HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Agenda 08-29-2002
t
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
Special Meeting
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor Roger Poitras Annex
August 29, 2002
7:00 P.M.
REVISED -AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Announcement ~ ~ ~~'`-l~.~ca.w~
D. Disclosures
.AGENDA ITEM 1: ORDINANCE 02-020 -Clarification on Enforcement Proceedines for Violations of
Section 7.10.12 Scrap. Waste & RecyclinS Operations.
Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #1: Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE 02-025 -Permit one Class A Tow Truck that is on the SLC Sheriff s
Office Rotation List to be stored in a residential neiehborhood.
Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #2: Staff Report
A ENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-027 -Amend Com rehensive Plan consistent with West Chester DRI.
ennis Mu by will present Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #3: Staff Report
A NDA ITEM 4: ORDINANCE 02-028 -Interim Communit wide Architectural Standards.
Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #4: Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM 5: ORDINANCE 02-029 -Amend the St. Lucie County Land Development Code Planned
Development Sian Standards.
Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #S: Staff Report
Page 1
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Comrnission/Local Planning Agency '
Special Meeting
August 29, 2002, 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion.
B. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on September 19, 2002, in
Commission Chambers at the Roger Poitras Annex Building.
AD,TOURN
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 (772) 462-1777 or T.D.D. (772)
462-1428.
Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at (772) 462-1586.
Page 2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~~~,~E CQ~y Planning Division
~
cry
MEMORANDUM
'c~ ORIO~'
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/
Local Planning Agency Members
FROM: Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary
DATE: Thursday, August 29, 2002
SUBJECT: P&ZAttendance
Mr. Fred Jones and Mr. Bill Hearn will not be attending this evening's P&Z
Special Meeting. Their absences are with notice.
, ~
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDOLE NAME ME F BOARD, COUNCIL, CO MISSIQN, AUTHORnY, OR,COMM EE
~t, ~uc~;e Cpunty~, P~aru~inc~ .and Zoxt~:nc~ ~i~n,SSZOn
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, OM ISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON '
2980 S. 25th Street WHICH I SEAVE IS A UNrr OF:
CnY COUNTY ? C(TY (COUNTY ? OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SU801VISION:
Fort Pierce St. Lucie St. Luce CAUnt
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSffION IS:
Au St Z5 ? ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; of
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
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
PATE 1
s
e „ .
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1, Stefan Matthes ,hereby disclose that on Anrn~Gt 1 S~ 20
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_ inured to my special prolate 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 mY= employer 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 conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
AGENDA ITEP~. 2: GLASSNIAN HOLDINGS, INC. -FILE NO. RZ-02=013 This is the petition of
GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, INC., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre)
Zoning District to the CG (Coirnnercial, General) Zoning District.
My firm is currently doing work for the Petitioner on this project.
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 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2
r
ti~j
Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Review: August 29, 2002
~~C\E CpGy
~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
~ ~ Administration Division
'~~oR\oP MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency
FROM: Community Development Director
DATE: August 22, 2002
SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-020 Amending The St. Lucie County Land
Development Code By Amending Section 7.10.12 Supplemental Standards,
Scrap, Waste And Recycling Operations, To Provide For Clarification On `
Enforcement Proceedings For Violations Of This Section And By Amending
Section 11.13.00 Enforcement Of Code Provisions To Provide For Clarification t
On Enforcement Proceedings For Violations Of Section 7.10.12 Scrap, Waste ~ :
And Recycling Operations
Attached is copy of Draft Ordinance 02-020 which would provide for a series of minor
adjustments to the regulations governing those Scrap, Waste And Recycling Operations that are -
engaged in the recycling and processing of land clearing and yard trash. Specifically, these
amendments read.as follows:
15. The hall be the responsible enforcement board assuring compliance -with the provisions
of this section and related sections within this Code. If the
~f#iser Public Works Director, in consultation with th
County Administrator, or his designee, and County Attorney s
~Bireeter, determines that the Code Enforcement
Board process would be an inadequate response to a given violation(s), the
County Attorney may institute appropriate proceedings in
a court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the violation(s) as provided by law.
16. The violation of any of the regulations, restrictions and limitations promulgated under the
provisions of Phis section may be restrained by iniunction, including a mandatory
iniunction and otherwise abated in anv manner provided by law.
17. Nothing contained in this provision shall prohibit the Board of County Commissioners
from enforcing its codes by anv other means.
In short, these amendments provide for the transfer of responsibility for enforcement of the
regulations governing recycling operations that are engaged in the recycling and processing of
land clearing and yard trash from the County's Environmental Control Hearing Board to the
County's Code Enforcement Board. When these regulations were first established, thy;
K.
August 22, 2002 Subject: Draft Ordinance 02-020 Amending Section 7.10.12
Page 2 Supplemental Standards, Scrap, Waste And Recycling
Operations
Environmental Control Board was seen as being the most appropriate body to handle
enforcement issues related to this particular type of operation. However, practice has indicated
that because of certain other limiting factors, that were not initially apparent in the
Environmental Control Board enforcement process, a more efficient and effective way of
addressing these matters is to reassign enforcement responsibility to the County's Code
Enforcement Board.
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency forward
Draft Ordinance 02-020 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
SU ED:
ennis urphy, AIC
Co un' Developm nt Director
DJM/
OR_02-020_MEM01(h)
cc: County Attorney
Planning Manager
Building & Inspection Manager
S
1 ORDINANCE NO. 02-020
2
3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND
4 DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.12
5 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, SCRAP, WASTE AND
6 RECYCLING OPERATIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR CLARIFICATION
7 ON ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF
8 THIS SECTION. AND BY AMENDING -SECTION 1.1.13.00
9 ENFORCEMENT OF CODE PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE FOR
10 CLARIFICATION ON ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR
11 VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 7.10.12; PROVIDING CONFLICTING>
12 PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING'
13 FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR fILING WITH THE
14 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN; EFFECTIVE
15 DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION >AND''PROVIDING FOR
16 CODIFICATION
17
18 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie Cour#y, Florida, has made the
19 following determination:
20
21 1. On August 1,1990, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,
22 Florida, adopted the St. Lucie County Landpevelopment Code.
23
24 2. The Board of County Commissioners has>=adopted certain amendments to
25 the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, through the following
26 Ordinances
27
28 91-03' - :March ,1.4,,1991 91-09 - May 14, 1991
29 91-21 November 7,..,1991 92-17 - June 2, 1992
30 93-01 February 16, 1993 93-03 - February 16, 1993
31 93-05 - May 25,>' 1993 93-06 - May 25, 1993
32 93-07 - May 25, 1993 94-07 - June 22, 1994
33 94-18 - August 16, 1994 94-21 - August 16, 1994
34 95-01 - January 10, 1995 96-10 - August 6, 1996
35 97-01 - March 4, 1997 97-09 - October 7, 1997
36 97-23 - September 2, 1997 99-01 - February 2, 1999
37 99-02 - April 6, 1999 99-03 - August 17, 1999
38 99-04 - August 17, 1999 99-05 - July 20, 1999
39 99-15 - July 20, 1999 99-16 - July 20, 1999
40 99=17 - September 7, 1999 99-18 - November 2, 1999
Underline is for addition
Skiiceii°rreae~h is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 1
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
1 00-10 - June 13, 2000 00-11 - June 13, 2000
2 00-12 - June 13, 2000 00-13 - June 13, 2000
3 01-03 - December 18, 2001 02-05 - June 25, 2002
4 02-09 - xxxxxxxx, xx, 2002
5
6 3. On ,the Local Planning Agency/ Planning and Zoning
7 Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance after
8 publishing notice in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune at least 10 days
9 prior to the hearing and recommended that-ahe proposed ordinance be
10 approved.
11
12 4. On 2002, this Board held its first public hearing on the
13 proposed ordinance, afterpublishing anotice ofsuch hearing in the PartSt.
14 Lucie News and the Tribune on , 2002.
15
16 5. On , 2002, this Board held''its second public hearing on the
17 proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St.
18 Lucie News and the Tribune on , 2002.
19
20 6. The proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code
21 are consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of
22 the St. Lucie County Corrtprehensive .Plan and are in the best interest of the
23 health safety and public welfare of ahe citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida.
24
25
26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
27 County, Florida:
28
29
30 PART A.
31
32 THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO-:THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
33 TO READ AS FOLLOWS, INCLUDE:
34
35
36 *******,r********,t***********
37
38 CHAPTER VII
39
Underline is for addition
"'-~-Tnrsagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 2
Draft #t PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND
2 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
3
4 7.10.00 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
5
6 7.10.12 SCRAP, WASTE AND RECYCLING OPERATIONS
7
8 A. In the IL (Industrial Light) zoning district, scrap and waste material collection operations may
9 be permitted as a conditional use subject to the following criteria:
10
11 1. The collection operations shall be limited to;,the acceptance of glass, plastic, paper,
12 cardboard, metal cans, and non-ferrous metals.
13
14 2. The property on which the collection activity is to ake place shall be at least
15 forty-three thousand, five hundred and sixty (43,560) square feet (1 acre) and no
16 more than two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet (4.5 acres) in total area.
17
18 3. All activities, including storage of the collected materials shall be conducted within
19 a completely enclosed structure. No outside storage,of materials of any kind shall
20 be permitted. .
21
22 4. The property on which the collection activity is taking place shall be surrounded by
23 a fence, wall, or vegetative screening eight (8) feet in height. Such fence or wall
24 shall be of similar composition, construction, and color throughout and shall be
25 constructed witf~out openings except for one entrance and one exit; the entrance and
26 exit shall be equipped with unperced gates. Such gates shall be closed and
27 securely locked at all Imes, except during business hours.
28
29 If vegetative screening is to be substituted for a fence or wall, plans for such
3o vegetative screening; shall be submitted with the application for conditional use K
31 approval:. Such vegetative screening shall consist of a greenbelt strip at least twenty
32 (20) feet in width adjoining adjacent lot lines, and a greenbelt strip at least ten (10)
33 feet in width adjoining street line. The greenbelt shall be composed of at least one
34 (1) row of deciduous or evergreen trees and one (1) or two (2) rows of shrubs.
35
36 5. Regardless of building size, a complete site plan prepared in accordance with the
37 provisions of Section 11.02.00 (Major Site Plan) shall be required with the
38 application for conditional use. The application for conditional use shall not be
39 considered complete until all minimum site plan criteria have been determined to be
Underline is for addition
&trike~hrangh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 3
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
r
1 met.
2
3 6. The reprocessing of the collected materials into any other product, by-product or
4 other use or form is prohibited, unless the reprocessing is allowed in conjunction
5 with manufacturing of a new product or material as would otherwise be permitted in
6 the IL (Industrial Light) district.
7
8 B. In the IH (Industrial Heavy) zoning district, scrap and waste material operations may be
9 permitted as a conditional use subject to the following: criteria:
10
11 1. The yard shall be at least forty-three thousand, five hundred and six#y (43,560)
12 square feet and no more than two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet in area.
13
14 2. No junked vehicle, or any other junk or scrap shall be located for storage,
15 dismantling, or any other purpose within seventy-five (75) feet of any residential
16 district, within fifty (50) feet of the front street line, within thirty (30) feet of any side
17 street line, or within thirty (30) feet of any other lot dine.
18
19 3. The yard shall be surrounded bya fence, wall,.orvegetativescrcening eight (8) feet
20 in height. Such fence orwall shall be of similar composition, construction, and color
21 throughout and shall be constructed without openings''except-for one entrance and
22 one exit; the entrance and exit shall be equipped with'unpierced gates. Such gates
23 shall be closed and securely locked at all times, except during business hours.
24
25 If vegetative screening is to be substituted for a fence or wall, plans for such
t}
26 vegetative screening shall be. submitted with the application for conditional use
27 approval. Such vegetative screening shall consist of a greenbelt strip at least twenty
28 (20) feet in width'adjoining adjacent lot lines, and a greenbelt strip at least ten (10)
29 feet;in width adjoining street line. The greenbelt shall be composed of at feast one
30 (1) row of deciduous or evergreen trees and one (1) or two (2) rows of shrubs.
31
32 4. Junked or wrecked vehicles shall be stacked to a height of no more than twenty-four
33 (24) feet.>
34
35 5. Regardless of building size, a complete site plan prepared in accordance with the
36 provisions of Section 11.02.00 (Major Site Plan) shall be required with the application
37 for conditional use. The application for conditional use shall not be considered
38 complete until all minimum site plan criteria have been determined to be met.
39
40 C. In the IH (Industrial Heavy) or U (Utility) zoning district, land clearing and yard trash recycling
41 - operations; that are engaged in the recycling and processing of land clearing and yard trash
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hreugh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 4
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
. y
T~I
`~-i«i
1 only, may be permitted as a conditional use subject to the following criteria:
2
3 1. Business operations authorized under this Section shall be limited to the recycling,
4 processing and short term storage of land clearing and yard trash only, and shall not
5 be permitted to recycle, process or store for any period of time construction or
6 demolition debris, except for that construction or demolition debris that may
7 otherwise be defined as land clearing debris or yard trash.:
8
9 2. The total site area.devoted to the recycling, processing anal storage of land clearing
10 and yard trash debris shall be at least five (5) acres, but no more than 15 acres.
