 M 0 I- 0 0 00 0 r� 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 0 00 (0 O 0 o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (ON^� N N M cV �O N 00 I N Q1 N O M .-� M M I'O It 1.0 � O �O l- \.O 00 1.0 0\ 1.0 _o 1� N t- l- �t 00 t� 00 00 00 ON 00 O M O_ to O \O o to N_ �O N O 'It ztt" I I`0 O CD O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0, O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O •F+ Ir i�.t ll t A t V'1 N_ to N_ i Vl W) W) Vl to to to to Vl V_1 try to N_ to to _h to to to to to to to h to to O �I � Oen �O j0 O!O�O0i0 1 O b O ORG O O O O O �O O O O �O O �O O �O O �O O �D O tD O \.O O �.O O �O O �O O LE 1L— _ Ji .5 :m M 41 0 P. Nair p N fj �O ON N ON M N O1 M l- N N 01 °, 'a' M M N N N � N N N M M V) tn N ci kn vl d N_ N ON v�4"T [� O1 O� 't M 01 't M Ir, "o 00 ON I I O N � W) M M M I M I I -. 00 N� M v)O M_ � O 'O N N o0 �f N a', M °� M W) N N (- N M r o0 M O M N �O �7 N O N ' )� 1 �+ •^ On t Q, O rn O) - ) v) O) W) � (ON � rn \O N o0 ON N 00 OC O ON �n oll •-+ II CY) T t)v O) O) O� { �M]M�M 'tO\ o-,N N v) O\ N W)W) ON O) � v) O) 00 'It ON 't rr kn_ ON 00 IT v) I�N cY M 'IT M It M 'I M .-. •+ "t M "T M "T"TI!{ M M 1 "T V V 'T M N M N M "t M M ct M N M M IF (n h v� w www�w i, [� ww ; �) -1I a wwwwww a a a a 1 a w �4 ww i;w - -- ,, ; {i O`O iO cd i, CO riv a°P. � Cdoo A., P. V O O ai O O r.jj o OlO O O LO O O+OO O O �w O O �O O O .a w a,aaP.ww1P.V.w,wv)ww _ . wwv > >lf cz I qUj�Wal pam y3 oo 00 00 00 _ N �' V] vrM00 00 CO coolo + 10 13 o owaA �O co00o¢o¢cn 't ONk+�n 'ITO O NO knOOO O oo ONN_ : C\ O IT 'T O" o M It M W) IT h It o O N c) O O O t- O aO O N n a a rr CL WIVI - ^+ v ~ P, v) IT v) W) N W) N N N I- M 00 P, t (� 1� IN F. Fes„ x c� O 9 124dcu a QAwA zH CO)J ti bo _ i IV bo o a 1 I ' � °' U 3 >, 0 a�i a`"i aCISi C7GoIC/) U) I Ux C7 ti.°�'E�E� °-lr x w v N 3 a yea¢¢ pa> ¢�x�y�ch ° °' `d ° ,"z•,•-�ti3.,v�.�•� o° o o �v o wHwHaw"o-on"o, o 0 0 ° A.�A.a•� o �� 42 ►j� I l�i►� ��I►f,if � { �{ W bo n to Cd Cd l I o Q) �!cd 0 o a � z a '� :: � � 1 '� � • o o � � a° • � > � � a °;HHa13a Q. o a o' � cu on ?? .'ter" � o �, o v O t7v��nN Hvumcnis utiAtiC7 ti aaAvAx 4.4 O4 4 O • W) 0 N 0 O\ 0 M 0 M 0 O 0 t- 0 � 0 'I 0 0 00 0 v) 0 (V 0 O\ 0 \O 0 M 0 0 00 0 V7 0 N 0 ON 0 �O 0 M 0 O 0 l- 0 'cr 0 0 00 0 M 0 [� 0 y � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '�O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 to 0 �,O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 kn 0 0 \O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 CDN 0 0 �+ `� N M kn t- M ON O - + N M N M �P l- 00 r-w ~ N 0000w�ON M E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 00 0 0 Zo 'o 'o w i AM ��o o M o M o M o M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M1M 0 0 M 000 eni�M Hill 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M M 0d M M M M N O N M N M O V M t� a\ O O I'O O I'O O �o O O O O O O � N 0? 00 Vl O N N N N N V1 O N N N �I N O, V C\ 'rY V• t` N � N �n �n �n �n �n �n N N �n �n �n l ,n " N o, �f' O, Itr "t C, N M • + 0, "t 0, "T 0\ '7 O1 'R 0, � O, 'cr V) N C, 'I- O, 'It Cl, i V M M M M M M M M M M M M Cl) m I 1 j �wiw�w iif'- w�C7 w wlw w+w�wAz,wlw�ww, {If ' 1 V"I j4a as 6. ,� $a, it 4r a, i.a F. aa.a tr 1•a 7.r P. 10, �a o P. fa. fm,cn o ww0>awwww•ww�t7,w��wafi o N o 0 o p o o ,� ol,Olo• 0 U�U!O' > Q >� > >. > > > J �. II l W W N O O O O O O O c� w h N N N- api •• 'b "Cy TJ 'U 'O '""' TJ 'O N C'd b O' �Inpq,r,aaaaa�aaN Ot- O ON (000 00 NMvW).Ov��tN 00 00 00 kn M O, O -• M c}' Qy V1 M M M M M a+ M M .•••� Vi E H O N c� U Ci z� �oC', M � _ e� N 3 O N > e� Z U40. C7 o rn I - i r•a Z 0 °P.0 O °U w c 004ap' C7 °W o I CA it x A w r a o H ! ' O N Q O b O O O �. Q N p .c on do 3 ID cd a. au b b 0 > ,� c ¢. c z 33HwU�c7Hc�a��o ae 3� 3 •'~ 0 N m p °� xa�j Cc w O 0 0 to 00 IT W) O\ �o M i 0 t- t� cM i 0 t- I) ! O O O O O O O O O O O _O 0�0 O O O,O O O O10 O O O O O O O O j{ O O, O CD O O \O O O O Vl O %O 0�0 t` 00 O M O O O _ O N O M j a 4k O N N N N m N 0 0 t` 0 t- 0 t- 0 t` 0 t- 0 t` 0 w 0 O 0 CD 0 0 1lA .^ Ooo 0 Co000000o00 M O (0 O O O CD O O +IL O O O CIS" ~ ,O \p �O M t- t, F- t- t- t- t- t- r- iL { �C N_ N_ N_ N_ M�M.; N_ N_ IM N_ N_ M N_ _N N_ ,A� t f 77 ST, IUCIE COUNTY e N i L , t PLANNING ANl3 ZONING COMMISSION i PUBLIC HEARING ` t � AGENDA TO : WHOM .IT 'MAY c CONCERN:iTY NOTICE is 'hereby given .iri accordance with Section l 1 00:03 of` the St LucieN4 �ot County:; Lpntl Development Cocle,aad the provisions.of ;U th6l St. Lucie C6' Unty Coin I prehensive Plan, the'foilow ing applicants have I PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held in Cham= ' requested that the St Lucie I ;Cgmmissian f ' $ Count' Plannin y grand Zori- i hers, Roger Poifrias,Annex; 2300 Vtr Avenue Fort ing Commission consider m g la Pierce; Florida June 2q 1�� { , their fgllowing.tequests <` : on - :" . 20'02; begmriing at 7 00 1 v 1 EAST FLORIDA 4RIMi- - P M or.°as soon 'thereaffer TIVE ;BAPTIST `;DISTRICT as possible ASSOCIATION; IN-C:, for` �i Conditional Use,;Permit to , PURSUANT 70; Sechori 3 r allow li4kationai Services, fll. - 286 0105, Florida Statutes 7 t an tl Facihhes in'the I (Inst�> ' if a person decides. decision '_ tutioridl). Zoning District for: appeal any made • A s the' fallowing' ,"described ' , by tt board eigency, or , , property p - commission with,respet to ; ` THE (D' N aiiy m4tFer cdfi$ideretl at e; meeting hearing he will,', NgRTfi 1%2'OF-THE,' SOUTHWESfi i%4 OF' e0'-. ;or need arrecord of the pro= SECTION '2 ceedmgs; and .that, for ,TOWNSHIP 34 $�?t17H RANGE ;40 C purpose he ma P P y need t6' T s t , ` EAST, ESS THE EAST -j: erfsure; that •a ! verbatim r 1&00.Q0 FEET, TH[* WEST recbtd of the proceeding; is , a 3i1.54 T3 THE NORTH' ,'made,` which•: reto(cl , 133A� FE T,..ANb THt - o intistdes the estimony and; RIGHT.OF WAY.FOR JUA= eyidegce upon •"which NITA AVENUE: appeal i; to be based to Loitatian 3950r Juanito PLANNING AND Avenue:: 'ZONING COMMISSION ST, L.k4it COUNTY 2 Eti11L10 R. MARTiNEZ, r ,� FLORIDA j' for a' Change iri Zoning (— ' S Stefan Matthes; /:. ; from .the; Chi (Cammerciaf; I CHAIRMAN ' x s Neighb6ehood)-Zoning frict to. the CO,.(Commer- F-r ,Publish: June 8, '2002 , vial, 0ffce)'Zoiing District, 2446901 for the following described' property,. LOTS 4 AND 5; BLOCK . 41171, LAKEW666 PARK;' `• UNIT I. A, ACCORDING' •' . 70 THP PLAT THEREOF` �..: RECORDED IN P1.'AT BOOK <I L, PAGES 35 THROUGH. 37; -, PUBLIC RECORDSi OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL1.1.RIDA. Location: 5106 ` Turnpike: , Feeder Road: r:WJ UllrA=X UWA IO MOMOW 921 A110CIATIOM mac. 328 Pandora Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34951 Diane E. Shaw, President Roger Nettles, Vice President June 14, 2002 Sally erkol, Secretary Vel Guindon, Treasurer St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Board Attn: Stefan Matthes, Chairman t This letter is In response to your letter dated June Sth, 2002 concerning the rezoning of property within 500 feet of 5106 Turnpike Feeder Road. , On behalf of the Bel -Aire Community Hall located at 325 Pandora Avenue,. we have no ob- jection to the rezoning of 5106 Turnpike Feeder Road from commercial neighborhood to commercial office by Dw Emilio Martinez: Respectfully submitted, 1 Diane E. Shaw President, Bel -Aire Estates A %VQ co cy* 1 �)C1E G col 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 06/20/02 GCE co File Number CU-02-006 COO -� '�oR�oa MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission , FROM:.. Planning Manager DATE: June 13, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. -: fora Conditional. Use Permit to :allow social _services (day care and pre- school facility) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. LOCATION: 3950 Juanita Avenue. .ZONING' DISTRICT: I (Institutional) FUTURE LAND USE: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 19.46 acres PROPOSED USE: Educational Services and Facility SURROUNDING ZONING: RM-5 (Residential, Multiple Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning to the south and east. I (Institutional) Zoning directly east and furthereast. RS-4. (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning to the :west. IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning is located to the north. IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning is - located to the northwest.. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property is residential.- The Future- Land Use Classification of the immediate surrounding area is RU (Residential Urban to to the south, east, and west. IND (Industrial) is located to the north. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #4 (4000 St. Lucie Boulevard), is located - approximately 3 miles to the north/northwest. UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property will be served by the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority. 5 Section 301.03 Zoning District Use Regulations h.. Fairgrounds. t9991 _ i. Funeral and crematory services. (726) ). Theaters. t999> k. - Medical and other health services. ceo► 1. Postal service. (43) M. Residential care facilities for serious or habitual juvenile offenders: n. 19ss1 Social services (m) o. Sporting and recreational camps (7032) p. Stadiums, arenas, race tracks (794) q. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages related to civic, social, and fraternal uses).'t9ssl b. Restaurants. (including the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premises consumption only.) C. ON) Funeral and crematory services. 926) d. Heliport landing/takeoff pads. (9") e. Detached single-family dwelling: unit or mobile home, for on -site security purposes. (999) f. Residence halls or dormitories. t9991 I Adopted August 1, 1990. 133 Revised Throu h 08/t)1/00 9 U -- z m - O CO o > O +GH t00E�~N N �Si N Y (� �U v Sj..—� O C11 CD U (L11_ �J cn O G 4 �' co �{ < ` f3' a� Ax o ` O L --1 g e Is L£ tN StJ co fyt�iON tt W t0 co Lutip• I pr- W P 6• f C u a n � 9 W Nutar js� pa PARKWAY ! ar f7A 01 � W W i _ on'^ on or u oa raj r b } F— a � _ U �> j O rOn N1YrSYJOtlB Z O U �-- n L_J._ oron NNK6 Q aron 3MI 3�Nrn U avow33owelml OYOn 1rNr] n30r3N cr LaW ~ YN On %WI'Mal i— lo o OrOtl 033N5 OrOn NOII M w Q C Q Ii-7 IM3 Z h No10 M ff OC C 0`- S Y£ 1 S SL 1 S 9L 1 �dNnoo 1380HO33NO a, East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. 1-0 : � 01------------------------ 5 2 ■5 J ■� Matanzas Avenu, /5 P • — ■ IS " /J 4 113 /2 5 ■ r _ — d ■N q :q —7 J-- 9 d :9 Aviendo Avenue: s5 2 r� ■ " J :" --- N I ■/J IP (n —5 ■ ,P ■ q 7 ■q ■ 9— d ■9 Juanita Avenues 22 , a 2 ■a 80 J a Pl1 !d 'O 5 ■ r■9 04 ■ d 7 ■ AS ■ /5 Z d ;/5--- " 9 N — — q /J /2 r /2 — Son Dieao Avenue /5 " IJ �s 12 tl 18 m a /9 > 9 20 0 d O 0.67 , icre = d ZI - 5 22 r PJ J P 6.80 acres F.P.F.W.M.D. Canal No. 1 c U 02-006 ------------ 500' boundary This pattern indicates subject parcel ------------- -; 2.52 acres : 10.27 acres Juanita Avenue Map prepared May 21, 2002 TM loop Im been lar,e„erel We *V and refrKaze puposea Only. A T roue —y enactb.s been —de w p.oae de moataarenl.r0 a.a . Il\I hlamaeon p-.bW. e's n Handed tar uee ae . WOWbvldkV doameiY A Petition of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational Services and Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Is I H I u 9 m 26 12 a 0 F.P.F.W.M.D. Conal No. 1 11 6 I 6 to 5 P 5 !tltl I J Matanzas Avenue a r � d 2 cc�� H J p N7 H u -- v 4 2 5 a N 6 a B 6 9 Aviendo Avenue a 2 l5 N * /J ` .�.. /2 i 6 92a a _ q � q Juanita Avenue PIYt 9 a• CU 02-006 This pattern indicates subject parcel Juanita Avenue GISG v`'s .�- Map prepared May 21, 2002 TNs mew has bean fA�W fm genxd pt—v eM a µapDaee �Y. MM —V shad t az oeo made to amide a,e nVd CWOM W4 awxele iJame P-l" , 4ie rol d —W 1w use m a *Qedy b-kv doaMnat. East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. 0 O IX fy IL F.P.F.W.M.D. Canal No. 1 6 / 6 S P 5 1 J � /5 H /J Matanzas Avenue 612 ! !J 2 /7 g� IfH J93 H a !J . !J N •7 !2 N —5 tt 0 9 • 6 • 20 a -- a o 6 9 o 8 9 ; 7 T Aviendo Avenue 0 = 6 P 15 m 0� S PP I --- N I !J -- p 25 J • 6 21 24 P p 7 JO s— 8 9 PS ! Juanita Avenue ffi ! 22 m P a f0 J Pp 19 I B A9 <V 5 n 6 8' 15 t 7 d 6 a 8 /5 O Z H 9 H — — A /J !2 • p Son Diego Avenue l6 / iS —1 — 2— �— !i J H 15 4 /J CU 02-006 This pattern indicates subject parcel Juanita Avenue R M-5 R M-5 G_1§� Map prepared May 21, 2002 This W h. baen ca QW br 4en 'W0-*W and reference PZ— 0* WNe —y effort has been a de b Preade as moat ahem and aaawafe iionnatiat p—We. d is nd Mailed br w as a 1e ,Aj bh&V Cocta . N East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. Land Use v a 0 of 6 / 6 5 P 5 3 Matanzas Avenue u r r; 15 P H 313 N rJ Ci I 12 5 /2 r— 6 r a — a 9 6 9 Aviendo Avenue H � M --- 0 4 /S G — — N .�. 12 — — N —5 r q 7 q 9` N r 9 Juonitd Avenue PP Pr ff Son C !1 !J C U 02-006 This pattern indicates subject parcel q r1 ctar W q 13 > O 9 20 T� 6 O O 3 7 T 0 = 6 7 5 PP I E7 SqFEE PI IND F.P.F.W.M.D. Canal No. 1 Juanita Avenue Map prepared May 21, 2002 W 1. a-Y efat f- b— —W to PVACB M nvd —4 and eo "G .ramerim P..N.. 4 4 n kM—$W br use es a Mg* bin&V C� ' � �sa y � °a;� a z `.aY✓ Yeb � .x� � ,�'3 _" � 'x`ax °�` r�i{.# a'. nm �. ; f v • 'x' k x c 2 a. `� ¢, � � `'� - az. � < Irv, y''a*� ,� sz "j, z -:[3g x�i C x '„ �? e.•,» i rfl5 - �` k.,. $ "x Fk` 0� - €+ Aa"=�,, a.. ..,� 4 im 54r' ."' � „"� i a n'°" s- ,''S` "'1'"`: a '.az ,% a .y _ J - ..... o, P. a^`•.'Y '3' 4" _�'' --- - ^��•:. �"ti,:R 4S' �#,r�ws: a„ss,. „ov"i _ �Sa" x' _. ..^ ..ao; .�. �n LL. 'ta4 y, z3 411 c c%er` lz lq asa VZI - .,� - ;z� G ol L 'S" �.�v � y� N " rI j �,,,., .a $ 4 1'�e"4" yy"_ � '��e'.,e. era w .._. a>...