11
12 3. The recycling yard, including all product receiving areas, shall be surrounded' by a
13 fence, wall, or opaque vegetative screening eight (8) feet in height: Such fence or
14 wall shall be of similarcomposition, construction,. and colorthroughout and shall be
15 constructed without openings except for one entrance and one exit; the entrance and
16 exit shall be equipped with unpierced gates.' Such gates shall be closed and
17 securely locked at all times, except during business hours.
18
19 If vegetative screening is to be substituted .for a fence or wall, plans for such
20 vegetative screening shall be submitted with ahe application for conditional use
21 approval. Such vegetative screening shall consist of a greenbelt strip at least
22 twenty (20) feet in width adjoining all adjacent-lot lines, and a greenbelt strip at least
23 fifteen (15) feet in width adjoining any street li ne. The greenbelt shall be composed
24 of at least one (1) row'of deciduous or evergreen trees and one (1) or two (2) rows ~ `
25 of shrubs.
26
27 >Maintenance of-the fence, wall, or opaque vegetative screening shall be the
28 responsibility of the propertyowner consistent with the other provisions of this Code.
29
30 4. All sides of each Individual debris storage (stockpile) areas shall be accessible by
31 means offire lanes. Fire lanes shall be a minimum of 1 1/2 times the height of the
32 pile, btahin no case shall the fire lane be less than 20 feet in width. A minimum 100
33 foot wide clear pace shall be provided between every two debris storage piles and
34 there shall be a 100 foot wide fire lane at the end of each storage or stockpile,
35 regardless of overall length. Figure 7-29 depicts the general layout of the debris
36 storage stockpile areas.
37
38
39
40
41
Underline is for addition
8t>tike Fhreagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 5
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
~1?
J
~`~ti
FlGURE 7-29
LAYOUT OF LAND CLEARING AND YARD WASTE STORAGE PILES
Storag® PII® 100 Storage Pil® ~ Storag® Pil®
100 foot clear space and fire lane'
Fi nyar..cprn)
Storag® Pil® ~ 500 feet (max) S4®rag® Pil®
s Storage Pile
Fire Lane 1 times the pile height -not less less--than 30 feet width
Storage Pile 100 ~ Storage Plle Storage Pil®
100
250 ft. (Max.) ~F~r. Hyar.n~ (ryp)
Storage Plle Storage Plle Storag® Pil®
1
2
3
4 The maximum lengfh of an individual debris storage stockpile shall not exceed 500
5 feet. The maximum width of an individual debris storage stockpile shall not exceed
6 .100 feet. The maximum height:of any one storage pile shall not exceed thirty 30
7 feet.
8
9 All stockpiles shall be surrounded with a network of fully operating fire hydrants
10 spaced at intervals ofino more than 250 feet. No portion of the stockpile yard shall
11 be less than 200 feet from any fire hydrant. Each fire hydrant shall provide for a
12 minimum fire flow of 750 gallons per minute, unless otherwise provided for by the St.
13 Lucie~County Fre'District.
14
15 An area .equal to 15% of the total area occupied by the debris storage areas
1 s (stockpiles) shall be reserved for the emergency relocation of the stored materials
17 should'it'be necessaryforfirefightingpurposes. This emergencystorage area may
18 not'i'nclude any of the required minimum setbacks or separation corridors for the
19 debris storage areas (stockpiles). This emergency storage area shall be adequately
Underline is for addition
Stfigh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 6
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
1 served with access to fire suppression resources, consistent with this code.
2
3 The total site area that maybe covered with the debris storage areas (stockpiles),
4 excluding the emergency stockpile area, shall not exceed 60% of the gross area of
5 the project site.
6
7 5. Individual stockpiles shall be located at least one hundred:(100) feet from any brush
8 or tree line and shall be no closer than fifty (50) feet to:any property line or street
9 right-of-way line.
10
11 6. The base area on which the stockpiles are located must be constructed of either a
12 concrete surface, asphalt surface, or other clean all weather stabilizedsurface that
13 is acceptable to the County The access aisles between the stock piles must be
14 constructed of either a concrete surface, asphaltaurface, or other clean all weather
15 stabilized surface that is acceptable to the County.
16
17 7. All materials received into the recycling yard shall be rotated through the recycling
18 yard within 12 months of its acceptance>and deposition in the recycling yard.
19
20 8. All land clearing and yard trash recycling operations shall submit as part of the
21 application for Conditional Use permit a copy of Fire Prevention Plan for the specific
22 recycling operations that has been approved by the St. Lucie County Fire District,
23 Fire Prevention Bureau. This fire prevention,plan shall, at a minimum, address all
24 requirements and recommendations of NFPA 46, Recommended Safe Practice f®r
25 Storage of Forest Products, unless otherwise restricted further by this Code
26
27 9. - All land clearing and yard trash recycling operations shall submit to an annual fire
28 ,prevention inspection to be!conduefed, upon reasonable notice, by the St. Lucie
29 County Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau.
30
31 10. AIl'stockpi,les shall be constructed and located so as to afford the opportunity to
32 measureahe internal temperatures of the land clearing materials in the stockpile in
33 order to monitor fire hazard.
34
35 1 `1. All vehicles used:on the stockpile shall be of a type that minimizes the compaction
36 of the stockpile:
37
38 12. Regardless of building size, a complete site plan prepared in accordance with the
39 provisions of Section 11.02.00 (Major Site Plan) shall be required with the application
40 for Conditional Use. The application for Conditional Use shall not be considered
41 complete until all minimum site plan criteria have been determined to be met.
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hreagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 7
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
i
1
2 13. Every land clearing and yard trash recycling operation, authorized underthis section,
3 shall establish a cash security fund, bond or provide the County with an irrevocable
4 letter of credit based on the schedule below, to secure the cost of removing of all
5 accumulated land clearing and yard trash debris from the site if it has been
6 determined bythe County Commission, following a duly noticed public hearing, that
7 the land clearing and yard trash recycling operation has; been abandoned or
8 recycling operations have ceased for period in excess of six months, or of the
9 Conditional Use Permit is revoked for any reason: The provisionsof this paragraph
1 o shall not apply to any land clearing and yard trash recycling operation operated by
11 any unit of local government within the County.
12
1113 Storage Yard Size. Required Security
15 5 to 7.5 acres $ 50,000
16 7.5 to 12.5 acres $-100,000
17 12.5 to 15 acres $ 150 000
18
19
20 14. Any lawfully, existing land clearing and yard trash recycling operation as of August
21 17, .1.999, shall conform to the above described standards no later than January 1,
22 2001. In the event that any existing land clearing and yard trash recycling operation
23 fails to meet the requirements of this section, the County shall pursue all available
24 remedies to compel compliance with the provisions of this section and any other
25 applicable provision of this code.
26
27 15. The Code Enforcement Board, shall be the
28 responsible enforcement board assuring compliance with the provisions of this
29 section and related sections within this Code. If the
30 Ptablic;Works Director, in;consultation with the
31 CountyAdministrator, or hisdesignee,and CountyAttorneX
32 ~i-r~etar, :determines that the Code
33 Enforcement .Board process would be an inadequate response to a given
34 violation(s), the ' County Attorney may institute
35 appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the
36 violation(s)' as provided by law.
37
38 16. The violation of any of the regulations. restrictions and limitations promulgated under
39 the provisions of this section may be restrained by injunction, including a mandatory
40 injunction and otherwise abated in any manner provided by law.
41
Underline is for addition
&tril~e-~hraagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 8
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
1 17. Nothing contained in this provision shall prohibit the board of county commissioners
2 from enforcing its codes by any other means.
3
4 18. In the event that St. Lucie County is declared a federal disaster area following or as
5 a result of either hurricane orfreeze damage, the County Commission may suspend
6 any or all of the standards above forthe duration of the declared emergency in order
7 to facilitate the removal of vegetative debris.
8
9
10
11
,2 CHAPTER XI
13 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
14
15
16 11.13.00 ENFORCEMENT OF CODE PROVISIONS
17
18 11.13.01 GENERALLY
19
20 A. AUTHORITY
21
22 1. Enforcement by Environmental Control Hearing Board
23
24 Enforcement,:proceedings with respect'to the following provisions shall be in
25 accordance with Section 1 1.13.02:'
26
27 a. ' - Wellfield Protection (Sections 6.03.00 and 11.05.10)
28 b.' Wastewater and Sewage Disposal Compliance (Sections 7.08.03 and
29 11.05.09)
30 c. ; Wetlands Protection (Section 6.02.03)
31 d. Native Upland'Habitat Protection (Section 6.04.01)
32
33 Vie. Standard Housing Code (Section 13.08.00)
34 gf. All other codes, statutes, rules, regulations adopted by reference hereunder
35 pursuant to Section 11.13.02(L).
36
37 2. Enforcement proceedings with respect to all provisions of this Code, except those
38 listed in paragraph 1 above shall be in accordance with Section 11.13.03.
39
Underline is for addition
Strfke-~hfatlgtt is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 9
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
1
2
3
4 PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
5
s Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County,
7 County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict<with this ordinance are
8 hereby superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict.
9
10 PART C. SEVERABILITY.
11 -
12 If anyportion of this ordinance is foranyreason held or declared to be unconstitufional,inoperative,
13 or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions ofthis-ordinance. If this ordinance or
14 any provision thereof shall beheld to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such
15 holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance.
16
17 PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE.
18
19 This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated .area of St. Lucie County.
20
21 PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
22
23 The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau
24 of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 3230 .
25
26 PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE.
27
28 This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State.
29
30 PART G. ADOPTION.
31
32 After motion and' econd, he vote on his ordinance was as follows:
33
34 Chairman Doug Coward XXX
35
36 Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX
37
38 Commissioner Paula Lewis XXX
39
40 Commissioner John D. Bruhn XXX
41 '
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hreagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 10
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
.n
- N
a~~~
;;a
1 Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX
2
3
4 PART H. CODIFICATION.
5
6 Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws,
7 and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
8 sections of this ordinance maybe renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided,
9 however, that parts B through H shall not be codified.
10
11
12 PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this Xth day of , 2002.>
13
14
15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
16 ATTEST: ST. LUCIE:000NTY, FLORIDA
17
18
19
20 BY:
21 Deputy Clerk Chairman
22
23
24 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
25 CORRECTNESS: 1
26
27
28
29 BY:
3o County Attorney
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O DJM
41 OR02-020A(Lndcod04 ,H)
Underline is for addition
S~trike~-hraagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-020a Page 11
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 07/05/02
Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Review: August 29, 2002
~JC\E CpGy
~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
y ~ Administration Division
'~toR\oP MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency
FROM: Community Development Director
DATE: August 22, 2002
SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-02~ Amending The St. Lucie County Land
Development Code By Amending Section 2.00.00 (Definition) To Modify The
Definition Of Commercial Vehicles And Creating Towing Classes; By Amending
Section 7.10.14 Restrictions On Heavy Vehicles In Residential Districts To
Permit One Class A Tow Truck That Is On The St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office
s
Rotation List To Be Stored In A Residential Neighborhood By Deleting Extension
Of Parking Restriction
,
Attached is copy of Draft Ordinance 02-025, which would provide for an amendment to the
County's regulations governing the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zoning districts
in the County. Specifically, the County Commission has recently been approached by the local
towing industry to have the County's Codes changed in manner that would permit them to have
their on-call operators be allowed to take their two trucks home with them so that in the event
that they are called out to respond to law enforcement emergency, they can do so within the
obligated response times frames. Currently these operators are not allowed to bring their
commercial grade vehicles home with them, and when they are on call they must either first go
-back to the towing compound or to another location where they keep their tow truck. It has
been reported to the Board that having to use these off-site parking areas results in longer
response times than what is called for in the towing company's service contracts with local law
enforcement agencies
The issue of parking commercial tow trucks in residential areas, and the reported problems with
response times, is not a new issue for the Board to consider. Approximately three/four years
ago a similar request was made to the County as a result of certain Code Enforcement actions
in the River Park Area of the County. Following a lengthy discussion on the matter, the Board at
that time declined to amend the County's parking standards to permit an exemption for these
types of commercial trucks in a residential area.
The proposal that is before you today, is essentially the same general concept that was rejected
before, but there have been some adjustments that make it technically different from what was
requested several years ago. Specifically, the attached draft Ordinance would limit the size of
the towing vehicle that may be parked in a residential area. Under this new draft, a towing
operator would only be allowed to park what would be defined as a "Class A" towing vehicle in a
August 22, 2002 Subject: Draft Ordinance 02-OGpAmonding Section 2.00.00 -
Page 2 To Modify The Definition Of Commercial Vehicles
And Creating Towing Classes and fay Amending
Section 7.10.14 Restrictions On Heavy Vehicles In
Residential Districts
residential area, subject to certain restrictions, including licensure by the St. Lucie County
Sheriff's Office and a limitation that only one (1) vehicle per premises would be allowed on any
given property. There are other restrictions that would affect this use it were authorized.
more detailed explanation of those restrictions is found in Draft Ordinance 02-025.
At this time staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local i~lani~il~g Agency
forward Draft Ordinance 02-025to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation
of approval.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
SUB TTED:
Denn' urphy, AI
Commu ' y Developm nt Director
DJM/
OR_02-025_MEM01(h)
cc: County Attorney
Planning Manager
Building & Inspection Manager
V I
ORDINANCE NO. 02-025
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTfON
2.00.00 (DEFINITION) TO MODIFY THE' DEFINITION OF
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND CREATING TOWING.
CLASSES; BY AMENDING SECTION- 7.10.14
RESTRICTIONS ON HEAVY VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS TO PERMIT ONE CLASS A TOW TRUCK THAT
IS ON THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY SH'ERIFF'S OFFICE
ROTATION LIST TO BE STORED IN A '`R`ESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD BY DELETING EXTENSION OF PARKING
RESTRICTION; PROVIDING CONFLICTING`PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the r$~
following determination:
1. On August 1, 1990; .the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida,
adopted the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.
2. The Board of County Commissioners has adopted certain amendments to the St. Lucie
County Land Development Code, through the following Ordinances ~
91-03 - March 14, 1991 91-09 - May 14, 1991
91-21 - November 7, 1991 92-17 - June 2, 1992
93-01 - February 16, 1993 93-03 - February 16, 1993
93-05 - May 25, 1993 93-06 - May 25, 1993
93-07 - May 25, 1993 94-07 - June 22, 1994
94-18 - August 16, 1994 94-21 - August 16, 1994
95-01 - January 10; 1995 96-10 - August 6, 1996
97-01 - March 4, 1997 97-09 - October 7, 1997
97-23 - September 2, 1997 99-01 - February 2, 1999
99-02 - April 6, 1999 99-03 - August 17, 1999
99-04 - August 17, 1999 99-05 - July 20, 1999
99-15 - July 20, 1999 99-16 - July 20, 1999
Underline is for addition.
~+Ice-t#re~~ is for deletions.
1
99-17 - September 7, 1999 99-18 - November 2, 1999
00-10 - June 13, 2000 00-11 - June 13, 2000
00-12 - June 13, 2000 00-13 - June 13, 2000
01-03 - December 18, 2001 02-09 - March 5, 2002
3. On ,the Local Planning Agency/.Planning and Zoning Commission
held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance after publishing notice in the Port S
Lucie News and the Tribune at least 10 days prior to the hearing and recommended that
the proposed ordinance be approved.
4. On ,this Board held its first public hearing on the proposed ordinance,
after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune on
5. On ,this Board held its second public hearing on the proposed
ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port `St. Lucie News and the
Tribune on ,and following the closure of the public hearing on this
matter, continued any further Board discussion on this -proposed ordinance until
6. On ,this Board continued with the deliberations on the proposed
ordinance.
7. The proposed amendments to the St.' Lucie County Land Development -code are
consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of-.the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan and are in the-best interest of the health safety and public
welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida:
PART A.
THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
READ AS FOLLOWS, INCLUDE:
CHAPTER II
Underline is for addition.
mike-tf{re~ is for deletions.
2
DEFINITIONS
Commercial Vehicle: means every vehicle designed, used or maintained primarily for the
transportation of property with a gross vehicular weight of ten thousand (10,000) pounds or more. It
shall also mean any bus with a gross vehicle weight in excess of ten thousand j10,000) pounds.
Towing Class: means the type of towing vehicle, equipment or apparatus used #o recover, tow or
remove vehicles. The towing classes shall be distinguished as follows:
Class Atow truck or car carrier, including flatbed slideback carrier with`a gross vehicle
weight of 10,000 pounds but less than 15,000 pounds and with a gross combination weight of
30,000 pounds but less than 80,000 pounds.
Class B tow truck, including flatbed slideback carrier with a gross vehicle weight of 15,000
pounds but less than 30,000 pounds and with a gross combination weight of 30,000 pounds but
less than 80,000 pounds.
Class C tow truck, including flatbed slideback carrier with a gross vehicle weight of 30,000
pounds but less than 58,000 pounds and with a gross combination weight of 80,000 pounds but less
than 120.000 pounds.
Class D tow truck, including flatbed slideback carrier with a gross weight of over 58,000
pounds and a-gross combination weight of over 120,000 pounds.
CHAPTER VII
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS
7.00.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.10.14 RESTRICTIONS ON HEAVY VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
A. COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND SEMITRAILERS PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Underline is for addition.
Sttike-t#reeg#~ is for deletions.
3
1. It shall be unlawful for any owner, agent, operator or person in charge of any
commercial vehicle, or semitrailer, to park, stop, store or keep the. same on any
public street, avenue, alley or other thoroughfare or any right-of-way, herewith within
any residential district in the unincorporated areas for a period exceeding one hour in
any twenty-four (24) hour period, each such period commencing at the time of first
stopping or parkinga„',~.~-u-pe~r~+riTf'~,~~t-out°~ea-frem-;~^~~L-~r '
Sher+ff's-9#€ise. Exempt from the foregoing provisions is the following_
a towing vehicle used by the resident of the premises in a commercial towing
business which is listed on the St Lucie County Sheriff's towing rotation list.
In order to qualify for this exemption, the-=vehicle must have a sticker affixed
to the windshield reflecting a towing class of A. In addition, the exemption
shall be limited to one U per ~rernises and parked off the street in a garage,
carport or driveway. No work shall be performed on the vehicle while on the
premises-and no vehicle shall be :attached to the towing vehicle or have been
towed back to the premises. A_premise that'has received at least two (2)
complaints on the towina vehicle documented by the St. Lucie County Code
Enforcement Division in a two (2) month period shall lose its exemption
under this section for a year from the date of the notification. The St. Lucie
County Code Enforcement Division shall notify the owner of the premises in
writing of the loss of exemption. '
2. It shall be unlawful for any owner or lessee of real property in any residential district
~in the unincorporated area to park on, cause to be parked on or allowed to be parked r:
on his, its or their residential property any commercial vehicle or semitrailer for the
period exceeding one hour in a twenty-four (24) hour period unless same is in an
enclosed garage. Each such period shall commence at the time of first stopping or
parking unless a permit is first obtained from the St. Lucie .County Sheriff's
Department, and as may be otherwise provided in this division. This restriction shall
also apply to the owner, agent, operator, or person in charge of any such vehicle in
the event such person is not the owner or lessee of such real property.
B. DELIVERY AND CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES; EMERGENCY REPAIRS
1. The restriction of Section 7.10.14 shall not apply to the temporary parking of vehicles
covered by such section on private property in residential districts whereon
construction is underway, for which a current and valid building permit has been
issued by the county, and such permit is properly displayed on the premises.
2. The restriction of Section 7.10.14 of one hour in residential districts shall not apply to
routine deliveries by tradesmen, or the use of trucks in making service calls,
Underline is for addition.
~#ilce-t#~et~~kr is for deletions.
4
tfy
provided that such time in excess of one hour is actually in the course of business
deliveries or servicing, as the case may be.
3. The restriction of Section 7.10.14 shall not apply to a situation :where such vehicle
becomes disabled and as a result of such emergency, is required to be parked within
a residential district.
C. INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED 'IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS.
1. It shall be unlawful for any owner, agent; operator or person in charge of any
industrial equipment to park, stop, store or keep -such equipment on any public
street, avenue, alley or other thoroughfare; or any right-of-way therewith, within any
residential district in the unincorporated area any time unless moving directly to or
from or actually located at any excavation or construction site whereon construction,
clearing, removal of debris or other building and/or excavation activities are either
currently underway or will commence within the next twenty-four (24) hours and for
which a current and valid permit has been issued by the county and such permit is
properly displayed on the premises. Industrial equipment used in lot clearing, tree
trimming or removal, law care and related services is also included although a
specific building permit may not be required and nothing in this division isintended to
require a building permit where not otherwise required.
2. It shall be unlawful for any owner of property in any residential district of the
unincorporated area, to park on, cause to be parked on, orallowto be parked on his,
its or their residential property any industrial equipment, at any time unless such
industrial equipment is used on property whereon construction, clearing, removal of
debris and/or other similar activities are currently underway or will commence within
the next twenty-four (24) hours and for which a current and valid permit has been
issued by the county and such permit is properly displayed on the premises. Heavy 7
equipment. used in lot clearing, tree trimming, or removal, lawn care-and related a
services is also included herein although a specific building permit may not be
required and nothing in this division is intended to require a building permit where not
otherwise required. However, mowers, clippers, edgers, drills, saws, sanders and
other normal tools and implements of home lawn and garden maintenance and
repair, whether motorized or not, are not considered to be industrial equipment.
3. Exemption from the foregoing provisions are items of industrial equipment in actual
use or moving directly to or from the location of actual use:
a. Owned or leased by the County, the City of Fort Pierce, City of Port St. Lucie,
St. Lucie Village or the State of Florida for the accomplishment of a
Underline is for addition.
~t~+lEe-t~reag#~ is for deletions.
5
t~~
governmental purpose such as tree trimming, road repair or constructiori~,
water or sewerage system repair or construction, maintenance of street and
traffic lights and/or similar activities. -
b. Owned or leased by a contractor or subcontractor: under agreement with the
city or county to accomplish a county purpose as provided above.
c. Owned or leased by a recognized public utility operating within 'the
unincorporated areas of the county or by a contractor or subcontractor under
agreement with such public utility'for the accomplishment of'such installation
maintenance, adjustment and/or repairto°such public utility.
CVTCAICI/lAl flC DAQICIAI~`_ QCCTQI~`TI~lA1C
esign
~n
ih r~r.~4r~r.~ by 4hr, r~uir+~r .+r hia ~+h~rivi+rl r "CaYIIX fT~e~n +h n'c~h.-. riff~r..-l r.nnr+m n+ mi+
Is--d+~iSi9f~.
`z;.
~p:
PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County,
County ordinances and Cown#y resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are
hereby superseded by this ordinanco to the extent of such conflict.
PART C. SEVERABILITY.
If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative,
or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or
any provision thereof shall beheld to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such
holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance.
PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE.
This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County.
Underline is for addition.
~tril~e-t~ireogq is for deletions.
6
PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau
of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 32304.
PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State.
PART G. ADOPTION.
After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows:
Chairman Doug Coward XXX
Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX
Commissioner Paula Lewis XXX
Commissioner John D. Bruhn XXX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX
PART H. CODIFICATION.
Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws,
and the worei "ordinance" maybe changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
sections of this ordinance maybe renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided,
however, that parts B through H shall not be codified.
PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this -day of , 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST::... ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Deputy Clerk Chairman
Underline is for addition.
~#+ke-t#reegf~ is for deletions.
7
• "r
,1
,:'1
APPROVED AS TO FORM A'ND
CORRECTNESS:
BY:
County Attorney
Underline is for addition.
~#ike-t#~re~fi is for deletions.
8
~~i
August 29, 2002
VIA )NAND DELIVERY
Dennis J Murphy, AICP
Land Development Coordinator
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 201
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652
RE: Ordinance 02-027 - WESTCHESTER DRI -FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Please accept this letter as the applicant's request to withdraw the above referenced application
from the Planning & Zoning Commission's August 29, 2002 agenda. The applicant contemplates
filing a revision to this application to include additional land area that is contemplated for
inclusion in the DRI. Upon the submittal of the revised application, the applicant will request that
the notification and advertisement of the revised application be scheduled for the earliest possible
Planning & Zoning Commission agenda.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WESTC ST2E~R
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC.
esley McCurry, AICP
Director of Planning
DCP/wsm
ST. LUCIE WEST • WESTCHESTER • LNE OAK PRESERVE
1850 Fountainview Boulevard • Suite 201 • Port St. Lucie • Florida 34986
Phone: (772) 340-3500 • Fax: (772) 340-3718 • www.corecommunities.com
A wholly owned subsidiary of BankAtlantic Bancorp (NYSE: BBX)
Planning & Zoning CommissioN Local Planning Agency Review: August 29, 2002
„~~C~6 cpGy~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
~ - ~ Administration Division
'~~pR~OP MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency
FROM: Community Development Director
DATE: August 22, 2002
SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-027 Amending the Future Land Use Maps
of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to Provide for the Relocation
of the Existing Urban Service Boundary Line and for a Change in Future
Land Use Map Designation from the RU, MXD - (Gatlin Boulevard (Low
and Medium Land Use Intensities)) and AG-5 Land Use Designations to
the MXD - (Gatlin Boulevard (High Land Use Intensity)) and to Amend the
Transportation Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan to
Include New Policy 2.1.2.14 Addressing Transportation Obligations
Associated With The Westchester Development of Regional Impact, All
Said Amendments are associated with the Westchester Development of
Regional Impact
The Westchester Development Company has submitted an application for Development Of
Regional Impact approval fora 2,000-acre development west of Port St. Lucie at the
intersection of I-95 and Gatlin Boulevard. As part of the Development Of Regional Impact
review, Westchester is seeking to have the County's Future Land Use Maps amended to reflect
the following changes:
• A minor relocation of the existing Urban Service Boundary to have the western limits of
the boundary line coincide with the overall project boundary lines.