�, .,, _,..,. �� S �' a✓._w.,., .a° _ AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, June 20, 2002 7. 00 P.M. EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational Services and Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 3950 Juanita Avenue. 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 June 8, 2002. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on June 8, 2002. File No. CU-02-006 00 N 00 N 00 N �O O N�� O N O 'n� 'b �0 N -- , .N... 00 ON Ol O M O 1 M O 'N O 00 00 N t'- N O� %0 N O O t� O �o N �o N l0 N V' . Q\ �0 �o �D h 00 %0 h .-. a.. �o O 00 V' V' �o Vl.-. C> 'Col, � 1 ,-. O 10 .-. V' O v a '0 N ,O �O b `O in �O, �O. �O 4 �O O 4 N r0 %O. Z .. W of V- o\.0\ W V' O� O t- V' Ol V' of _�O 00 00 � 0. � O` - 00 Ol 0000 as �- � O\ r- O V' 0\ V' O� "t Ol h Ol V' o� 00 10 lam. 00 Ol V' T V' N M M t M V' M 00 +. V' M V' M 00 O 00 O M M M M K1 M O V• M -V' 'M V- M V' M V' M M M --�. V' Cl V' M V'. en V' M aaaa¢aa •,•, a a aaa a as z w w w w _ar � '� I I 0 U wa�l2w dl U V U a U 1 N _d d O H ❑❑ •3 ' a, U. v'-. U i.o U a U a) U , 1 0 U ! i 0 U 0 U I 1. ,Y ar V .�i -U 4)d U U a w U a, •'�� td 0 U a 0 U a v U U a a:Ia�a�wlwyala I U O wwww3ww O o -o O N ww t0 O ww o O www 0 0 0 lww 0' o I' jw,ww�ww;w�wwww 07 � o 1 O o o. o 0 0 0. o _iw� A A G1� in A A >�3" Ca + II�I"CSC' 1I ?C a CTO O 0 O 0 !A � � 000 O O O o O oA� O o O O O i O O 0 a 0 c 3 3 c' �� . cocu cq U S- �> �0 x titi 1- � VO Z a' O O X O x OZ l70 O C0 00. Z O .,d •-. e.+ .... .-. O •-• O O O� M O O- O N N .. t� O --+ M O N U N C N O 00 O U 00 ^ O O N O N O� N V M tV M -N V- N 00 00 N N V' N Ol 0% N V' '"" ^ N N N N - \0 N N N N N M N N N Ll. (V N P+ N N N- `O N z f z a c co G' M ea ti O q II w 0 Il o 'c oa oq W- Gq U U U0 U U WIWI Icn N x� ak' AvAv �Uv� jai a 0 � > .� ev A 8.y w z d Axi~.x3u3A x z A�aw.��o ., 00 b a w C1 Q _�lC __ M aUY�ON • • aCCFyi WA .W'ry bt o r.pC�-q"' My HUiO'. W9O OxRU1 •xcr0 ��+.. �" _G im _pNg - wGOOQi eGti+OCS �tV CL laH'O)Oy Wf�/j t•.Hf{pS0y� G~a9) pyyr7q U«may Ux Ux�`y7.y U UU O U U Ati xaY x G-- N N' M �O N M 's!' M V•. vl N ko W V- 00 N N 1/1 N V1 l� t� �O �/1 N �0 N 00 V1 N 'd' N h �0 O V' N fV M Vl N Ol V' h N 00 V' N M n M h N tel N M O Q ... (y O+Ci O O O N h 0 '.' ,� .-. M C 00 C C C �-. N „M. N N 0 0 0 0 O� C N .. M O O^ CN O O O O C. C O O O- O OOvI O N M %0 0% tom. V1 00. .lam n V' V'1 b h 10 N N^ 00 N M Ol ^^ 00 M ^ N- N V; N 00 N N O C C C C Ol C C C C C O ,O. C C C -� O C O O- C.O O O Ol 0 0 0 O O (\ M � 1 O O O O w O N O N O O O i O M O 1 i V' C.O 00 M O N O O t� O D\ O %0V' O O 1/1 O 7 O M O O t- p �o C. o\ O O 00 O h O O r- O O II +r ++ C. 0 O 0 O S' O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O Oi O o O 0 O C. O 0 O 0 '- O O O 0 O 0 - O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 O 0 O 0 0 00 O ko - Ol Do l� 00 h N 0 Ol 0 V' �/1 10 N Vn 0 C. 0 N O ^ N 00 N -� N N N " O Cl to V' N O Vl a O %0 N on N O t' S O N b0 0 0 0 O'o O^ 0 O 0^ o C. O o_ O O O o O O O o O pO 0 O 0_ o o_ O o_ o pp 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 ^ O 0 C. N o N O_ o 0 G 0 O -O 0 O O 0 N y • A 0 O 0 O 0 O N _o O O,O - N O O N^ O _o 0 0 O O O 'cf' O o O O h O ^ O O O O O O O N O N O 00 O M N O O N O. y x >t N M (V M N^ M M N M (V M -+ M - M ^ t�1 .^O N^ M M N M N M N M N N M N M N M M M M M N M N M N M V A ' F vvvv�V v verb vc vvv� V vv� v.�rvvvvvvvvv 11 I 000.6's's6000f 1�Iold u C w M h O (ON 00 1, �o to It N en N O C O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 00 :O O O C .. +• o 0000000C>C> C> oc ! C h o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c O 'ct Vl V C) 0 0 0 0 0 �-+ O 2 O 0 0 0 O N O C bA O O O O O O O p O 0 0 p o O. o G L. -C. # O p O O O C. O 0 N O N -C> O Y _ y o 0000.0000wmC-c.00e A N N N N �^ 0 ^0+ N ^� N N N N °- N C C!F 00000l0000 0 0 0 O O10 0 0 0 000loo'0000 00 1='0�000 ooaio0o0o0� M M OIO O O O C O - -- N cn oo oo !` 00 r- H r- 1 . M M en M cal M cn M M I - V ST. LUCIE COUNTY - _., PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION... PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA June 20, 2002 i TO WHOM IT MAY . CONCERN: , NOTICE is hereby given its accordance with Section' 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and the provisions of the St. 'Lucie County Cam- ' prehensive Plan, the follow. `ing applicants have I PUBLIC HEARINGS will be requested that the St."Lucie; I held Lin Commission Cham< County Planning and Zon-. �' bers, Roger Poitras Annex,, in g Commission' consider' 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort their following. requests: • .- Pierce, Florida on June.20, 2002, beginning at 7.00 1. EAST FLORIDA PRIMI_ P.M. or as, soon, thereafter "TIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT: as possible. ASSOCIATION ,INC., If or ti Conditional Use Permit to- PURSUANT TO Section allow. Educational Services' 286.0105, FloridaStatutes, "to And Facilities in the I (Irish- 1" if a person .decides tutionO Zoning District for: L ;appeal any decision made the :following -described ry { by o ' board, agency, or property: O commission with respect to O any matter considered at a THE'NORTH 1/2 OF THE: CM meeting or,hearing, he'ovill SOUTHWEST r1/4 OF, CO`, need a record of the pro- SECTION 32- TOWNSHIP' �" ceedings, and that for such 34 SOUTH,.' RANGE 40 : �: purpose's, fie may`�need to< EAST, LESS THE EAST - ensure that a verbatim 15600.00 FEET, THE WEST '" record of the proceedings is 371.54 FEET, THE NORTH' -:made, which• retard l3$:00 FEET, AND THE -a includes the testimony and � RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR JUA- - evidence upon . which •the NITA AVENUE: cippeot is w be based. - .: Location: 3950 Juanita � 'D PLANNING AND : • .. . Avenue: ~. ZONING' COMMISSION • . �' ST. LUCIE-COUNTY 2.- EMILIO' R: MARTINEZ, FLORIDA for a' Change` in Zoning: 1-7 /S/ 'Stefan Matthes from .fhb `.C-N (Commercial; � I CHAIRMAN Neighborhood) Zoning Dis- 1 trict to .the CO .(Commer-. - Publish: June 8; 200.2 I cial, Office) Zoning District. 2446901 for, the following described property: — — - - LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK' 171, LAKEWOOD PARK" UNIT 12A, ACCORDING ' PL TO THE _AT THEREOF' RECORDED IN .PLAT BOOK 11, PAGES 35 THROUGH 37, PUBLIC RECORDS OF. ST:' LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Location: 5106 Turnpike Feeder Rood. St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING June 20, 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. Trias, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Jones (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: 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 June 20, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER 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 Mr. Merritt disclosed that the petitioner in Agenda Item's # 2 & #3 purchased the property through his company last year. He stated that he does plan to vote on the item because he doesn't see any conflict of interest, as long as no one has any objections. Mr. McCurdy stated that the petitioner in Agenda Item's #2 & #3 has requested potential financing from his employer and therefore, under the advice of counsel, he would recuse himself from both items. Chairman Matthes stated that his employer was involved with the project in Agenda Item # 5 and would recuse himself from that item. Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's meeting. For those of you who have not been here before, The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff will present a brief summary of the project and then make their recommendation. After which time, the Petitioner will be asked to come forward and state his/her case for the requested petition. At any time the Commission may stop and ask questions of the Petitioner or Staff. After that process is completed the Chairman will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak for or against the petition. The purpose behind this hearing is to get input from the general public. If anyone has something to say, please feel free to come forward and state it. After everyone has gotten a chance to speak the Chairman will then close the public hearing. The Commission will deliberate and then make a decision regarding their recommendation, one way or the other. The decision that is made is typically read from a scripted set of statements that are given to the Commission. It may sound rehearsed but it really is not. There is one motion for and one motion against in the package, so that the Commission can make a motion either one way or the other so it is very clear in the records. Once again, I want to remind you that the Planning and Zoning Commission only acts in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: May 16, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Lounds moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Mr. Grande stated that on Page 12 and Page 14 under the discussion regarding Gulfstream's gas pipeline there was one condition added and he stated he believed there were two conditions added. He advised that he would like Staff to review the tape to see if they voted for a second condition, which was that there would be no tanks above ground for storing gas. He stated that if that is part of the motion on the tape, it should be added to the minutes and if it wasn't on the tape, then he may be incorrect. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff will review the tape again but that he had spoken with the Secretary and it is reflected in the discussion of the minutes and she believed that the wording of "completely underground" covered the issue and that was all that was in the motion. Mr. Kelly stated they would review it again to be sure and if there were a second condition, the minutes would be changed to reflect that. Note: Upon review of the tape, the minutes were not changed. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE NO.02-003 — Extension of the Urban Service Boundarv: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were both the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. He also stated that they were listed on the original agenda in the wrong order because the Urban Service Boundary Line would have to be moved before the Future Land Use Change could be done. He also stated that since these two items are from the same petitioner and are closely related, they would be presented together. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff provided the Commission with a report, which did not include additional data that the applicant has since provided. He stated that the information has been provided to them tonight to review and his presentation would include some of that information. He advised that the first issue is the extension of the Urban Service Boundary. He stated that the current. Urban Service Boundary comes down Emerson and makes a small jog at Indrio and then picks up again out in an area for the interchange. He also stated that there is a gap in the Urban Service Boundary in that area. He advised that tonight's petition is requesting that the Urban Service Boundary be extended eastward from the interchange and goes north as well to include the applicant's property, but the parcel is not large enough to close the entire gap. He stated that if the Urban Service Boundary were to be expanded the second part of the petition is for a change in Future Land Use from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban). He continued that at the time the Staff report was prepared there were a number of outstanding questions/issues from the applicant. Staff provided the applicant these questions. Since, the distribution of the staff memo the applicant has submitted a response to these questions, which were provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency tonight and really answered pretty much all of their questions. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant supporting documentation demonstrated that if the County wishes to move the Urban Service Boundary or expand the amount of land in the general area of Indrio that is within the Urban Service Boundary and increase densities from going from RE to RU, the change probably would not impact any of the required services in a negative manner. He continued that the real question is if this is an appropriate change to the Urban Service Boundary and should the County make a positive change to expand that area. He stated that they are in an odd position for several reasons. He advised that during the time of the Comprehensive Plan hearings he recommended that the County close the existing gap in the Urban Service Boundary because it didn't make any real sense to have that gap in the Urban Service Boundary. He stated that he made those same statements to the County Commission and made the same recommendation and they decided they did not want to do that at that time and instead wanted to take a comprehensive look at the Urban Service Boundary in that area and also in the Gatlin, Okeechobee Road areas and various other areas too. He advised that the Board of County Commissioners funded in the budget to hire somebody to look at those issues and Staff went out with an RFP and received seven proposals. He stated the proposals have been reviewed and the committee has short listed three. On July 23`d, the Board of County Commissioners will hear proposals from the three top candidates and may then choose one of the three to look at the issue of the Urban Service Boundary, north to south, within the County over the next year. Mr. Kelly stated that there are two issues with this application be processed at this time. The first issue is that there is no real demonstrated need to modify the Urban Service Boundary at this time. The second issue that the County is moving forward with the Urban Service Boundary Study. Further, there is an additional more pressing issue and that is the Department of Community Affairs has responded to our Comprehensive Plan and has indicated they are going P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 4 to find us to be not in compliance. He stated that DCA has identified four primary issues with the Comprehensive Plan: they are, with the Conservation Element, Capital Improvements Element, Transportation Element and the Future Land Use Element. The DCA has indicated that the County isn't doing enough to protect lands outside of the Urban Service Boundary. He advised the County might need to take sixty to ninety days, maybe even a little longer, in order to solve the outstanding DCA issues. He also stated they are trying to set a meeting with DCA in Tallahassee for hopefully next week to identify what the County will need to do to enter into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the reason that is important tonight is that the County may not be able to process Future Land Use changes on the Land Use Map for State review until we are found to be in compliance. He stated that once this issue gets to the County Commission, he doesn't believe they will be in a position where they can transmit it to the State because the other issues would not have been solved yet. He advised there are several things going on, all involving the Urban Service Boundary, this application, the study on Urban Service Boundaries, and the State telling us that we are clearly not doing enough to protect the lands outside of the Urban Service Boundary. Mr. Kelly stated that the proposed application demonstrates additional need, Countywide, in the long term, but in this section of the County, he thinks that there is not a need for additional units and land until 2010. He also stated there is the study, which hopefully will help Staff, the Local Planning Agency and the County Commission, to make determinations about what should be done with the Urban Service Line as a whole and lastly the issues with the State and the inability to send it to the State at this time. He stated that Staff recommends that they hear from the applicant this evening and Staff will answer any questions they can with regards to the application, but they find their selves in an odd situation given all of the things that are occurring. Mr. Matthes asked if there were any questions from the Board for staff at this time. Mr. Akins stated that it sounds to him like the timing is a bit premature. Mr. Kelly stated that he felt it might be premature on potentially two fronts. He questioned if it is premature with regards to the overall need of the County to begin to put housing out there and if it is premature to consider this ahead of the Urban Service Boundary Study. Mr. Akins asked if it was premature to consider it tonight when the County Commission cannot transmit it at this time anyway. Mr. Akins stated that there is a problem with the Comprehensive Plan regarding approval by the DCA and that problem relates to concerns over the County's ability to protect lands outside of the Urban Service Boundary. He questioned if this would further exacerbate the problem since we are seeking to expand the Urban Service Boundary rather than protect those lands outside of it. Mr. Kelly stated that if someone were to review this only from an office in Tallahassee, not knowing much about St. Lucie County, he probably would. He continued that from an office in the Planning Department in St. Lucie County, he thinks in some time period, the area from Kings Highway to the interstate along Indrio Road is clearly in an area that is going to become a part of the Urban Service Area. He stated that out to the interstate he thinks they are going to see growth and doesn't feel this is an unreasonable request, but that the timing is the issue. He advised that he believes that what the State is really looking for is the protection of the lands located in the far western two-thirds of the County. He stated that in the long run, the areas easterly of the Interstate will eventually be incorporated within the Urban Service Area. Chairman Matthes requested a show of hands from the public to identify who attended the meeting to speak for or against these petitions, other than the petitioners. Only one person raised their hand. He stated that they have tabled these petitions many times and put the general public P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 5 out and that they need to hear what the public has to say. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant has been working on this issue and the public has been here and he believed that it was appropriate after all that has been done to get the petitions on an agenda, to let them know what the issues were even if the County Commission ultimately cannot go forward it was time for it to be heard tonight. Chairman Matthes stated that he has a hard time acting, right now, on something that he knows DCA will think poorly of the overall decision making process. He also stated that he feels they need to hear the applicant and the public on these issues. Mr. Lounds stated that from what he can see there is an Urban Service Area that is virtually an island. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct and there was actually a second one out on Orange Avenue. Mr. Lounds asked if the area connected anywhere with a current Urban Service Area and Mr. Kelly confirmed that it did not. Mr. Hearn questioned why the Urban Service Boundary was extended around the interchange and requested the history and significance of it. Mr. Kelly stated that it had to do with the uses around the interchange. The intent was to provide the services central to the interchange, possibly with package plants and to deal with it in that manner. He advised that it wasn't appropriate at the time the Comprehensive Plan was drawn up to identify all of that area as Urban Service Area but they did want to make the interchange available. Mr. Hearn questioned how those land owners around I-95 uses would be affected if that Urban Service Boundary was not out there. Mr. Kelly stated that they would need Comprehensive Plan Land Use amendments prior to approving any interchange type of uses. Mr. Lounds questioned if the petitioner is asking to extend a boundary around their piece of property without connecting it to the Emerson Avenue boundary area. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct and that the petitioner does not own the other piece of land to request that it be included. Mr. Hearn asked if Staff had any record of the amount of traffic accidents on Johnson and Indrio Road regarding the side railing out there. He continued that he has heard stories through homeowners meetings that the railing usually gets knocked down each month. Mr. Kelly stated he did not have that information available with him at the moment. Mr. Matthes asked if the applicant was present and would he come forward and make his presentation. Mr. Richard Sneed stated he is an attorney in Fort Pierce and represents the applicant, Lin Indrio, hic. He stated that Lin Indrio, Inc. is a Florida Corporation and the principle of which is Lloyd Moody, who is in the audience. He continued that Mr. Moody has a home in Singer Island and also in Houston, Texas. He stated that their engineer Earl Masteller, of Masteller & Moler in Vero Beach was present, as well as Mr. Mark Matthes and Mr. Greg Boggs who are land planners with Lucido & Associates. He advised that this project started back in August 2001 and that he has had several discussions with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Murphy since that time. He stated that they had spent a lot of money based on discussions with Staff and have submitted thousands of dollars worth of documentation in seeking these approvals. He also stated that their plans are far beyond the cartoon plans that are occasionally brought in by applicants requesting a change in zoning or to move lines and to do things in the community. He continued that his client is committed to building a first class golf course community on the property that he has purchased on Johnston Road and Indrio Road in our community. He stated that ironically there is a pod P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 6 floating out in never-never land and a gap between his property and another property between the Urban Service lines that seems to be a mysterious area that cannot be addressed this evening because of an opinion of Staff. He advised that they are here this evening to prove the contrary and to support their position and to answer every question that Staff has raised in opposition to their applications. He stated that they have submitted complete plans for the golf course design and engineering to County Staff and also offered into record those submittals. He stated that specifically they have submitted one original complete planned development application, a check for $4040, fifteen copies of the site plan graphics and other related plans, ten copies of the required boundary and topographical survey, four copies of an environmental impact report, four copies of landscaping plans, as well as one original vegetation removal application and required survey's and photo's in conjunction with that application. He also stated that they have submitted a preliminary drainage data plan, a traffic report and all of this was submitted in October 2001 to the County Staff. He continued that they have hired a traffic engineer, landscape architect, golf course architect, engineering firm, environmental audit firm and an environmental audit was submitted to the County Staff. He advised that they have hired a soil - boring firm who conducted soil -boring tests on the property and a firm that provided a storm water drainage system plans and designs for the property. Mr. Sneed stated that they would like the Commission to consider this application. He continued that they have heard from a gentleman who he respects as a land planner, but not as a legal person and has given the Commission a legal opinion about something that is not legally correct. He advised that he stood before the Commission and stated categorically that they shouldn't consider their position and that the County Commissioners could not approve their applications is not founded in law, whatsoever. He suggested that they discuss that information with the County Attorney because County Staff s statement concerning that is just baseless. He stated that they are here to support their position in that regard and are confident that they can support each of the comments of County Staff concerning the application. He requested that the Commission take a look at their comments and listen to his planners and their responses. Mr. Grande asked that Mr. Sneed speak into the microphone to be on the record and Mr. Sneed stated that he has his own recorder who is taking it all down. Chairman Matthes stated that he would prefer that he speak into the microphone and Mr. Sneed complied. Mr. Sneed asked if the Chairman would place on record if he were going to consider the application that is before him. Chairman Matthes stated that was a decision that would be made by the Commission as a whole after the presentation. Mr. Sneed stated that he thought that Chairman Matthes had said that he wasn't going to do that. Chairman Matthes stated that he did not say that he would not do that and that what he said was that he had concerns with taking any action if it would be against something that DCA has told the County that they are not properly doing. Mr. Sneed stated that it is his point about relying on a County Staff planner about what the law is with regard to DCA and it seems as if it has prejudiced his client in it's presentation here tonight. He continued that they have come a long way to get here and that the last time they were supposed to be here they couldn't come because the publication was in error. Chairman Matthes stated that is why the Commission decided to hear their petition this evening as opposed to delaying it any further. Mr. Sneed stated that it seemed from the prejudicial atmosphere and tone that they are now faced with, concerning this application, is not the type of public hearing or the process that they thought they were going to be involved in here tonight. He advised that they thought they were going to come before the Commission and present their responses to County Staff. Chairman Matthes stated that he did not think that they had any prejudicial thoughts at the Commission with respect to his plan. He continued that their concerns are with respect to what DCA had to P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 7 say and that they are there to listen to him tonight and to make a decision in their capacity. Mr. Sneed asked Chairman Matthes if he knew of anything specifically that DCA said that he could share with them this evening and Chairman Matthes stated he did not. Mr. Sneed questioned if it is his understanding that they are simply relying on what Mr. Murphy had stated DCA's position is. Chairman Matthes pointed out that the staff person who made the report was Mr. Kelly, not Mr. Murphy. Mr. Sneed continued to refer to Mr. Kelly as Mr. Murphy. For