• To amend the Future Land Use Maps in this area from a combination of MXD -Gatlin
and RU to MXD -Gatlin, and with a corresponding change in the underlying intensity
classification in the MXD area to high intensity uses throughout the project site.
• To add a specific policy to the county's comprehensive plan to address a fair share
payment method for the impacts generated by this development site.
Since this project is being filed, as Development of Regional Impact, the Plan Amendment
process for this project is slightly different than the normal Plan Amendment processes that
County has reviewed in the past. At this time the Planning And Zoning Commission/ Local
Planning Agency is only being asked to review the submitted material for general consistency
with the county's adopted comprehensive plan and to identify and broad based concerns that
you have with the proposed land use plan adjustments. You are not being asked to provide a
final recommendation at this time.
August 22, 2002 Subject: Draft Ordinance 02-027 Amending the Future Land
Page 2 Use Maps/Polocies of the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan Associated with the
Westchester Development of Regional Impact.`
Upon your review of this petition at this time, this matter will be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners for further authorization to transmit this proposed Plan Amendment to
the County's Comprehensive Plan to the Department of Community Affairs for further review.
Upon transmittal to the DCA, and after the DCA's review of this project is completed, the final
processing of this Plan Amendment will be held in abeyance until the Development of Regional
Impact process is completed.
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency forward
Draft Ordinance 02-028 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that it
be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for further review and processing
in conjunction with the pending Development of Regional Impact for the mixed use development
known as Westchester.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
M
Is urphy, AI P
Co unity Developme irector
DJM/
OR_02-027_MEMOi (h)
cc: County Attorney
Planning Manager
:iii
a
Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Review: August 29, 2002
~~JC~E c~Gy~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
~ ~ Administration Division
FtoR~oa MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency
FROM: Community Development Director
DATE: August 22, 2002
SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-028 Amending the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code by Creating Section 7.10.24, Interim Communitywide
Architectural
Attached is a copy of draft Ordinance 02-028 which proposes to establish Interim Communitywide
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
Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Office, Commercial General, Institutional, Religious Facilities,
Planned Unit Development (Commercial Components Only), Planned Non-residential Development and
Planned Mixed Use Development. These design standards are not intended to stifle imagination nor
curtail variety but rather they are for the purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community
appearance.
At the June 16, 2002 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency, the
Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency voted to separate these Draft regulations from
draft ordinance 02-015 in order to provide additional time.-for the Board to consider the proposed
amendments. The Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency expressed some concern
over the proposed regulations and how they would effect or impact commercial development activities in
the community. There were concerns expressed about the limitations on the use of metal buildings and
the proposed color tables that were included with these regulations.
These interim design standards are patterned after the existing community architectural standards found
in the City of Port St. Lucie and are intended to serve as a short term regulation until a broader set of
community design criteria is developed. It is anticipated that this broader review process will be
conducted within the next 12 months.
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency forward Draft
Ordinance 02-028 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
SUBMI D:
Denn' . M r hy, A CP
Communit Development irector
OJM/
OR_02-028_MEM01(h)
cc: County Attorney
Planning Manager
~3
ORDINANCE NO. 02-028
2
3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND
4 DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CREATING SECTIUN 7.10.24
5 INTERIM COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS,
6 PROVIDING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
7 SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY;
8 PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
9 STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
1o PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING FOR
11 CODIFICATION.
12
13 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, .Florida, has made the
14 following determination:
15
16 1. On August 1,1990, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,
17 Florida, adopted the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.
18 -
19 2. The Board of County Commissioners has adopted certain amendments to
20 the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, through the following
21 .Ordinances
22
23 ~ 91-03 - ` 'March,l4, 1991 91-09 - May 14, 1991
24 91-21 - Novehber 7, 1991 92-17 - June 2, 1992
25 93-01 - February 16, 1993 93-03 - February 16, 1993
26 93-05 - May;25, 1993 93-06 - May 25, 1993
27 93-07 - May 25, 1993 94-07 - June 22, 1994
28 94-18 - August i~6, 1994 94-21 - August 16, 1994
29 95-01 - Jan~ry 10, 1995 96-10 - August 6, 1996
30 97-01 - March 4, 1997 97-09 - October 7, 1997
31 97-23 - September 2, 1997 99-01 - February 2, 1999
32 A 99-02 - April 6, 1999 99-03 - August 17, 1999
33 99-04 - August 17, 1999 99-05 - July 20, 1999
34 99-15 - July 20, 1999 99-16 - July 20, 1999
35 99-17 - September 7, 1999 99-18 - November 2, 1999
36 00-1,0 - June 13, 2000 00-11 - June 13, 2000
Underline is for addition
6trif~h is for deletion
Ordinance #02-028a Page t
Draft #t PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
}
1 00-12 - June 13, 2000 00-13 - June 13, 2000
2 01-03 - December 18, 2001
3
4 3. On ,the Local Planning Agency/ Planning and Zoning
5 Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance after
6 publishing notice in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune at least 10 days
7 prior to the hearing and recommended that -the proposed ordinance be
8 approved.
9
10 4. On ,this Board held itsfirst public hearil~g on the proposed
11 ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing °in the Port St. Lucie
12 News and the Tribune on , 2002.
13
14 5. On ,this Board held its second public hearing on the
15 proposed ordinance, afterpublishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St.
16 Lucie News and the Tribune on
17
18 6. TheproposedamendmentstotheSt.LucieCountyLandDevelopmentCode
19 are consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of
20 the St. Lucie County Comphensive Flan and are in the best interest of the
21 . health safety and public ~ielfare of the citizens of St, Lucie County, Florida.
22
23 ~
24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED b~rafie Board'af County Commissioners of St. Lucie
25 County, Florida: a' ,
26
27
28 PART A.
29
30 THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS`:TO.THE'-ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
31 TO READ AS FOLLOWS, INCLUDE:
32
33
34 ************,r***************
35
36 CHAPTER VII
37 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hreagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-028a Page 2
Draft #t PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
_
Nay
1 STANDARDS
2
3
4 7.10.00 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
5
6 7.1 0.24 Interim Community Architectural Standards
7
8 A. General
9
1o The Interim CommunityArchitectural Standards setforth in this section areto apply
11 to all areas of the unincorporated county as a minimum crtiera-:.for alf new
12 construction or substantial expansion to existrng bu~ldin or structures or b~rildirtig in
13 . areas zoned Commercial Neighborhood; Commercial O~fice, Commercial General,
14 Institutional, Religious Facilities, Planned Unit Developmenf (Commercial
15 Components Only), Planned Non-residential Development and Planned Mixed Use
16 Development.
17
1 s These design standards are not intended to stifle imagination nor curtail variety but
19 rather they are
20 for the purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community appearance.
21
22
23 B. Site Plan Submission Standards: '
24
25 (Insert page2)
26
27
2s C. Interim Design Standards:
29
30 (Insert page 3) ~
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 PART 6. CONFLICTING PROVJSIONS.
39
4o Special,acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County,
41 County ordinances and~County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are
42 hereby'superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict.
43
44 PA_ RT C. SEVERABILITY..
45
46 If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held ordeclared to be unconstitutional, inoperative,
47 or,void; such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or
48 any provisionahereof shall beheld to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such
49 holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance.
Underline is for addition
'Strike~hreagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-028a Page 3
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
1 PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE.
2
3 This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County.
4
5 PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
6
7 The Clerk be and is herebydirected forthwith to send a certified copyof this ordinance to the Bureau
8 of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 3230 .
9
10 PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. -
11
12 This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State. `
13
14 PART G. ADOPTION.
15
16 After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as #ollows:
17
18 Chairman Doug Coward XXX
19
20 Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX
21
22 Commissioner Paula Lewis °XXX
23
24 Commissioner John D. Bruhn XXX
25
26 Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX
27
28 ;
29 PART H. CODIFICATION.
30
31 Provisions of this ordinance shall~be incorporated in the St. LucieCounty Code and Compiled Laws, E
32 and the word"ordinance" rt~ay be changed to "section",'`article", orotherappropriate word, and the
33 sections of i;his ordinance~mayy beer.enumbered or reiettered to accomplish such intention; provided,
34 however,' hat parts B thr®Ugh H,shall not be-codified.
35
36
37 PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this XXth day of XXXXXX, 2002.
38
39 '
40
41
42 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
43 ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
44
45
46
47 BY:
48 Deputy lerk airman
49
50
Underline is for addition
8trilfe-~hreagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-028a Page 4
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
',j
rt
1 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
2 CORRECTNESS:
3
4
5
6 BY:
7 County: Attorney
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DJM
ZU 02-028a(Indcod0l -H)
Underline is for addition
S~H~
h~e~ is for deletion
Ordinance #02-028a Page 5
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
vi vi ~ 'O TS N
t~C ~ • ~ L1, ~ ~ ~ ~
f1. G7. ~ Q? . ~n • ~ Fes-. O~nA
id id •in ~ ~ ~ ~
cn`'~ ~~3
Q" 4. v ~ ca ~ ~
~ N ~ ' v~
o' er b X O v~ U cC
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •
w
•~?~3 a~~~;N b
~ p N a~i O
4. v ~ Q,
v~ a ~ n~ a. ~ cn o
'o N o ~ ~ b
yam'°~.
~ ~-o ~ ~~.n
°
~ ~ ~ U ~ ~~n. ~ti ~
~ ~ 3 ~ y
N
~ °3 ~ 3-o~o~nb~~bo
L," O ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ O ~ of ~ L1.
~ ~ ~ ~ tq ~ ~ C1 ~ ~
a.... ~ ac ~
~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ cam. ~n G ~ ~ A. w
C T O 3
Y
~ -o >
v o
~ oo ~ a~i aoi o Q -d v ~ o `c a`i 4.
o ~ N is U ~ vV, c ~ ~ 'X 'ri ~ ~ b
~ a~ o o a~ eon v ~ h Cs, a~ ~ ° > ~
~I fr ~ y ~ Gam". CC Cd U N 1 U U Cd Ci'
..o py I go~.yy a~ ~ o o °3 ~ ~
~ E"'' N ~ y ~d4 ~ ..V„ pNp . ~ yam" ~
~ ~ CS C. i o b L]. ~
N
C7 0.1 ~ ° . 3 3 a~ .
V~ id ~ A or ..o a3i • ao .b a~ a~ v, ~ a. ~ tea..
V
U
a~
A
~ ---------------~Jy
- ,
~
' ' ~a ~
ccs ~ ~ ~
a z ~
v
~
as
v1 ~ w a
z
1 ~
~ ~ o
a
w a ~
a w ~
i ~ L~ w N
1 w
'a ~
,
~ N ~
1 ~ I C.0
1 Y
~nraa ss~~~d a~x~s
1 , 1 ti
i a
1 1 M
v~ O ~ N M bD .b
~3 ~ vN ~
• ~ f3. ~ N cd' ~ ~ ..fl ~ U
O cn N ~ cVi~ N . cQ'0 ~ ~ 'Ly
' ~ sue., ~ y 'b O ~
~ C U vi ~
aO+ Y O O N N
O O
~ ~ cd ~ O ~ ~ O
O p ~ O ~ ~ C], ~ O
cC w ~ ~ O ~ O s~ O v'~
..O O ~ N oA ~ 3 O
O ~ N
'b 'C3 b
O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O 3 ~
~ O ~ O N
~ ~ a.. ~ b \ Ll...-.
~ U cC ,N bA , ~ ~ O ~ ~ N cC
~ ~ dD ~ N cNC cd GL ~ N
O N cC
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ N C ~ b ~ 'b
{
Cn s-' O ~ TJ
CC .C ~ N 3 i~
~ U ~ ~ ~ ~
Y
O ~ •V ~ C rp
..yam ~ ~ ~ w U t4 N
.O
~ ~ 3 ~
a~ = o
bA U 'b ~ ~ r = ~ ~
C~ ~ .fl i~ ro ~ ro +r
~ ~ "Cb U U ~ O ~ v ~
_ _c.~.
~ d
~ ..o ° o ° b
_ o ~
~ N y ~ ~ ~ ® ~ Lzi
U 'b ~ O 't7 ~ ~A
Q, ~ +r~
i °~i"~ a o 0
o ~ o 0
o^o~o ~ ~ U U .
t~ H
~ ~ ~ V N
vi ~n Q .C y
~ o _o -h a~3~o ~~:rs,_S
i ~ ~ on o Y o 0 04 ~ ~ 'rs
v f]. w. 4'' ~ ~ N vOi .j :b v~ N ~O
~ cd ~ 4. w ~ ~ N a3 .D
~ ~ 3 ~ N cd N c~
~ V ~ ~ A. ~ ~ N 3 ~ uS ~ ~ f~» ~ C w Q ~ ~ Y
~ •C (Z+ ~ ~ ~ p O ~ U w ~ p 4r I ~ ~ Q N N U I ~ ~ ~ O
~ ..C N U
a~ o
t
Cn c ~
N
M d
~y~
W C '
V ~
~ _ ' E
~y u ~
' V r• •C a V
q C
rn L ~ C rA. DO
/ d J W C
~ I f y W ~
~y 1 ! v
~ N UIW uZ~ t9 ~ yr = O ~ m
.r~1 r N O Q - eL ~ Gi
~ x n u ~ c O
W O 3 A ~ p w
A ~ 1~ 6 V pp ~
i~l ' ~ ~ O ~ •q ~
N
I~~ ~ C ~ 0
C
N E r o ~ ~ o
~ •ro ~ o ~
_ ~ ~ a a `•i.
u~w ~~~8 r- 0 5~ < W ~
•A ~ o S r ~
v i ' o°c cc ~ > ~ .
tar ~ 0 V '
~
ubZ ,r
r
CpU ~ O O ~ O ~ N ~ ~"Op+ o ~ o O ~ ~ ~
~ N ~ to O N ~ N ~
U
4,
N i. y ~ ~ 41 ~ ~ N CS. ° ~ N N O .
~ 3 > ..C to ~ p, U O .O +r ~ N O U ^O ~ _ aS 'b i.
~ b4 w c~ U N ~ c~ ~ .
~ .b U N rn ~ O •b cC p ~ N ~ U ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ O O O ~ N c. c~C O Li.' :.d Cl. O O ~ N ..C • N O ~
1 h O O G o •p ~ ~ £ o pq O ~ GL C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h p ~ C1.
4 o o O 0 0 ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ° o o .x ~ ~ • ~ ° ~
~ C> ~ N ~ c~ W w f-' Q 4~ Q ~ Q f O C1. ~ .G ~ w ~ L1.1 ~ Q ~
bA ~ • ~ ~ ~ N ~
~ dp ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ U N 4~ t~V .-U U
V
r
1
~ ~
^C
z,
c~
^C
Q
cC
C
bA
~ '
bA
C
o
b v°
~
0
~ ~
a~
~ ~
o ~ N o
U 3
~ U 'b 'C
O ~
~ 3
t3. rN ~ N
V ~cd tV.. ..N. N 'w
a~naQA~w
ooo:o•-:Nri~t
~ N N N N N
- , O ~ v
'r y U
• ~
~ O y
~ Ll. ~
~ ~ O v~ O h O ~
~ ~ ~ U O •O ~ ~ ~
d0 O~•
'C1 a) cC cd O ~ O ~ O ti
p ~ ~ ~ ~
O b C]. O U
U c 4r ~ U
c0 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ O O O
Y H 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ -v
~ N a~i ~ ~ b a`i G ~ ~ ,C , C ~ a, O
ci U.-aQUpOv~ia¢UAv~3.~v~va.U
a~
~ a~ ~
.d
~ w
cC ~
b ~ ~
C o
T'^~^ ~
vI N
~r1 Ri
~
A ~ •
aA ~ _
U
r-.~
~ ~
N
~ ~
~ a
~ ~ E
p a>
a~ ~ o y
w ~
~ v cv
U
h N
_
~ ~ ~
ti _
V CQ c_~0
6> ~ ..r
U
O G .N
Q ~ ~ ,D
O C
N V v
I y ~
~ ~ O ~ 'b ~ O O
~ 4~ aS : r i c~C tpi~ N p • 3
s.. -p N ~
~ ~ N p N
.fl a p -b ~ cw 3 ~ v
c°v o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +w o
M U ~ O N .b L]. N~
~ it h ~ ~ • ~
cV U O ~ ~ O ~ ~
O b O O • cn a"
O ~ N ~ bq 0 O N
~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cC
~ 4-. t..
U
Chi N p O p 'b ~Of., ~ p ~ ~
~ ..C Cl. ~ O N N ~ 0~ ~ ~ N
~
O Oq ~ ~ vi N 'O Cq ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ .O w, O
O ~ bA ~ ~ ~ N 40" tV ~ N ~ ~ U N
O p ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~
~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~ cJV ~ s-. O C~i t~C ~ c~ ~
~ Q cid ~ bA GL U f7~ C~ 3 ~ 'O O vOi
4-~ U
3
~C/~ X ~
V ~
~ E
Cti 'Q
~ N
~y~ .D \p ~
l.M •N ~
~ L
rry~.~ d ~ _C
vt _ SOD E
GA o w 'v c
E v
y~j J w ~ ° 00
ro -D ci N 3 -
~ ~ a~i
a ~ Q ~c~ o A
b o ~ Z ~ ° ~
~ u ~ V .c ~
v~ ~ ~ 'y _c o v H " ~
~ ~ Z m~ A ~ d ~ v
~ ro ~ a ~
~ c
C
V ' ~ ~
a m
s
a °
~ d c L
c a ~ Q a
H N 4/ L H
y d ~ C
C r b
Ut.+ :i•. DO.~
a ~ H 3 0
•
E
~a
Z
'a ~ •
C1' > N v~ O ~ ~ -gyp U T N ~
Q
b y ~ ~ vi ~
o ago o •3 ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ 04 ~
~ ~ ~ o o w a~ ° a~ ~ Y
oA CL a~ N ai o • ~ •ri
c
C U ~ ~ i O ~ Zt ° ~ ~ ..O O R. ~ ~ ~ ~ C O v~ ~ ~
~ U ~ ~ ~ N C b ~ N . ~ bA ' ~ ~ U U N ON ° O 0. c~ G 'M' O
•.fl ~ o =v a~ = ~ ao ° can o o ~ ~ " r° E •v
a.
'Q co N ri v v-i ~o t~ o0
1
v~ v 3 ~ o a~ o v o 0 0
~
~ o ~ o c
.C a~ 4, ..a ~ , ~ v~ oA
~ ~ ~ api ~ N v' °p° Q ~ cis
w
a O O N C'. N •b . O ~ 0 C.
.b ~ N a~ o a~i ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ro. af0, v
~ 0 0
o ti~'~w,D 1
bA ~
cd N ~ ~ ca L.
N~ 'p .D >,.a O~ p w v D
`~3~~~Q~a~
a ~ cz..~ O .r o ~ w
~ ~ cv w w
~ ~ ~ N O ~ U ~ ~
~ U .O O O •O ~ -O N Q. ~
~ x ~ ~ o s.. o ~ a~ O
N 4r ~ b t3. LL 4. L1. U W
~ ~
C ~ ~
vi N ~ w ~ p = O y ~ ~ ~ O ~ O
^d ~ ~ x p cd ~ ~ O 3 N p c~ .fl ~ ai ~ ~
cO ~ ~ ~ ~ • bn ~ pn ni 4. O p ~ ~ ~ ~ .
O.-~ N ~ ~ V C
p N a" "L7 N ~ ' O ~ 3 ~ N ~ ~ N C1. O ~ ~
•3 ^ ~ on
o ~ ~ " on ono ~ ~ ~ a ~
~ N o ' N ~ 3 ~ a~ .n • ~ • v ~ o ~ a.
~ ~ c o ~ ° :n ~ ~ ono .
~ .fl ~ .n ~ b • ~ N ~
U O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ on w ~ ~ v CS cn bOn ~ h O ~ ~
p p O 'n ~ vNi ~ O O .O ~ U ~ cd CO-n C ~ ~ ~ ~ O N
~ .Vi C p On . U N C O Oi ~ 6' ~ O ~ ~ a b ~ ~ ~ O
~ v Q c o o ~ ca ~ ~ ~ ° a
C~ `n ~ ~ U N U j y O ~n p~ N c~ on h N U N ~ •r' cv v~
•
•
.d ~ a~
c~C o ~ o °
'O ~ ~ ~
C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
a~
bA ~ o
0
_ U .
~ ~ O O i.
y.r • 3 ~ v" t3.
.S
~ 't7 .iU s0., ~ ~ T
C N b~~' a ~ o
V] U cd C'. N .O~~' O
~A .O N C~ ~ ~ ~ U
i.. b C
~ ~
r~ ~ ~
B O O N U p U sp.
~ U , td ~ c~C cC! ..+p .D~. ~
y0 . ~ ~ N ~ b~A
d O. v~ ~
U U y~ O N
~ ~ ~ ~ U O t3. c~
c -v ~ a~ N
w a~ ~ aD _ u-. U
v~ O ~ ~ y sue. c~ii ~ v~ ~ ~
s.
OA b4 '
O "O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 cd
id 'O dq .~G ~ 'L3
cd
3'n~., O~ ~
U bA O 0 'O v~ ~ ' ~ O
~ L". A O c0 C. ~ a.+
~ N sue. y ~ U • h .D id ~ N ~ N ap
N c~, x ~ ..YO-. co ~ ~ ~ ~ aj ~ ~ ~ cdd dD ~
Y FF^^
_W ~ • ~ ~ F~ i+~ W p
N ~ ?J
Q~ ~.~I.! w~ V ~ w~ p
~ as Q' «S p v cv 'o ~ ~ U ~ ~ v' U ~ an ~ ~ ' in
Z' bA c~ b C v~ G Vj ~ oA C1 G~~. N bA .-C
w. ~ N ~ b ~ ~ N C ~ ~ ~ 'ZY ~ G h bA ~ .D > • ~ ~i.. U ~ N ..C rC
,J ~ cd ~ 4-. ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O O ~ ~ U ~ C w ~ 0 N y ~ U
~ c~ N
~ O U . ~ . bA cUC bD vNi N ~ ~ ~ O ccS N O N ..O bA ~ ~ N X ~ bA ~
C7 w G in CLl ~ in ~ . N ~ GQ a 0., GQ U C!) F"' VJ W a~ fs.. cn
N
r~'V N ^~V N N O
M
~ N N N
r ; CV N
d' u') ~ ~ GQ
O
e- ['V
fL1
•
H
cv ch ~
C
M~4
e-i~
e-l~-
y...
C/~
t~+•
e~t-
Cfl
n
e-P
lyJ
C~
CD
w
J
1~ ~
/ _
~1
-
~ ~
~ _
1 1~
~~r
N far
' ~ 1
w
a
co
1 ~ - ~ o
is
~ ~ i
' ~ ~ iI ! 1
' . 1 ; i
_r•
' ~ ~
\ ~
1. -
` i" - - _ '
1~ 1
~ bn
T
.y
" ^
•
~ -
o
b
F
_
f
_ r
a~ ~
a~ 't
.
N
b ~
• I
r~ ~
~H1
.
- ~
F
' • • 1
• , ~ .
1
1
A I
~ N /
0 3 ~
_
i
as i~
_ ~
~ w 4 ~
ooh U 'I~
1
~ ~ a., N r
~ ~ ~i
I':
.3 - .
o
~ -
r•`:
. .i_
_
A ~
~
U ~ ~
1.
~
u
w ~
.r...
~ ~
7•
w
u
U
.,y
O
U
i .
iw
~ ~ `
w
u
u ~
~
puq
- CC
- _ V La
= ~ ~
~
- -
- i~ ~
J~==~
~ = d
O
- v i
1
a U '
_ ~
,
. - , ~ ~
1 ~ ~ -
-
~ ~ _ _
~ ~
. -
.
;~r _
i E~
g
N
~ ~ ~
•
' ~
`
PPP 3.
A
K
Qi
N
y
O r
1 , N
~
N
O
i
/ 4
1
\ _
ro
~ i
~ o i
-s
i
S~
~ ' ~
l~
11 t'
l~
l
1
y
:i~ n
~
n
_ - ~
, i;~
t
~ ~ ° N ° ~ ~ O 'C U N
fO
4' U 1. • ~ OY.. C ~ U °
O
Q ~ U fn ~ t..., 'x ~ .U cUV ~ N .T+ U
p U ~ O U ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ .D O ~
~ ~ bD p, U... y fn
'L7 ° O b 0 c~ to U C 'D
fn O
C b0 i b0 U ~ U O ~ c cC cV ~ cd ~
y ~ N ° ~ cUV cC ~ ~ C U ~ X ° `r U
.'O., a+ _ V O N 4 of U U U U
• U c Cd ~ N k _ a0+ N ~ CC ° • fd to
U
U'~ U 3 ~ U • a U U ~ U U O foil i1. ~ y C O
~ U ~ ~ O ~ ~ ca ~ .Y .U O ~ 7 cd h 00 . ~ 4. .