clarity, Mr. Kelly's name has been inserted in parentheses after Mr. Murphy's each time this occurred. Chairman Matthes stated that he is relying on what Mr. Kelly stated with respect to making a decision. Mr. Sneed confirmed that the Commission's decision would be based on Mr. Murphy's (Mr. Kelly) representation as to what DCA said. Chairman Matthes stated that the whole Commission's decision would be based on the merits of what is presented. Mr. Akins stated that maybe the representative from the County Attorney's office should clear up that one point. Ms. Young stated that it is her understanding that the Board of County Commissioners can take action on it and can send it to Tallahassee but that Tallahassee will not accept or review it while this process relating to the Comprehensive Plan is ongoing. Mr. Sneed stated that he would like it placed on the record that the process that counsel has referred to has been ongoing since he has been a lawyer in the community and will continue to be ongoing forever. He also stated that the EAR amendments that they are speaking of are amendments that perhaps should have been made a long time ago and through a process of failing to do that, the plan will have to be amended. He advised that isn't their fault and that was Staff and the County's fault and from what he heard from counsel they can consider this unbiased without prejudice to what went forward earlier in this meeting and was announced by Mr. Murphy (Mr. Kelly) as to the DCA's position on it. He continued that they have cleared it up for him and that they are not going to rely on Mr. Murphy's (Mr. Kelly's) statement of the laws with regards to the DCA. Mr. Hearn questioned Mr. Sneed if at the present time the zoning is the same as it was when his client purchased the property; one unit per acre. Mr. Sneed stated that they have made no other applications other than the ones before the Commission tonight. Mr. Hearn stated that is not what he was asking and that he is asking if the zoning is the same today as it was when it was purchased; one unit per acre. Mr. Sneed advised that is correct and they have not made any applications other than the ones before them tonight. Mr. Hearn stated he wanted to confirm that it is zoned for only one unit per acre currently and Mr. Sneed stated that if it were RE-1 when they purchased it, then it would be RE-1 today. Mr. Hearn also asked if the County, at any time, encouraged them to move forward with this project. Mr. Sneed confirmed that County Staff had and that they would not have spent thousands of dollars but for those comments. Mr. Hearn stated that it is very important for him, as a Commission member, to know if Staff encouraged this project from the beginning. Mr. Sneed asked that Mr. Matthes be allowed to present his information as long as it would not be an imposition. Chairman Matthes stated it would not be an imposition and that would be part of the procedure. Mr. Mark Matthes of Lucido & Associates stated he would like to make some comments on behalf of their application tonight and to address the comments of Mr. Kelly and the Staff report as well as his correspondence to them from June 5"' and their response with the resubmitted report of June 17`h. He continued that he would mostly be referencing their report and would be glad to provide page numbers and so forth as he moves through the document. He continued that he had an opportunity to review the Department of Community Affairs report regarding the EAR P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 8 based amendments and would like to speak to that also as it relates to this plan amendment and DCA's position with regard to the EAR does and does not relate to their request before the Commission tonight. Mr. Matthes stated that he would like to first discuss the Urban Service area at I-95 and the interchange he has found through his experiences in planning that is a typical arrangement to have a freestanding Urban Service area to accommodate this type of unique feature. He continued that it is also commonplace to have transitioning from that type of urban development to the more rural development that may surround it. He stated that this particular island of urban service area does not necessarily have transitioning land uses before it and you basically end up with a sea of urban area next to orange groves. He also stated that typically you have a transitioning of land from higher intensities to the lower intensities as you move toward the agricultural areas but as Mr. Kelly indicated this area more than likely will grow. That someday it may all be together and that timing is an important issue. He continued that the sixty to ninety day time period to potentially resolve the DCA objections and reports on the EAR based amendments will more than likely be a bit longer and in addition to that, the one year study on the urban service area itself is possibly going to be longer than a year especially with the very comprehensive scope and tremendous amount of work that is before the consultant, which Staff put together. He advised that once that study is done they'll have to go through Comprehensive Plan amendments to make changes to the Urban Service Boundary before that study could be implemented and those amendments themselves take about a year. He stated that if their application is put on hold pending a result they are effectively shut out of any type of development for the County for numerous years while this is worked out. He continued that through his presentation he feels he can show the Commission this is not a premature development proposal and land use application request. Mr. Matthes stated that in terms of DCA's ORC report, it spoke to issues regarding protection of the Urban Service area and also as Mr. Kelly had mentioned, DCA sitting in Tallahassee may be more concerned about the vast majority of the two-thirds of the county west of I-95 instead of the pockets necessarily of state land uses that are inside and surrounding the current urban service area for many reason. He continued that the first reason is that 2010 is the planning time frame that currently supports the housing and population needs analysis of the Comprehensive Plan is not a long-term estimate. He stated that all those numbers based on 2010 are really talking about a short-term horizon and their analysis shows there is already a deficit of land for residential needs in the short-term horizon and will only get worse in the long-term. He advised that timing is very important and these projects cannot go online in a day and if they were given a supportive recommendation tonight through the Commission it would be about six to nine months before this land use could be affected and before they could even begin to get an approved PUD. He also stated that the development of this site would be phased over three to five years as they phase the houses in and construct the golf courses and would not be fully in place until about 2007 or 2008. He continued that clearly the timing is appropriate for this project. Mr. Matthes stated that in response to Mr. Kelly's June 5"' request for additional information, they have answered all of their questions and that this development will not impact urban services to the degrading point and in fact through their contributions of impact facts and developers agreements and additional ad velorum taxes would more than likely benefit the county in many ways. He continued that they have provided clearly two analyses within their staff report beginning on page 9 of the June 17'h revised report. He stated that of the two analyses that they performed one was on a countywide level based upon data directly out of the P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 9 Comprehensive Plan and clearly shows a deficit of residential land through and by 2010. He continued that at Staff's request in their June 5 h letter they went on to do a sub area analysis of the north county area, which is generally defined by the canal just south of Indrio Road and just south of the airport to the north county line from I-95 to the intercostals waterway. He advised that they had received data from St. Lucie County Staff, including the property appraisers data of development status. They did a detailed analysis of the use of the residential land within this area and determined it's vacant status and number of units. He stated that they clearly show, using data and assumptions within the Comprehensive Plan and other government approved documents, such as the 2025 long-range transportation plan that prior to 2015 there will be a deficit of residential land within the north county area. He advised that deficit is clear within the long-range planning time frame and as you move forward in those planning activities you try to address these deficits before they get to a short-term horizon because time is needed to respond to these needs. He stated that they feel in the north county area it is an appropriate time to act. He advised that Staff made recommendations at prior discussions of the Comprehensive Plan and the need to close that gap and they are one parcel that is willing to step forward and move forward with that concept. Mr. Matthes stated that the second point was there seemed to be a discrepancy between their analyses regarding the numbers they used of four units per acre as an average development density for a single-family housing project and their development, which is approximately 1.6 units per acre. He advised that is clearly resolved by the nature of their development and single family urban development is consistent with the other urban developments within the urban service area. He stated that the golf course, which will be open to the public for use and will be a benefit to the community. He stated the third request being an analysis of the uses in and around the site, they did provide that analysis and primarily that area is an undeveloped in urban uses because it is currently outside of the Urban Service Boundary. He continued that the I-95 interchange is also undeveloped in urban uses because currently urban utilities do not exist there. He advised that to their east less than a half -mile you begin to get into urban type development and you begin to get into the eastern urban service area, which again is shown to be having a deficit of residential land. He stated that Staff requested a more thorough traffic analysis, which they had provided as part of the PUD but did not supplement the land use amendment with a comprehensive long-term report so they did as requested. He advised they used the typical methodology of a comprehensive plan analysis with generalized capacity tables from the DOT and analyzed the impact of their development on area roadways and it clearly shows, from a generalized prospective, the links that will be impacted are adequate to accommodate that impact._ Mr. Matthes stated the fifth request for information was regarding police, fire and schools was addressed. He advised that the response they got most often when they contacted everyone was that they had never been asked for that before and they needed time to get back to them with a response. He stated that the fire department stated their development is within their service area and would be served in a better time than the average service area simply because of it's close location to the fire station. He continued that they acknowledged that they would need to do more specific personnel analysis as part of the development application. He stated that unfortunately he had not received responses from the police department or the school district. He advised that the police department told him that they would be glad to provide that information as a part of the development application and since this isn't that application they were not able to respond to their request. He also stated that the school district just was not able to get the information to them in time and therefore he couldn't provide that information but that P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 10 they did acknowledge that indeed through their impact fees they use that method to plan for the capital needs of their facilities. Mr. Matthes advised that the sixth request was for an additional analysis of recreational amenities. He stated there are specific requirements within the Comprehensive Plan, which they feel they meet all of, that you cannot create by expansion of the urban service area a deficit in mandatory facilities. He also stated that there is already a deficit in community parks in St. Lucie County at this time but that deficit is not caused by this project and you could argue that their development would make it worse, however, they could argue that their payment of impact fees contributes to the resolution of the deficit. He advised that Lakewood Park is in that area and a proportional analysis of the 7.3 acres of that park to determine it's service area and it's service population and those numbers are in the report and could accommodate the existing units and also for the vacant land within their service area and would still have extra capacity. He stated this demonstrates that even though the county may have a countywide deficit in community parks, the north county area does not currently within the service area of Lakewood Park. He continued that the recreational analysis is on page 18 of their staff report. They added an analysis of agricultural vacant lands and viability because there