~
U~ U v 3 ro o, cv ono ai y c o °
C
.n E ~ 0 3 o w ~ ~ n. a ~ ~ ~ v y 'n. ro
O U 3 •O W ~ b ~ y c C t]. «S ~ ~O •C. N 3 C
v v ~ n cam. a aNi ~ ~ ~ .a o c 'o a a an
'O O cd ^ O ~ LS. C~ ~i.. O O •O y, O c~ L ~ C) y •L
U .s~ U 3 U A W W o GTr ..0 ..fl w .a C7 C7 '.1.'
c,.. c«.. crs U cd
L N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cn O b 0 °L O ~ L •fn
L N c O N U ~y+ ~ U .D w ° OL O ~ R
O O C 4.. N 4~
L r^' Y
3 ° ~ ~ ~ ~ fl. ~ •I
= c
N 'b • ~ "C Gn U > ~ c U 't1' v7 C O o0
C,~ p O C Y O U ~ N y > 7 c y bn o
O crs p. ° d p cd .U. O ' U O U > U O
> > 't7 .O O
° x ~ H y oN'. -o c,... N ~ .`a ii vi ^ U ,.Y 3 3 c
~~1 fn 3 ~ ~ N ~ O v N U .D -n n• U ~ c
rn
/_I = > O rn ' U U 4 ° U I.U. U 'O N ~ c~., w ~ ~
. a~ ~ .cam. ~ y -d c fc„ ro U ~ ~ U y U °
U T C Q ~ C cGV .O Q .N 4~ N p N tw U N U O R
= r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o y . ~ c°i . ~ ¢ o ~c ou F-' ~ ono c~a a~ ¢ C =
a~ ~ N N~ 't7 ~ U O .U, a~ Q• c U o. y cd I O v c
z„~ °a I ~ x
O v O U fV Q h C ~
Q > -a U ~ Q ccc ~ ~ ~ E ~ o` ~ o N q I o /c~ ° o
• 1 ~ O 1 ~ U 1 Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. J ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ V to CD
M~ c~Q ° C ~ O N id ~ co U H -D 'D 'O f.U.. N G O "U ~ 'D
L L ] CC CQ CJ ? ~ ~ CQ CC ' ~ ~
Q a o Q~ y Q v Q o m q~ q q ..o q° U U 3~ U E~
~
3 ~
l 1,:.
Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Review: August 29, 2002
~~JG~E c~Gy~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
~ - ~ Administration Division
'~~oR~oP MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency
FROM: Community Development Director
DATE: August 22, 2002
SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-029 Amending The St. Lucie County Land
Development Code Planned Development Sign Standards.
Attached is copy of Draft Ordinance 02-029 which would provide for a series of minor adjustments to
the regulations governing signage for all Planned Development projects in the community. Briefly,
what this proposed amendment does is to make available a process for larger Planned Development
projects to submit an optional alternative signage plan for their planned project, instead of defaulting
automatically to the sign restrictions normally applied to smaller Planned Development projects
An illustration of what has brought the need for the amendment is the pending Westchester Planned
Development Project. If the County's general signs codes were to be applied literally to this project
they would only be allowed one ground sign for the entire 3,000+ acre project that could not exceed
32 square feet in area. 1 do not believe that this was the original intent of the sign regulations when
dealing with large planned development projects. In order to address this matter, staff is proposing
that an optional signage plan be provide for that would be developed as part of the Planned
Development Plan review process and could then be included into the base approval for given
Planned Development project. All sign plans would have to be generally consistent with the
standard County Sign Codes that would otherwise have been applied had the Planned Development
not been filed. This consistency requirement is for the purpose of not granting special privileges to
the proposed development that might not otherwise have been generally available to others in the
community.
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency forward Draft
Ordinance 02-029 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
SUBMI
1
D s J. rphy, AICP
Commun' Development Director
DJM/
OR_02-029_MEM01(h)
cc: County Attorney
Planning Manager
li
f})
rf~'
1 ORDINANCE NO. 02-029
2
3
4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
5 CODE BY CREATING SECTION 7.01.03 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
6 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, SIGNS, BY CREATING SECTION
7 7.01.03 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, STANDARDS AND
8 REQUIREMENTS, SIGNS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.02.00(J) PLANNED
9 NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SIGNS;,' BY AMENDING SECTION
10 7.03.00(M) PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, SIGNS TO PROVIDE FOR
11 THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP PROJECT WIDE SIGNAGE STANDARDS (N ALL
12 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 9.01.00
13 PERMITTED PERMANENT AND AUTHORIZED .TEMPORARY SIGNS AND
14 SECTION 9.02.02(A) & (G), OFF PREMISES < SIGN$, TO PROVIDE
15 CLARIFICATION ONPLACEMENT OFOFF-P:REMISES,SIGNS AND SECTION
16 9.03.00(H) PROHIBITED SIGNS TO PROVIDE;FOR CERTAIN LIMITED USES
17 FOR VARIABLE MESSAGE COPY SIGNS; PROVIDING CONFLICTING
18 PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR 'SEVERABIUTY; PROVIDING FOR
19 APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING :WITH' THE DEPARTMENT OF
20 STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION ;
21 AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION
22
23
24 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the -
25 following determination:
26
27 1. On August 1,19:90, the. Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,
28 Florida, adopted the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.
29
30 2. The Board of County Commissioners has adopted certain amendments to t'
31 the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, through the following
32 Ordinances
33
34 91-03 - March 14, 1991 91-09 - May 14, 1991
35 91-21 - November 7, 1991 92-17 - June 2, 1992
36 93-01 - February 16, 1993 93-03 - February 16, 1993
37 93-05 - May 25, 1993 93-06 - May 25, 1993
38 93-07 - May 25, 1993 94-07 - June 22, 1994
39 '94-18 - August 16, 1994 94-21 - August 16, 1994
Underline is for addition
Strike~fhratigh is for deletion
Ordinance 1102-029a Page t
Draft qt PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
mow:
1 95-01 - January 10, 1995 96-10 - August 6, 1996
2 97-01 - March 4, 1997 97-09 - October 7, 1997
3 97-23 - September 2, 1997 99-01 - February 2, 1999
4 99-02 - April 6, 1999 99-03 - August 17, 1999
5 99-04 - August 17, 1999 99-05 - July 20, 1999
6 99-15 - July 20, 1999 99-16 - July 20,.1'.999
7 99-17 - September 7, 1999 99-18 - November 2, 1999
8 00-10 - June 13, 2000 00-11 - June 13, 2000
9 00-12 - June 13, 2000 00-13 - June 13, 2000
10 01-03 - December 18, 2001 02-05 - June 25, 2002
11 02-09 - xxxxxxxx, xx, 2002
12 '
13 3. On ,the Local Planning Agency/ Planning and Zoning
14 Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. after
15 publishing notice in the Port St. Lucie News:and the Tribune at least 10 days
16 prior to the hearing and recommended that the :,proposed ordinance be
17 approved.
18
19 4. On 2002, this Board-held its first public hearing on the
20 proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St.
21 Lucie News and the Tribune on' , 2002....
22
23 5. On , 2002, this Board held its second public hearing on the
24 proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St.
25 Lucie News and the Tribune on ' , 2002.
26 f
27 6. The proposed amendments tothe St.-Lucie County Land Development Code
28 are consistent with the general purpose, goals; objectives and standards of
29 the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the
30 health safety and public welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. t
31
32 r
33 NOW, THEREFORE, ',BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie ti
34 County, Florida:
35
36
37 PART`A.
38
39 THE:`SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
40 TO READ AS FOLLOWS, INCLUDE:
41
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hroagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-029a Page 2
Drak #t PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
Vr
1
1 ***rr*******************,t*,t,t,t
2
3 CHAPTER VII
4 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND
5 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
6
7
8 7.01.00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
9
10 7.01.03 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
11
12 Standards and requirements for a Planned Unit Development>shall be as follows:
13
14 K. SIGNS
15
16 _ 1. ..Signs within any Planned Unit Development, less>than 200 acres in overall area,
17 .shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9 of this code, provided however, that the
18 Board of County Commissioners may condition approval'' of a Planned Unit ~
_ 19 .Development upon compliance with more stringent sign regulations in order to a
20 ensure design consistency .throughout he proposed development, to ensure
21 compatibilitywithsurrounding land uses, o ensure public safetyand prevent public
22 harm, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
23
24 2. Signs within anyPlanned Unit Development, greaterthan 201 acres in overall area
25 may submit a general signage plan forthe.Planned Unit Development, as part of the _
26 Final Planned Unit Development Plan submissions. The general signage plan shall
27 be based on the general dimension and size standards applicable to other similarly <
2s designated residential property; 'provided, however, that the Board of County
29 Commissioners !'m'ay condition approval of a Planned Unit Development upon
3o compliartice with more.. stringent sign regulations in order to ensure design
31 consistency throughout fhe proposed development, to ensure compatibility with
32 surrounding land uses, to ensure public safety and prevent public harm. and to
33 'ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
34
35
36
37
Underline is for addition
S~frike-~hraugh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-029a Page 3
Draft l11 PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
6
,.T
i
1 7.02.00 PLANNED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
2
3 J. SIGNS
4
5 1. Signs within any Planned Non-Residential Development located in a<Residential or
6 Agriculturally classified land use area shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9
7 applicable to the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zoning District; provided, however,
8 that the Board of County Commissioners may condition approval of a Planned Non-
9 Residential Development upon compliance with more stringers# sign regulations in
10 orderto ensure design consistencythroughoutthe proposed development, to ensure
11 compatibility withsurroursding land uses, to ensure public safetyand,prevent public
12 harm, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive- Plan.
13
14 2. Signs within any Planned Non-Residential Development located in a commercially
15 or industrially classified Land Use Area shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
16 9 applicable in the Commercial General-(CG), Zoning District; provided, however,
17 that the Board of County Commissioners-may condition approval of a Planned Non-
18 Residential Development upon compliance with more stringent sign regulations in
19 order to ensure design consistency throughouttthe proposed development, to ensure
20 compatibilitywithsurroursding land uses,;to ensure public safety and prevent public
21 harm,. and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
22
23
24
25 7.03.00 PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
26
27 M. SIGNS''
28
29 ~ a~
30
31 ,
32 ~ ,
33
34
35 ,
36
37
38
39 1_. Signs>within any Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD), less than 100 acres in
40 overall area. shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9 of this code, provided
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hroagh is for deletion
Ordinance N02-029a Page 4
Draft lit PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
1 however. that the Board of County Commissioners may condition approval of a
2 Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD), upon compliance with more stringent
3 sign regulations in order to ensure design consistency throughout the proposed
4 development, to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, to ensure public
5 safetyand prevent public harm, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County
6 Comprehensive Plan.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 2. Signs within and Planned Mixed Use Development (PMU D). greater than 10.1 acres
37 in overall area may submit a general signage plan for the Planned Mixed Use
38 Development, as part of the Final Planned Unit Development Plan submissions. The
39 general'-signage plan shall be based on the general dimension and size standards
40 .applicable to other similarly designated property: provided. however, thatthe Board
41 - of County Commissioners may condition approval of a Planned Mixed Use
Underline is for addition
S~trike~h?reagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-029a Page 5
Draft #t PRINT GATE: 08/22/02
3
r„~
S~
1 Development upon compliance with more stringent sign regulations in order to
2 ensure design consistency throughout the proposed development, to ensure
3 compatibility with surrounding land uses, to ensure public safety and prevent public
4 harm, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
5
6 z 3. All other requirements and standards relating to signs within the Planned Mixed Use
7 Development (PMUD) zoning designation shall be consistent with Chapter 9 of this
8 Code.
9
10
11
12
13 CHA+P~±TE~R IX
14 SIGNS
15
16
17 9.01.00 PERMITTED PERMANENT AND AUTHORIZED TEMPORARY SIGNS
1s
19 9.01.01 PERMITTED PERMANENT SIGNS
20
21 F. COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG); INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL); -INDUSTRIAL HEAVY (IH); INDUSTRIAL
22 EXTRACTION (IX); UTILITIES `(U); PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (PMUD) -GENERAL
23 COMMERCIAL (MEDIUM AND HIGH :INTENSITIES), ''PUBLIC SERVICE/UTILITIES (MEDIUM AND HIGH INTENSITIES),
24 INDUSTRIAL (MEDIUM AND HIGH INTENSITIES)
25
26
27 TYPE OF MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIZE MAXIMUM OTHER~'STANDARDS
2$ 'SIGN "HEIGHT
29 Wall, Projecting, 4 perestablishment Total'Slgn Area: Na none
30 and/or Canopy 20.l. of wall face area fronting on
31 Signs (Attached main street.
32 Canopies Only)
33 CanopySigns 4 per face of free-standing : Total Sign Area: Na none
34 (Free-standing canopy 20 % of total canopy face area - as
35 canopies) s.f. max. per canopy face.
36 Ground Signs 1 per establishment having at For establishments having from 50 30 feet Sign area of individual signs
least 50 linear ft. of frontage. to 150 linear tt. of frontage: 1 s.f. may be aggregated, except
for every 1 linear ft. of frontage - that no single sign shall
150 s.f. max, exceed 200 s.f.
Underline is for addition
Strilfee-~Ftreae~h is for deletion
Ordinance lf02-029a Page 6
Draft Nt PRINT GATE: 08/22/02
TYPE OF MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIZE !MAXIMUM OTHER STANDARDS
SIGN HEIGHT
For establishments having over
150 ft. of frontage: 1 s.f. for
every 1 1/2 ft. of frontage, or 150
s.f., whichever is greater - 200 s.f.
max.
1 additional sign for 1 s.f, for every 1 1/2 linear ft. of
establishments having over frontage in excess of first 300 ft.-
300 ft. of frontage. 200 s.f. max.
1 additional sign for 100 s.f.
establishments having at
least 300 ft. of frontage and
outdoor displays (LDC
Section 7.10.02).
1 Pedestrian Signs 1 per establishment 6 s.f. Na none
2 Rear Entrance 1 per establishment 6 s.f. Na none
3 Wall Sign
4 Directional Sign As Needed 6 s.f. Na none
5 Off Premises Na 378 s.f. •35 ft. above • Only Permitted along
6 Signs crownbf I-95, the Florida
road: Turnpike and those
roadways identified in
`~50 ft. above Section 9.02.02(A).
crown of road
along 1-95 and • 1,500 foot apart on
Fla. Tnpk. same side of road.
• 200 foot min.
separation from
residential zones or use
areas.
• See Section 9.02.02(A)
for additional standards
7'
8 1. Off-premises signs shalt only be permitted on properties which are physically
9 contiguous to I-95, the Florida Turnpike, U.S.1, ,Orange Avenue,
1o and Kings Highway/Turnpike Feeder Road, as further restricted in Section
11 9.02.02(A). Such signs shall not be spaced less than one-thousand five hundred
12 (1,500) feet from another off-premises sign which is on the same side of, and is
13 directed at, the same highway.
14
15 9:02.02 ; ; OFF PREMISES SIGNS
16
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hroae~h is for deletion
Ordinance #02-029a Page 7
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
'.~k,
53,
1 A. Shall not be located along any roadway other than the following:
2
3 1.) Florida's Turnpike Indian River C/L to Martin C/L
4 2.) I-95 Indian River C/L to Martin C/L
5 3.) US #1 Indian River C/L to Martin C/L
6
7 5.) Orange Avenue Ft. Pierce Ci Limit to 6h~eeeHehee Kings Highway
8 6.) Kings Highway (N & S) Florida's Turnpike to , St. Lucie
9 Boulevard
10
11 G. Shall not be located within a radius of two-hundred (200) feet of any°residential zone or
12 residential use area within an approved planned unit development or Planned.mxed use
13 development project.
14
15
16 9.03.00 PROHIBITED SIGNS
17
18 The following signs or types of signs shall be prohibited:
19
20 H. Flashing, animated, ornoise-making signs, except fo.r one (1 }variable electronic message
21 signsper parcel or group of parcels under a uniform site development plan displaying time,
22 temperatures artd community service or direct business copy informationprovided that the
23 message sign does not exceed more than'one line of display copy and that the cabinetry.
24 hosing_anysuch sign does not exceed an overall dimension of 36" wide by 10 feet in length.
25 Any such message sign shall be counted as part of the overall signage for the property or
26 project site: must be a=part of one of the ground signs associated with the property or project
27 site and. shall not exceed 25% of the net',sign area of the particular ground sign for the
28 property'or project site.
29
30 **************,r*************
31
32 PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
33
34 Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County,
35 County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are
36 hereby superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict.
37
38 PART C. SEVERABILITY.
39
40 If anyportion of this ordinance isforanyreason held ordeclared to be unconstitutional, inoperative,
Underline is for addition
Srtti4ce~hroagh is for deletion
Ordinance +t02-029a Page 8
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
1 or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance. or
2 any provision thereof shall beheld to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such
3 holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance.
4
5 PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE.
6
7 This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie:County.
8
9 PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
10
11 The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau
12 of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State; The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 3230 .
13
14 PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE.
15
16 This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State.
17
18 PART G. ADOPTION.
19
20 After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as #ollows:
21
22 Chairman Doug Coward XXX
23
24 Vice Chairman Cliff `Barnes XXX
25
26 Commissioner. Paula Lewis ' XXX
27
28 Commissioner John D. Bruhn XXX
29
30 Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX
31
32
33 PART H. CODIFICATION.
34
35 Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws,
36 and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
37 sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided,
38 however, that parts B through H shall not be codified.
39
40
41 PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this Xth day of , 2002.
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hroagh is for deletion
Ordinance #02-029a Page 9
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
1
2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3 ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
4
5
6
7 BY:
8 Deputy Clerk Chairman
9
10
11 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
12 CORRECTNESS:
13
14
15
16 BY
1 ~ County Attorney
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 _
25
26
27 DJM
28 OR02-029A(Lndcod0l-H)
Underline is for addition
Strike-~hratigFt is for deletion
Ordinance #02-029a Page 10
Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 08/22/02
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency
Meeting Minutes
SPECIAL MEETING
August 29, 2002
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Grande, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Akins, Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Matthes.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Jones, Mr. Hearn (Absent -With Notice); Mr. Trias (Absent -Without Notice)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co.
Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 1
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission /Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director stated that Agenda Item # 3, Ordinance
02-027, which deals with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the West Chester D1ZI,
has been withdrawn. He continued that we received a written request today to have their
application withdrawn at the present time so that they could make revisions and upon submittal
of the revised application it would be rescheduled at that point in time. He also stated that once
the new application and submitted and a date has been set a new advertisement and mailing will
be done then.
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 Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM 1: ORDINANCE 02-020 -Clarification on Enforcement Proceedings for
Violations of Section 7.10.12 Scrap, Waste & Reccling Operations:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments stated that Agenda Item # 1 was Ordinance 02-
020 proposes a series of amendments to the County's regulations regarding scrap, waste,
recycling operations and more specifically those operations involved in the collection of yard
waste for recycling purposes. He advised that they are proposing to amend paragraph 15 and add
new paragraphs 16 and 17 to clarify what the enforcement process is and who the enforcement
authority is for these particular sections. He continued that currently the enforcement authority
is the Environment Control Hearing Board and that under the current structures the more
efficient way of enforcement would be through the Code Enforcement Board.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward
Draft Ordinance 02-020 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval.
Chairman Matthes questioned if there would be an increase in manpower if this ordinance were
approved. Mr. Murphy explained there would not be an increase and that they felt there was
enough personnel to handle these issues as well.
Mr. Lounds questioned Section 7.10.12 (A) (1) and where it specifically stated non-ferrous
metals and asked if that is what are acceptable or unacceptable materials. Mr. Murphy explained
that is what is acceptable under a scrap and waste operation in the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning.
He also stated that there were no changes to that portion of the code, as it already exists. Mr.
Lounds questioned why they would not be allowed to collect ferrous metals at these types of
operations. Mr. Murphy stated that is not allowed under the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning
District.
Mr. Lounds stated he was concerned that Code Enforcement would not have the ability to
enforce these issues with the code, as it currently is to prevent problems that have existed in the
past. Mr. Murphy stated that he believed that Code Enforcement did feel they would have the
ability to enforce these issues based on the rules and regulations of the code, as it is. He also
stated that the reason they were looking to make this change was to allow Code Enforcement to
enforce these issues and also give the County the opportunity to bring it to the judicial level if the
violations are not corrected. Mr. Lounds stated that he was hoping to see the ability to have the
offenses considered misdemeanors. Ms. Young stated that currently most code violations are
considered to be misdemeanors.
Mr. Merritt stated he would like to see something incorporated that gave them three strikes and
you're out type of punishment. Mr. Murphy stated that if there were enough misdemeanor
complaints they would have the ability to pursue it further. Ms. Young stated there are
provisions available where an injunction could be issued for consistent offenses to stop the
activity. Mr. Lounds stated that was what he was looking for and is glad to see the injunction
ability there.
Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 3
Mr. Merritt made a motion for approval of Draft Ordinance 02-020 as proposed.
Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds.
Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 5-0) and forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 4
AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE 02-025 -Class "A" Tow Trucks:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was Ordinance 02-
025, which would amend the County Land Development Code to provide for a limited use of
parking of tow vehicles in residential areas that are on the call list for local law enforcement. He
continued that recently the County Commission was approached by the local towing industry to
have the code changed in a manner that would permit them to have their on-call operators be
allowed to take their tow trucks home with them so that in the even that they are called out to
respond to a law enforcement emergency, they could do so within their obligated response time
frames. He advised that currently these operators are not allowed to bring their commercial
grade vehicles home with them, and when they are on call they must either first go back to the
towing compound or to another location where they keep their tow truck. He also stated that it
was reported to the Board that having to use these off-site parking areas results in longer
response times than what is called for in the towing company's service contracts with the local
law enforcement agencies. He continued that this proposed ordinance would limit the size of the
towing vehicle that may be parked in residential areas. He stated that under this new draft, a
towing operator would only be allowed to park what would be defined as a "Class A" towing
vehicle in a residential area and would be subject to the restrictions as listed in the draft
ordinance. He also stated that a "Class A" tow truck under these new classes would be
considered to be a tow truck or car carrier, including flatbed slide back carriers with a gross
vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds but less than 15,000 pounds and with a gross combination
weight of 30,000 pounds but less than 80,000 pounds.
Mr. Murphy stated that recently he had received some comments from the County Administrators
Office regarding this that they would like to see included, which he had not had a chance to do
yet. He advised that they would like to see a restriction added that the vehicles must be parked
on a paved surface or driveway or something like that and something showing that there is a
maximum of one commercial vehicle allowed per lot.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward
Draft Ordinance 02-025 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval.
Mr. Akins questioned how they would enforce these issues. Mr. Murphy stated that when
complaints are received at night when Code Enforcement isn't in the office it would be handled
through 911. He continued that there would be a follow up the next day by the Code
Enforcement Department to cite anyone violating this. He also stated that if they have one
offense, they would be taken off the list and no longer would be allowed to park under this
ordinance. Mr. Akins stated that he was concerned that there might be some sole proprietors on
the list, which would mean they could park their vehicle there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Mr. Murphy said he would look into that but didn't believe they would have a contract with the
local law enforcement because they most likely wouldn't be able to handle several calls at once.
Mr. Merritt asked if this request was brought by the towing companies or by the law enforcement
agencies. Mr. Murphy stated that it was his understanding that they both were requesting this
and that the law enforcement have not had anything objections about this request.
Mr. Grande stated that what he gets from reading the ordinance is that any owner/operator or
employee who doesn't want to live convenient to his business would be willing to inflict their
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 5
business vehicles on his neighbors but isn't willing to allow his neighbors to inflict their business
on him. He continued that tow trucks of any class are among the most unattractive commercial
vehicles that could be parked in a residential neighborhood. He stated that the problem is when a
driver lives too far away from where the vehicle is normally parked or stored to meet the
contractual obligations. He advised that rather than parking these vehicles in a residential
neighborhood the business should make arrangements with someplace nearby to store the
vehicles. He stated that if we make this provision for them, what about the 24-hour locksmith,
plumber or electrician that are on call too. He continued that he didn't feel that these tow truck
operators needed to degrade a residential neighborhood for their own convenience. He stated
that this felt like they were doing this for one particular group like they did when they brought
forth the ordinance with regards to non-conforming lots and was not for the good of the County
as a whole.
Mr. Merritt stated that he had mixed emotions about the ordinance because he spent a lot of time
in law enforcement and only a few times in many years was a wrecker needed on an emergency
basis. He advised that the only way he would vote for this was if it was a necessity on an
emergency basis only. Chairman Matthes stated that is the problem and what they are trying to
correct with this to allow that option to be there in case of an emergency.
Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Lewis Powell stated that he has been a resident of St. Lucie County for his entire life, 33
years, and is a third generation tow truck driver. He advised that the tow companies were not the
one's who requested this and that it was actually the drivers themselves who requested this. He
stated that he understands their concerns about having these trucks in residential areas. He
continued that the tow trucks of today have to pass the emission laws of California, which are
stricter than any of our laws and have to be very quiet. He stated that these trucks have the same
engines that are in an F-250 pickup truck or a 3/4-ton pickup. He also stated that within the past
four months he was called to several emergencies where the victims where trapped in their
vehicle and without prompt help they would have had to loose their limbs to get them out of the
vehicle. He advised that they are give a twenty minute response time to meet anywhere in the
County with a "Class A" rotation record and that usually "Class B & C" tow trucks have to be
kept in the yard due to their size and they don't have a specific response time. He stated that if
they have to be delayed by driving to the yard to pick up their trucks it is subjecting the victims
to more accidents. He also stated that it has been proven by DOT that 71 % of secondary
accidents are caused by on-lookers to the first accident and the time it takes to clean them up. He
advised that there are no owner/operator tow companies on the rotation list because they require
more than one vehicle as a back up. He stated that if you are unable to respond to a call you are
given only three chances to respond or else you would be taken off the rotation for one year.
Mr. Grande questioned if Mr. Powell was an owner or a driver. Mr. Powell stated that he is a
driver and that the reason he felt this was important was because of the emergency situations
involved with the rotation list. He also stated that he has had experiences where he has lost
fellow drivers in the line of duty and that he wants to make sure that everyone is kept safe. He
continued that he is not an owner and doesn't stand to make any money from this change is just
concerned about the emergencies and the amount of time they need to respond safely.
Mr. Merritt asked if the drivers would be paid by the hour or once the truck is put into service if
they take them home to their residence. Mr. Powell stated they are paid only when the truck is
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 6
put into service. Mr. Merritt questioned of all of the companies on the list operate that way. Mr.