is a statement within the Comprehensive Plan that says expansion within the urban service area is not supposed to degrade the ability of other lands outside of the urban service area from continuing to operate with agricultural purposes. He stated that the development of their site in no way would impose any conditions or restrictions on neighboring properties from being able to be used for agricultural purposes. He also stated that one of the Staff s memos indicated the availability of utility services to be from 2010 to 2015. He advised that they have obtained copies of the Master Plan from the Utilities Department and provided excerpts of their maps and tables within their report, which clearly shows that a main line will be extended to the I-95 interchange area within 2005 to serve that urban area. He stated there would be utilities available by the time they need them and they fully meet the timing of that requirement also. He also stated that this is a smart, timely planning task to bring this property in now instead of waiting two years and coming to the same conclusion at that time because the utilities, parks, fire and everything are in place. He stated that in his opinion this is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in all aspects. Mr. Matthes stated that the DCA's analysis of protecting the Urban Service Boundary as it relates to utilities was related to the ambiguous language of policies that would allow development of an urban nature without utilities and that was their main objection. He also stated that in his review of the ORC report was that they did not think we were protecting the urban service area enough because the policies that required urban services was not strict enough to be only within the urban service area. He advised that their plan is not going against that because they will have urban facilities of all natures and he doesn't believe DCA would have any basis to reject on that nature. Mr. Trias stated that the applicant had mentioned several times that they had prepared a site -plan and wanted to know if they had it tonight and could show the members. Mr. Matthes distributed copies of the site -plan to each member for their review. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Matthes had mentioned that urban service utilities would be available by 2005 and that he referenced the county's master plan but Chairman Matthes questioned if that date was based on a cost feasible plan or just based on a master plan which desires to provide services by that date. Mr. Matthes stated that he could not answer that question because he personally did not review the program. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Earl Masteller, of Masteller & Moler stated they are the engineers on the project. He stated they have been working on this project from the beginning and are familiar with the water and sewer situation. He advised that they are under continuing contact with the County Utilities Department and understands that Mr. Blazak wants to get the water and sewer extended out Indrio Road. He stated as far as the funding of those lines, they are both sized to be twelve inch and this project would basically pay for those lines out to it in the form of impact fees. He advised that several months ago the utilities department contracted with a consultant to do a study of the north county area with regards to sewer and water for that area. He stated that study is moving forward and it is ironic that there is conflict within the county where an Urban Service Boundary that is not permitting projects to be developed that are going to be served by a sewer system that is now being sized in the study to serve. He continued that there is money being spent on this study and that the sewers are going to be put out in the north county area and the Urban Service Boundary will have to be adjusted to accommodate the development to make the sewer viable. Mr. Lloyd Moody stated he was the developer and it was his intention to create a project that would be a credit to St. Lucie County as well as himself. He also stated that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Kelly have been very cooperative with them over the period of time they have been working with them and they have enjoyed it. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jeff Furst, Property Appraiser for St. Lucie County stated he has had the pleasure of dealing with the real estate business in St. Lucie County since 1970 and can say that in that time he has only met a few visionary developers who have both the means and the vision to do something outstanding. Mr. Johnson from Lakeport, Mr. Thomas White from the Peacock Ranch and the Duda's. He advised that the State had told everyone that when they created that interchange that they didn't have to give those landowners very much money because their property would become so valuable because of the development within the near future that would increase their property values by the development of that road. He stated that they called the interchange a prime location and then showed all the development that would spread from the interstate all the way east to the Indian River. He advised that they were correct because if you ride that corridor starting at Gatlin and come up to St. Lucie West, Okeechobee Road and Orange Avenue, other than Indrio, that is what has happened. He stated that everyone has known for a long time that everything east of I-95 will be developed in some form or fashion and that has been the history of it. He said that if the Comprehensive Plan has lagged and if the Urban Service Boundary is not where it should be today that doesn't mean we should have to hire a lot of people and wait a long time to figure out what we know all over Florida, it is going to happen. He continued that his __dilemma as the Property Appraiser is being faced with an increasing amount of requests from the State for recognition of properties that are no longer justifiable for agricultural purposes and to remove the exemptions. He stated that they clearly recognize that most of the properties within the corridors east of those interstates are unlikely to be agricultural in nature. It is very difficult to justify a keeping a property for agricultural use. He advised that they are, in effect, telling us that we really need to recognize what the land use and future plans are going to be, what the values are, get the exemptions off and tax them. He stated it is exceedingly difficult when Staff says there is no real urgency, but there is an urgency because there are members of the community that have gone bankrupt. He advised that he is faced with having to decide on pulling their exemptions or not on the assumptions that something is going to be done out there other than agricultural. He also stated that if the County truly believes the areas should be P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 12 converted back to agricultural then they need to be able to have aerial applicators out along that corridor. He continued that he feels we cannot keep doing anything and something needs to be decided one way or the other and he cannot keep extending exemptions when there is no decision. He stated that from a valuing and exemption stand points they are in a dilemma and this means large amounts of money to these people who own land out there and have no alternatives. He stated that he feels there really needs to be a decision and he has no problem either way but he needs to know for sure which way the County is going to go. He also stated that this petitioner's situation is not as dire as many others that he has seen, but the lack of decision of direction is causing havoc in those areas east of I-95. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Akins asked Mr. Furst why are we doing a piecemeal consideration of the Urban Service Boundary or are we getting into spot changing. Mr. Furst stated that he believes there was a real problem when they first did the Comprehensive Plan because this county didn't understand that at the rate it was developing they needed a central water and sewer system. He also stated that a lot of the reason they had to piecemeal and do some of the things they did in the original development was because there was no infrastructure or a plan for one at the time. He advised there is a fairly large sized development on the western side of I-95 and isn't sure how we got there or if it made sense to do or not. He said that he is not submitting that tomorrow the urban service district should be taken to I-95 the length of the County because there are clearly areas it hasn't gotten to yet. Mr. Grande stated that philosophically he agreed with Mr. Furst but found that the focus needs to be on this specific applicant and he thinks the applicant is saying that their engineers have a better handle on when the county provided infrastructure is going to reach their area than the County does. He stated that he has a problem with that and he thinks that the developer is saying that their impact fees and the development of less than two units per acre is going to more than pay for the infrastructure that they are going to require outside of the urban service area. He also stated that he believes that the situations and problems that occurred in the past were because of statements like that and that citizens who sat on these types of boards believed them because it made sense in theory. He continued that there is a real danger here if they move faster than Staff has requested because there are two alternatives. He stated they could either recognize the problem and in a planned and controlled fashion move the Urban Service Boundary to where it should be moved based on what they see coming in five or six years and prepare for it. He advised that the other alternative would be to take the reports that they get and do them one at a time and they don't get to finish the job of deciding where the boundary as a whole is. He said this application should be reviewed, as a whole, based on where the County is now through its _Staff and_ where they are planning to go within the next twelve months. He also stated that a three, four or five month delay is not a game breaker and when you consider that the developer understood that he was purchasing land outside of the Urban Service Boundary and chose to buy it anyway. Mr. Furst stated that he has no difficulty with a decision being made within a time certain. He continued that his concern is if two years from now there is still only discussion and no finalized decision or plan. Mr. Trias stated that the issue of the Urban Service Boundary has been discussed for quite a long time throughout many counties and that St. Lucie County can review what they have done or haven't done to help make decisions. He also stated that he believes that other counties would agree that most of the area east of I-95 would develop and isn't anything new. He stated that the P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 13 question is how and what type of developments are we going to have and are the developments going to enhance our tax base. He continued that he feels those are the issues that we should be discussing and he would prefer not to talk about so many technical issues of the DCA and it is more important to discuss whether or not this type of development is what is best for the community. He stated that he would like to ask Mr. Furst if he believes residential projects pay for themselves. Mr. Furst stated that he believes that in this county it usually takes a home cost of about $107,000 to pay for itself in the community. Mr. Merritt asked what the tax rate was in comparison to Martin and Indian River County. Mr. Furst stated that Indian River County's unincorporated area millage rate is higher than St. Lucie County. He also stated that St. Lucie County's rolls are rising better than the other counties in relation to the need and thinks the millage rate will be very close. Mr. Lounds stated there is a very large golf course on this project and questioned if there is any rule of thumb that the appraisers office uses with regards to the value of that type of community. Mr. Furst stated that developers use golf courses as a draw and the draw usually is that they can get more money for a smaller piece of property and put a bigger house on it than they could without the golf course. He advised that in most cases golf course properties are generally more valuable. He stated that may not be true in every case, but he could not think of any case in this county. He also stated that they are not put in because they provide a public service, it is generally because it's good economics. Mr. Lounds asked if when figuring the value of the property in this project, would they figure the golf course as proportionate to each lot or separate the two. Mr. Furst stated it would enhance the value of all of the lots. He continued that he feels the County really needs to take a direction one way or the other because these types of problems have been going on for too long. Mr. Hearn stated that this project is in the part of the county where he lives and he would like to see a project of this nature built in that area. He also stated that it could set a precedent for future development but he has two problems with it. He advised that the first problem is that there would be homes adjacent to agricultural land and if the property owner to the west decides to put in a hog farm this could cause major problems for those living in the development. He stated that the second problem is Indrio Road and how narrow it is and the amount of traffic on it. He also stated that the intersection of Johnson and Indrio Road has been the scene of many accidents and if this development is approved, there needs to be improvements made to that intersection. Chairman Matthes stated that he agrees with Mr. Hearn but believes that would be something to consider and review later in the process, not at this time. Mr. Hearn advised that issue would tend to make him vote against the project. Chairman Matthes stated that he didn't believe they could condition_ an Urban Service Boundary change or a Future Land Use Change. Ms. Young stated that was correct because they are not conditional issues. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that they did do traffic reports with their PUD and it specifically identifies numerous off site intersection modifications to address both safety and capacity issues. He continued that these issues are all address within the traffic report and would be the responsibility of the applicant. He also stated that he agrees with the Chairman and that information would be submitted with their PUD request. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Matthes if he believed this type of a development with one entrance and a large cul-de-sac as a general form of development in that area will cause any traffic problems. Mr. Mark Matthes stated there are two entrances but generally speaking that this type of plan P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 14 would funnel all the traffic to roadways like Indrio and Johnson and probably wouldn't be the most desirable method. He continued that he believes in the many small roads concept because they usually have slower speeds and better safety records and so forth. He also stated that not all developments will be the same and cannot expect to have a typical pattern. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Matthes if the plan they presented is the best plan and layout they could come up with. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that he is not a golf course designer and wouldn't feel comfortable answering that question. He also stated that they are not here to speak about the PUD today and would rather just discuss the Urban Service Boundary issues. Mr. Grande stated the project is moving along and if this request was not approved on the basis of Staff's indication then greater questions need to be answered which will not stop them from moving forward. He continued that there is still a lot for them to do before they would have to come to a halt because of the County. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that he disagrees and they have already submitted a complete PUD application that the County is waiting to review until these issues are resolved. He also stated that they could time the approval of the PUD so that it could be heard very soon after a potential approval of the land use amendment. He advised that he feels they are in a holding pattern right now and until they know if their request is moving forward they don't want to spend any more money on the project. He continued that there are also some potential fallbacks and their development is only 1.6 units per acre, which is less than the two units per acre requirement. He stated that they want and require urban facilities for this development and according to the Comprehensive Plan urban service area development must be two units per acre and higher. He also stated that since they are less than two units per acre, they could move forward without the expansion of the Urban Service Boundary with an approval of a Residential Suburban land use classification. He advised that would not change their plan at all and they would do it under Residential Suburban land use classification instead of Residential Urban because it would avoid the discussion of moving the primary Urban Service Boundary. He stated that their support for Residential Urban is easily translatable to a Residential Suburban request. He also stated that if they find that they cannot move forward with their request for Residential Urban and the change in Urban Service Boundary they do have the fallback of requesting Residential Suburban land use. Mr. Lounds asked why they hadn't already made the request already to change to Residential Suburban seeing the problems that have occurred and Staff s recommendation. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that they are offering that for discussion now. He also stated that they believe all of their analysis to date will support a Residential Suburban classification but doesn't know why they didn't request this before. He advised that they have been working with Staff for six months and it never came across their minds until very recently. Mr. Lounds asked Staff what the differences are between their original request for Residential Urban and the change proposed of Residential Suburban. Mr. Kelly stated that Residential Urban allows up to five dwelling units per acre and would take a change to the Urban Service Boundary. He also stated that Residential Suburban is allowed outside of the Urban Service Boundary and would allow up to two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Matthes if they are proposing less than two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Matthes stated that their request tonight is only about the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Urban Service Boundary change. He advised that their PUD application has been submitted to the County that does have less than two units per gross acre. Mr. Lounds questioned how many units per acre they were planning. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that it is approximately 1.7 gross dwelling units per acre. He stated that Residential Suburban allows PUD's on smaller lots however; the word suburban is expected to P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 15 be for larger lot suburban developments in a rural area. He advised that their reasoning for requesting Residential Urban is because their development is smaller and more urban than suburban but due to the math and the design they come below the two units per acre. He stated that had they came up with 2.1 units per acre, they would have been stuck at Urban even though they are just slightly over the cap for Suburban. Mr. Grande confirmed that they are asking for a change in the Urban Service Boundary but Staff and their attorney are not in total agreement about if that should be done. He stated that they have reached a point where they do know what they want to develop here and just demonstrated that they don't need to affect the Urban Service Boundary to do that. He advised that the Residential Suburban and PUD could all be done outside of the Urban Service Boundary and would satisfy Staff s questions as of date without being bogged down with the timeliness of an Urban Service Boundary change. He stated that he feels there is a pattern here and they are reviewing the wrong application. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that the application for the site stands as submitted but they would accept as a compromise a Residential Suburban recommendation to keep this project moving forward. Mr. Grande stated he appreciates their willingness to do that but on the other hand it would be easier to just reject the Urban Service Boundary change and ask the applicant to come back with a zoning change and PUD at the same time. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that unfortunately Residential Suburban is also a land use amendment and they would not like to have to expose themselves to the time penalty of starting the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle all over again when this application could just be amended. He also stated that the LPA. and County Commission always have the right to approve something that is less dense than requested. He stated that denial of the Urban Service Boundary would not have any affect on a request for Residential Suburban land use classification. Mr. Grande stated if they deny the Urban Service Boundary and review the second application for a change in future land use as a Residential Suburban instead of Residential Urban. Mr. Matthes stated that they would want to review with Staff and the County Attorney to understand their time penalty for the EAR based amendment complication. Mr. Merritt stated that if they remember when they reviewed the Comprehensive Plan he asked if our Urban Service Boundary matched up with Indian River County and was told it did at the time and it does not. He stated their Urban Service Boundary is from 43rd avenue (Johnson Road) and allows three units per acre but our Urban Service Boundary swerves around like a snake. He also stated that common sense should tell you that the Urban Service Boundary is going to move and all they are doing by delaying this is costing the applicant more money. Mr. Grande stated that he did not suggest delaying their applications in any way. He advised that if they deny this request for a change to the Urban Service Boundary because they feel it is a spot ---change request andthenthey approve the second application with a change to the land use they are asking for, they would come back next with a PUD change request and plan. He stated that it will take no more time and perhaps less time than approving the Urban Service Boundary change and in no way would that be a time delay for them. Mr. Mark Matthes stated he does believe Mr. Grande's statements are correct. Mr. Trias stated that he suspects that part of the reason they were requesting the Urban Service Boundary change is that a project of this magnitude is outside of the Urban Service Boundary it could be challenged as being sprawl and could be a problem later on. Mr. Grande stated that he views that from exactly the opposite perspective because the project should be able to stand on its own merits and is too far out for the supporting services it probably should fail. Mr. Trias P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 16 stated he would be more comfortable if Mr. Matthes, being a professional land planner, would explain why this wouldn't be considered sprawl in either of the two conditions. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that they would need to look at the long-term vision of their request for Residential Urban and the urban uses expand all the way to I-95 and then transition at that point to the agricultural and rural areas. He also stated that the second vision could be that they create a very nice mixed use node at I-95, which is what the land use is, and from there transition out to different uses. He advised that is what they may end up with around their area and in that gap in the Urban Service Boundary is the suburban land uses, which separate the eastern urban uses from the mixed -use node at I-95. He continued that either of those visions are valid planning visions but there is a different answer for each request. He advised that he thinks suburban is a transition land use from urban. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Moody if he would be willing to withdraw the application for the Urban Service Boundary change and move forward with the second application tonight. Mr. Moody stated he would not have a problem with that. He also stated that the regulation is not a 100% clear on some things and the reason they requested the Urban Service Boundary change was that they felt it was clearer what they would be able to do. He stated there were some questions about extended sewers beyond the urban service line into an area where it isn't urban service. He advised that there were also questions about the size of the lots. He stated even though they are allowed two units per acre, what size does the lot have to be. Mr. Grande stated he believes that their engineer answered the first question by telling them that he knew when the services would be in their area. Mr. Moody stated that originally they thought the regulation read that the source could not be extended beyond the Urban Service Boundary and they were not in that area so they could not get sewers there. He also stated that they found out recently that it is probably possible to extend the sewers even though it is not within the Urban Service Boundary. He advised that Mr. Kelly might be able to confirm that information. Mr. Grande stated that he would like Mr. Matthes to address the sewer issue since he stated earlier in their presentation that he knew all of the specifics. Mr. Moody stated that the question is that even though they are going to be run out there, do they need to change the Urban Service Boundary to run the sewers into that district because they would have to go through a district that isn't within that area. Mr. Lounds confirmed that they are being asked to make two decisions this evening. Chairman Matthes confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that he doesn't have a problem with the project at all and that portion of the county needs this type of development and is a prime area to help balance the developments in St. Lucie County. He also stated that it helps to develop the utilities and services in an area that is truly going to move. He advised that his problem is not with the development itself but with the motion to readjust the urban service line without due cause from the study group that has been asked to do. He also stated that if they change their - - request toResidentialSuburban; he has no problem with that at all. Mr. Moody stated - they would change their request as suggested. Mr. Lounds stated that he believes that by 2005 these issues should have been discussed and solved by then. He also stated that he feels Mr. Furst's comments were right on target and this county has some important decisions to make that need to be done quickly and precisely. Mr. Kelly stated that he has spoken with Mr. Matthes and if they wish to move towards the compromise that Mr. Grande had outlined, there is an alternate and safer way for the developer to approach that. Mr. Kelly advised that staff wants to do some research about whether projects outside of the Urban Service Boundary can have utilities and some various other items. He also stated that he is recommending that they recommend denial of the Urban Service Boundary P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 17 change and to recommend instead approval of Residential Suburban. He stated that would leave the Urban Service Boundary change request on the table for the County Commission should they find that there might be problems with getting utilities out into that area. He continued that if they withdraw the application, they are done with the County Commission. Mr. Grande stated that is exactly what he was considering. Mr. Matthes stated that they are in support of motions to that nature. Mr. Merritt stated that his reason for voting for this Urban Service Boundary change was to make sure it went before the County Commission to get them to move because there are going to be more requests like this in the future. He also stated that he feels the Commissioners idea of spending $40,000 to do a study with regards to moving the Urban Service Boundary is not good common sense. He advised that he wanted to send it forward with a recommendation of approval to send a message to them. Mr. Lounds stated that Mr. Merritt's request has a lot of merit and they need to be able to send the Board of County Commissioners guidelines and some feeling from the Planning Commission, as an advisory board, because they don't have the final vote. Mr. Grande stated that he feels the Board of County Commissioners clearly needs to get the study and get moving on this. Mr. Trias stated that he tends to agree with Mr. Merritt on this issue and thinks that the Urban Service Boundary should be more reasonably defined in the future. He stated that he does believe they need better land development guidelines and his objection is to layout of the development. He advised that would affect what happens in the future and the trend that we are setting. He stated that his recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners would be to start looking at the design and development issues more seriously because otherwise we know exactly what is going to happen. Mr. Akins stated that he agrees and supports the project because he feels it is a quality project. He continued that he doesn't know if what they decide tonight with regard to the Urban Service Boundary is going to affect the fact that there is money that is going to be spent on the study. He stated that he doesn't feel that if they take this action tonight it will save any money or cause any other money to be spent on that study because that process is already ongoing. He advised that he feels they need to address the issue here tonight. Mr. Grande stated that he doesn't exactly agree with everything that Mr. Akins said, but wanted to address Mr. Merritt's comments. He stated that Mr. Merritt's concern is taken care of by the minutes detailing virtually everything that was heard here tonight. He advised that the philosophies that have been stated in terms of the Urban Service Boundary question being moved quickly will be reflected in the minutes and will be read by the Board of County Commissioners. He stated to Mr. Trias that this would be two separate items and then his issues could be discussed with the second application instead of now. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Lin Indrio Inc., for an amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to extend the Urban Service Boundary, because we have found this evening that request is totally unnecessary and everything else will occur in the next hearing on the subsequent application. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 18 Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-2 (with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Lounds voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 19 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-002 — Future Land Use Chanee: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were both the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. He also stated that they were listed on the original agenda in the wrong order because the Urban Service Line would have to be moved before the Future Land Use Change could be done. He also stated that since these two items are from the same petitioner and are closely related the presentation for the previous item should be considered for this item. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve the application of Lin Indrio Inc., for a Change to the Future Land Use Designation from RE (Residential Estate) to RS (Residential Suburban), because it apparently is the best way to resolve the issue before us tonight. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with further discussion. Mr. Grande stated that he would like to get Mr. Trias' view on the application as a stand-alone application. Mr. Trias stated that his comments would really be more appropriate for a PUD review and right now they are only reviewing a land use change. He also stated that he feels this is the fundamental problem with the process because they are dealing with everything in little pieces and by the time they get to the end it is too late to look at the big picture. He advised that sometimes when he makes comments that deal with planning and design people look at him like he is not making sense. He stated that this type of development that has one big cul-de-sac going out to one road is not a good way to develop based on their experiences with development in counties that have done this. He also stated that in his view to do this type of development, which is completely disjointed and doesn't have any planning scheme to deal with the big picture, does not require review from Staff or any other review boards. He stated these types of developments are going to happen because the market is enough to make many of these things happen. He advised that the value that any of them may bring to the table is to try to put it all together. He continued that right now there is no process that he knows of that asks for that discussion to happen, which forces them to review each part of the project individually. He advised that they do not deal with any kind of comprehensive vision for this area and until they do projects like this will be all developed like this and having nothing left to do. Mr. Grande questioned what Mr. Trias said and asked if the relationship between the land use change and the PUD, which will follow, would the process be better served if the land use change were being voted on at the same time with the PUD. Mr. Trias stated he does believe that would be more helpful. Mr. Grande stated that had this been submitted without a request for an Urban Service Boundary change but with the land use change and a PUD plan request, they would be in a position to do the best job possible. Mr. Trias stated he agrees. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Moody if it would be a problem for him to come back with the land use change application at the same time as the PUD request, which from prior testimony sounds like it is virtually ready. Mr. Moody stated it would be a major problem because they would have to P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 20 spend all that money up front without knowing if the land use change would be approved. He continued that even though they have already done a lot of work, there is still a lot more expenses that have to be spent to finalize the plans for the PUD. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Moody if he would feel more comfortable waiting to spend that money if they had the Residential Suburban land use change already approved. Mr. Moody confirmed that was correct. Mr. Merritt asked that everyone use their common sense. 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 June 20, 2002 Page 21 AGENDA ITEM 4: EMILIO MARTINEZ - FILE NO. RZ-02-012: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of Emilio Martinez for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District for 1.08 acres of property located on the East side of the Turnpike Feeder Road, approximately 300 feet north of Palomar Parkway. He continued that the stated purpose for the rezoning is to develop the property into a dental office. He also stated that the surrounding zoning is CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) to the South, north, and west with RM-5 (Residential, Multiple -Family — 5 du/acre) to the east. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Matthes requested that a letter from the Bel -Aire Estates Homeowners Association be read into record. Ms. Gilmore read the following: "This letter is in response to your letter dated June 8t', 2002 concerning the rezoning of property within 500 feet of 5106 Turnpike Feeder Road. On behalf of the Bel -Aire Community Hall located at 325 Pandora Avenue, we have no objection to the rezoning of 5106 Turnpike Feeder Road from Commercial, Neighborhood to Commercial, Office by Dr. Emilio Martinez. Respectfully submitted, Diane E. Shaw, President, Bel -Aire Estates." Chairman Matthes questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. Emilio Martinez came forward and stated that he was the petitioner for this application and thanked the Commission for considering his petition. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes 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 11.06.03, 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 Emilio Martinez, for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District because it fits in with the existing land use. 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 June 20, 2002 Page 22 AGENDA ITEM 5: EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION. INC. - FILE NO. CU-02-006: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow social services (educational services and facility) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for property located at 3950 Juanita Avenue. He continued that the surrounding zoning is RM-5 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 5 du/acre) to the south and east, I (Institutional) zoning directly east and further east and RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning to the west. He also stated that II. (Industrial, Light) Zoning is located to the north and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning is located to the northwest. He continued that the applicant has applied for the requested conditional use in order to establish an educational facility for a maximum of 200 students for a religious school. A church facility is currently located on the subject property. The applicant is proposing the addition of two new 4,320 square foot classroom buildings. Educational Services and Facilities are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to two limiting conditions. 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 200. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 A.M to 6 P.M., Monday through Friday. Mr. Grande questioned if there is an entrance already existing off of Juanita Avenue or is a new entrance going to be constructed. Mr. Flores stated that there is currently an existing entrance with parking in place at this time. Mr. Grande asked why the difference of solid and dotted lines on the site plans. He continued that on the site plan there is a parking area to the right of the existing sanctuary in solid lines and then on the left it shows dotted lines for an additional parking area. He questioned if the parking west of the sanctuary exist today and Mr. Flores stated that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that the aerial photograph provided in their packets shows the existing parking more clearly. Chairman Merritt asked if the petitioner or their representative were present. Mr. David Phillips from Culpepper & Terpening stated they would be representing the applicant. He also stated that this project was originally developed back in 1990 and the dotted lines on the site plan originally represented the grass stabilized parking areas. He continued that as part of the development, they tried to locate the two modular buildings on the corner, and the existing grass parking would be moved towards the south property line. He stated that the applicant is looking to open the educational facilities in mid -August 2002 and are trying to obtain an expedient schedule. He also stated that they have had pre -application meetings with the SFWMD, as well as the local FPUA and DEP. He advised that everything has been submitted for approval and are waiting on the permits. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Hearn questioned why the information stated, "existing paved parking" to remain but Mr. Phillips just advised that it is grass parking. Mr. Phillips stated that right now there are portions P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 23 of the project that have paved parking and driveways and the grass parking that currently exists wraps around the east side of the project and continues around the north side. He advised that everything shown within the solid lines is paved parking. Mr. Hearn then asked Staff if the grass parking area is acceptable. Mr. Flores stated that it is acceptable with church facilities and they based parking on the sanctuary area, which allows them up to 75% in grass parking. Chairman Merritt opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Charles Hendly stated he is a member of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association and stated he has a concern because the staff report shows daycare and pre-school facility but they are proposing a school. Mr. Flores advised that was an error in the report but was advertised for educational facilities and services. Chairman Merritt questioned the hours of operation listed at 5:00 P.M in condition #2 because they might need later hours for after hour activities. Mr. Hendly stated that he believes they changed the hours to 6 P.M. because most individuals get done work at 5 P.M. and this would allow them time to pick up their children. Mr. Flores stated that in his presentation he confirmed the new time of 6 P.M. instead of 5 P.M. Chairman Merritt questioned why a school was being restricted to a closing of 6 P.M. because they might want to have activities at 7 or 8 P.M. at night. Mr. Flores stated that in review of their applications they had stated that the church services and school operations would not be operating at the same time. Mr. Hendly stated they would accept that because usually there is not any church service at night and they were mainly concerned with having sufficient hours to allow time for parents to pick up their children. Ms. Pinky Hendly stated that they had listed their hours of operation but would certainly have activities from time to time past the closing time of 6:00 P.M. She advised that would not conflict with the church services and stated she did not want the time limited to 5:30 P.M. She also stated that they were planning on having activities at the facility on a limited basis. Chairman Merritt questioned if Ms. Hendly was stating that they need additional hours at certain times and she confirmed that they would indeed need additional hours at certain times. Chairman Merritt questioned Staff if this would be a problem. Mr. Kelly stated that they do not have a problem with that and that the sanctuary could be used because there are no limits on the hours for the sanctuary. He also stated that they were not intending to limit the actual use of the classroom building in the evenings, just the hours of the students' day at school. Chairman Merritt stated he could see setting times for a daycare but since this is a school it should be a different situation. Mr. Kelly stated that if the Commission wished to change the conditions Staff would not have any objection. Mr. Lounds stated he would not have any problem extending hours to a school that is associated with a religious facility. He also stated that any time a church wants to extend their teachings to education and provide for the people, it is a wonderful thing. He advised that he wouldn't mind seeing them having children at the school at 7 or 8:00 P.M. doing something productive with their time. He questioned if there was any feedback from those on Jo Haywood Drive. Ms. Hendly stated that they have not spoken to them directly and has not heard any comments at all from anyone in that area. Mr. Lounds stated that sometimes those who live right next door to a school become concerned with noise and things. Ms. Hendly stated that their actual school day ends at 3:00 P.M. and will allow three hours for aftercare to allow time for parents to pick-up their children. Mr. Lounds stated he has no problem with extending the time so that it best suits the applicant and would best benefit their plans. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to assure Mr. Lounds that those on Jo Haywood Drive have been notified via the mailing and the signs. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 24 Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, 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 East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District because it is going to be a quality extension of their church services, it seems to fit into the community, and there are no residents here in objection to it, with the following conditions: 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 200. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias. 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 June 20, 2002 Page 25 AGENDA ITEM 6: ORDINANCE 02-015 — Amend Land Development Code (Architectural Standards & Non Conforming Lots): Mr. Hearn stated that due to the hour he would like to continue this item again until the July 18'h meeting. Ms. Young stated that if they wish to make a motion to continue again, they do need to open the public hearing and hear any testimony and then once closed make that motion. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Rob Russell stated that he has been trying for almost three years to get a permit to build a house on the lot he purchased. He also stated that he was in attendance at the previous June 20"' meeting but did not speak and that was continued. He advised that he is in real need of help with his matter and would hope that they would not continue this item again. Mr. Hearn stated that he wanted his motion to continue the portion of the ordinance that related to architectural standards and would like to resolve the non -conforming lot issues tonight. Chairman Matthes questioned if that could be done since both items were originally presented as one ordinance. Ms. Young stated that it is one ordinance and they could discuss the portion that relates to non -conforming lots but they would have to make a motion with regards to the ordinance as a whole. She continued that since it is one ordinance, they would not be able to just vote on half of it. Mr. Hearn questioned if they have to give a yes or no on the whole ordinance or could they give two separate recommendations on each subject. Ms. Young stated their motion could indicate that they are making an overall recommendation for the ordinance as a whole, but add that they are in support of one part or the other. Chairman Matthes asked if they could recommend that the architectural portion be broken out of this ordinance and have it re- presented under a separate number. Ms. Young stated that they could recommend that it be done that way. Mr. Grande stated that this point came up last month and that they would really not like to have ordinances that cover multiple, separate categories under one number and would not like this to happen again. He continued that ordinances should be single topics only and would like some justification as to why they are lumping together different subjects. Ms. Young stated that they should make a recommendation for approval or denial of the ordinance as a whole, but then include in the recommendation that they would like the architectural portion separated. She continued that it would go to the Board as presently drafted unless directed differently by the Commission. Mr. Kelly stated that the LPA could recommend that they would like to have it separated when it goes to the Board. Chairman Matthes questioned if they could request all reference with regards to architectural standards be deleted and then leave the rest of this -ordinance-as-it is with regards to non -conforming lots but bring back the architectural portion under a separate number. Ms. Young stated they could recommend that if that it what they want. Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager stated that Agenda Item # 6 was continued from the June 20's meeting and proposed two amendments to the County's Land Development Code. He stated that he was going to use St. Lucie Gardens as an example to show a pattern of lots that has a row of easements for access alternating on the property lines. He advised that several years ago this was reviewed and they decided that it was not a good idea to continue to allow lots of development on easements where the county would not be able to provide roads and could cause service issues. 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 P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 26 considered to be one parcel unless they are divided by a roadway or easement. He stated that they had been approached about situations 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 also stated that this amendment would eliminate the contiguous lot prohibition. He continued that, if approved, a series of lots under common ownership 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. Trias asked how this would be solved. Mr. Kelly stated that by changing the language in the Land Development Code to take out all of paragraph 2 and some of the language in paragraph 1 that says, "such lot must be in separate ownership". Mr. Merritt stated that he failed to see the common sense in the way the current code is written. Mr. Kelly stated that is why they are trying to correct some of these issues with this change. Mr. Grande stated that if they were public roads instead of private easements, then it would not be an issue. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. Mr. Hearn questioned the wording in the first paragraph, around the 18`s line, about a variance from yard dimensions and if it meant the distance that a house has to be from a side yard. Mr. Kelly stated that it is pointing out that any variances that may be needed have to be acquired from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hearn asked what the definition of "yard dimensions" was. Mr. Kelly stated it is discussing those areas other than area, width, or frontage. Mr. Hearn stated that the word "yard dimension" is with regards to setbacks and Mr. Kelly confirmed that would be correct. Mr. Rob Russell stated that he is in this situation because he bought a lot from someone in St. Lucie Gardens who had owned lots that were contiguous. He continued that he received a letter from Ms. Linda Pendarvis of the Public Works Department that stated they determined his property does not meet the criteria for a non -conforming lot of record and lacks the required road frontage for AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) zoning. He stated that his lot is off of Tilton Road, which is east of U.S. 1 off of Dyer Road. He continued that the man who sold him the lot had purchased three separate lots at three separate times but since the one he purchased was contiguous it became unbuildable. He questioned why they are considered to be one lot when they were each purchased at separate times and they pay three different property taxes for each individual property. He also stated that there are homes to the right and left of his and they are buildable, which doesn't make sense to him. He advised that his lot is only 330 feet from the corner of Tilton Road and has spoken with Commissioner Bruhn about these issues. Chairman Matthes questioned if this proposed change would solve Mr. Russell's problems. Mr. Kelly -- -advised that it is his understanding that it would. Mr. Merritt questioned if by changing this they would be creating more problems. Mr. Kelly stated that he isn't sure if it would create any more problems but that it would resolve many of the problems that have come from the original change. Mr. Hearn stated that he ran into a situation where he sold a lot but previously the same man owned two contiguous lots, the lot he sold was not considered to be buildable. Mr. Russell stated that is the same type of situation he is in today and that people behind his property are buildable, but he isn't. Mr. Grande questioned if this problem has arisen because Meehan Lane (which is now Tilton Road) is a private road. Mr. Kelly confirmed that is correct and if it were a county or public road, in general, this would not be an issue. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 27 Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Russell if he was planning on building a home on that lot. Mr. Russell stated that he had been approved to build a home, using the lot as collateral, almost three years ago, but was denied when he came in to request his building permit. He continued that he had his lot prepped to be built on at that time but has been fighting ever since to get a permit to build. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the wording in Section 10.00.04, Section A, Number 1 and to delete Number 2 in it's entirety, Non - Conforming Lots and also to delete all sections regarding creating Section 7.10.24, Interim Architectural Standards and have those resubmitted under a separate ordinance number. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. 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 June 20, 2002 Page 28 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be July 18, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hearn made a motion to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully Approved by: Gilmore, Secretary ' Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 29