Powell stated generally that is the case. Mr. Merritt asked how many calls he usually goes on per
night. Mr. Powell stated that on the rotation it is approximately two or three per night depending
on the situations. He also stated that the rotation is set up so that several companies are involved
and it is fair to everyone on the list. He advised that it would not be feasible to hire anyone who
lives next to the shop to drive the trucks efficiently. Mr. Merritt questioned that if this would
apply to anyone who lives in the County and is on a rotation list for the City of Fort Pierce, City
of PSL, or Florida Highway Patrol. Mr. Murphy stated that would not be correct and that this
ordinance, as stated on page 4, paragraph A, only applies to those on the rotation list for the St.
Lucie County Sheriff's Office.
Chairman Matthes asked how many contractors were on the rotation list. Mr. Murphy stated that
he did not have that information. Mr. Powell stated that there is nine companies on the rotation
list for the County and from what he has read he didn't feel this ordinance took away the rights
of those in the residential community. He also stated that they are planning on putting stickers to
identify the class of the tow trucks and to identify those on the rotation list to make it easier to
spot violators for Code Enforcement and the local police departments. He advised that this
ordinance would not apply to those who live in deed-restricted or gated communities.
Mr. Grande stated that he didn't feel that he understood the rotation list well enough. Mr. Powell
explained that each time there is an accident the next person on the list is called. He continued
that once everyone on the list has been called, then they start over on the list again. Mr. Grande
stated that if there were nine accidents on one night, then nine drivers would be called and each
one would have their truck parked in a residential community. He questioned if these drivers
would be asked to do any jobs that happened within city limits, especially if they live within the
city. He continued that he felt twenty minutes was a reasonable requirement and that anything
that will help the companies to meet that requirement is a good idea. He stated that he didn't
think this ordinance was the correct solution to the problem because this could result in many
trucks parked in residential areas every single night of the week, not just a few once in a while.
Mr. Powell stated that the trucks are already there and have been for quite some time. He
advised that if someone complained then Code Enforcement came out and they wouldn't be able
to park there anymore. He continued that the towing companies see it that if you can't have your
truck at home with you then they don't need you as a driver. He also stated that they are on call
many more hours than the average worker and they are trying to bring everything into
compliance to be more efficient.
Mr. Lounds stated that he is familiar with the rotation of the Sheriff's Office and that one of the
things that happens right now is that if these drivers cannot take their vehicles home then they
just float around all night long rather than go home and get rested. He continued that it would be
safer for them and everyone else if they didn't have to do this. He stated that there does need to
be a solution but that he agrees with Mr. Grande's concerns. He also stated that he doesn't have
a problem with the appearance of today's trucks, as opposed to how they looked many years ago.
He advised that if they aren't going to allow the tow truck operator to be at home to serve the
community, then why are the plumbers, mechanics and lawn care operators allowed to do it.
Mr. Murphy stated that most plumbers, mechanics and lawn care operators don't qualify under
the definition of a commercial vehicle and therefore are not in violation as the tow trucks are.
Mr. Lounds stated that he thought that paragraph (C) (2) addressed the lawn care operators. Mr.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 7
Murphy stated he did not believe they would meet the definition of a commercial vehicle. Ms.
Young stated that the section he was addressing was with relation to industrial equipment not
necessarily the vehicle itself with the trailer having equipment on it.
Chairman Matthes stated that basically the definition of a commercial vehicle was 5 tons or
greater. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Chairman Matthes stated that he didn't believe
there were very many vans or vehicles that would meet that gross weight.
Mr. Powell stated that a lot of tow trucks are classified as commercial but really don't meet the
total gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or greater. He continued that most of the one-ton
doolies that can be bought at a dealership qualify as a 10,000-g.v.w truck. Mr. Akins confirmed
that the rotation contract requires at least two vehicles to be in service and Mr. Powell confirmed
that would be correct. Mr. Akins stated that would mean that at least 18 tow trucks would be
stored in residential areas on each night. Mr. Powell stated that would only apply to those
drivers that were on call and when they weren't on call, they would not be allowed to take their
vehicles home and would be stored at the yards.
Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Merritt stated that he felt this was an ordinance of convenience and that he was against
putting more ordinances on the books since he feels we can't enforce the ones we already have.
Mr. Grande stated that he totally agreed with Mr. Merritt and didn't feel that it would have been
more helpful if Staff could have used their imagination to come up with a better solution to this
problem. He continued that this ordinance was just to try and solve a problem and would not be
able to vote for this ordinance.
Mr. Lounds stated that he felt everyone made valid points about some problems with the
situation. He advised that in emergency situations we all want someone there in a timely fashion.
He continued that for these drivers to have to go to a yard, unlock, and then come to the scene
takes time and that time can become an issue. He also stated that there are many other vehicles
throughout the County that are being overlooked and are nowhere near as necessary as these tow
trucks are. He continued that if the County decides to not to allow this then they need to get
Code Enforcement out to clean up the entire County and stop all of the violators.
Mr. Merritt stated that the issue of the rotation was brought about due to past experiences with
ambulance chasers. He advised that the rotation list was started to cut down on this and he
doesn't think the problem is getting enough wreckers out to clear a wreck and time isn't an issue.
Mr. Akins stated that he isn't certain that he could support something that is supposed to legalize
something that is currently going on illegally. He advised that he does sympathize with the
situations of the drivers and could support it if there were a way to add limiting language that the
neighbors have no objections and give their written consent. He also stated that the main
concern is protecting the surrounding property owners and yet still try to serve the interests of the
business owners. Ms. Young stated that there is a provision in the ordinance that allows the
neighbors the option to complain twice and then that truck could not park there anymore for a
year. She continued that the provision was added because of a meeting with the tow truck
drivers and they were willing to accept that. Mr. Akins questioned if the two complaints had to
be about a specific violation and Ms. Young stated they did not. She advised that two complaints
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 8
of any form would be cause to stop the driver from keeping the truck there. Chairman Matthes
stated that this ordinance would be one of convenience and right now if they are doing it illegally
neighbors can call Code Enforcement and have them cited. He continued that the issue of the
complaints, he feels, would become a moot point. He also stated that at this point he tends to
agree with the views of Mr. Grande and Mr. Merritt against the ordinance.
Mr. Grande stated that he feels that the provision really sets the ordinance up to fail and this
would be creating a situation where we are challenging the neighbors to challenge each other.
He advised he doesn't think that would be a good idea and comes down to the fact that they have
legally recognized that quick response times are necessary. He also stated that he feels the
operators need to structure their business in such a way that they can meet the time requirements
or else they shouldn't bid to be in that business.
Mr. Lounds stated that he too has problems with the ordinance the way that is written and that
the operating company could provide facilities for the on-call staff to help avoid these problems.
He stated that his main problem is that there are already other violations that Code Enforcement
is not handling. He continued that Code Enforcement either doesn'.t have enough personnel, not
spending the time, or else they just don't see the violations as they go down the roads. Chairman
Matthes stated that he didn't believe the intent was to single out the violations of the tow truck
operators but that some operators just wanted to see if they could legally park their trucks at their
residences.
Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval of Draft Ordinance 02-025.
Motion seconded by Mr. Akins.
Mr. Merritt stated that there is a gentleman who lives three houses down the street from him who
has a 3/4-ton doolie with a diesel engine and he gets woken up every morning at 5 a.m.
Mr. Grande stated that he was going to make the same comment as Mr. Merritt and that he
doesn't feel that anyone would want to hear these trucks starting up at two in the morning. He
continued that he doesn't feel these tow truck operators have been singled out in any way and
they are in the same class as any other commercial vehicle that shouldn't be parked in a
residential area.
Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 2-3 (Mr. Grande, Mr. Merritt and Mr.
Matthes voting against).
Mr. Grande made a motion for denial of Draft Ordinance 02-025.
Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 3-2 (Mr. Lounds and Mr. Akins
voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of denial.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 9
AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-027 -West Chester DRI:
Mr. Dennis Murphy stated that Agenda Item # 3 was Ordinance 02-027. He advised that the
petitioner has requested that this ordinance be withdrawn at the current time and would be
resubmitted at a later date.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 10
AGENDA ITEM 4: ORDINANCE 02-028 -Interim Architectural Standards:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was Ordinance 02-
028, Interim Architectural Standards. He advised that the ordinance was last brought to them at
the June 16, 2002 meeting in which they voted to separate these Draft regulations from Draft
Ordinance 02-015 in order to provide additional time for the Board to consider the proposed
amendments. He stated that this ordinance was being brought back to them in basically the same
format as previously. He also stated that this ordinance proposes to establish Interim Community
wide Architectural Standards that would apply to all areas of the unincorporated County as
minimum criteria for all new construction or substantial expansion to existing buildings,
structures, or building in areas zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood), CO (Commercial,
Office), CG (Commercial, General), I (Institutional), RF (Religious Facilities), PUD (Planned
Unit Development) (Commercial Components only), 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 are 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 are intended to serve as a short-term regulation
until a broader set of community design criteria is developed. He stated that they anticipated that
a broader review process would be conducted within the next twelve months.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward
Draft Ordinance 02-028 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval.
Mr. Grande stated that he didn't feel that bringing this ordinance forward just to get something
on record was a good idea. He advised that he felt it shouldn't be brought to them for review
until it was in the best form and then they would review and send it forward with their
recommendation. He continued that they had a lot of input on this ordinance the first time it was
brought before them originally and he hasn't been able to find any of the changes that they had
requested. He also stated that he remembers them having a discussion with regards to reflective
glass and it's prohibition. He advised that he thought that the Commission had agreed that
should not be included since reflective glass is beneficial and environmentally friendly. He
continued that he doesn't feel that their previous input was applied and that it is just being
brought back as is so that they will apply something.
Mr. Murphy stated that if there were any items that they did not want to see on the list or
changed he would be more than happy to pass those recommendations along to the Board of
County Commissioners. Mr. Grande stated that he would like Staff to take the previous input
from the Commission and then apply that to what they bring back before the Commission at a
later date. He continued that he would not send this ordinance; in it's present form, to the Board
of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. He stated that he feels that the
previous input of the Planning and Zoning Commission was simply ignored. Mr. Murphy stated
that he did not ignore their input and would be passing that information onto the Board of County
Commissioners.
Mr. Merritt stated that he was interested in seeing some sort of architectural standards applied
but doesn't know that this would be the way to do it. He continued that the White City and
Indrio Road Corridors are poised for tremendous growth over the next five to ten years. He
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 11
advised that he thought Lakewood Park residents would like to have a voice in the architectural
standards that would be on their front door step. He also stated that White City would be upset
because they would like to go back to the look of the early 1900's.
Mr. Murphy explained that the County is currently in the final phase of completing the final RFP
scope of work for the White -City /Midway Road PD&E evaluations from U.S. 1 to 25~' street.
He stated that as part of that project they would be doing a specific architectural review of that
corridor for the development of specific architectural standards along that corridor. He
continued that once those are developed they would supercede the general County wide interim
standards. He advised that once they are close to that point they would have extensive public
input and comment. He continued that there are currently no similar conditions on Indrio Road
but that is not to say that it wouldn't happen. He stated that the intention was to establish some
type of standards in the interim to address things that are being corporately presented. He also
stated that currently with no standards they have to rely on the cooperation of the companies that
are submitting their projects to abide by Staff's suggestions. He advised that regionalization was
definitely a possibility because what works in some communities may not work in others because
of area differences.
Mr. Grande stated that he does not disagree with the concept but that there were a number of
recommendations made by the Commission previously with regards to this ordinance, which
should be applied before they are re-presented.
Mr. Akins questioned how many times they had seen this ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that he
believed that it went to them two or three times and nothing was ever finalized. Ms. Gilmore,
recording secretary, explained that it was first brought to the Commission at the May 16, 2002
meeting and that is where they had their discussions about the particulars of the ordinance. She
explained that there were no final recommendations made and that their only motion was to
continue the ordinance to the June 20, 2002 meeting for further discussion. She continued that it
was then again heard at the June meeting and their motion was to delete all of the sections from
Draft Ordinance 02-015 regarding creating interim architectural standards and have the standards
resubmitted under a separate ordinance number.
Mr. Merritt stated that he had problems with passing this ordinance just to get something started
because of those defined areas along the corridors that would be affected. He also stated that
with their fagade guidelines there would be some industrial areas there that would become
expensive to develop. Mr. Murphy explained that these standards do not apply to industrial uses
as stated on page three, paragraph A of the draft ordinance.
Chairman Matthes questioned if it would be better to hold some small meetings in the
communities to see what kind of input they receive with regards to architecture before passing
this. Mr. Murphy stated that ultimately that is what they plan to do. Chairman Matthes stated
that he felt that once they get that input it would probably cause them to have to throw out all of
these interim standards. Mr. Murphy stated that it may or may not depending on the input that
they receive from the specific areas. Mr. Merritt stated that he has never seen an ordinance that
was passed be thrown out. Mr. Murphy explained that ordinances are not thrown out but they get
amended quite often.
Mr. Grande asked where their previous discussions with regards to this ordinance were reflected
in the minutes. Ms. Gilmore explained that the original detailed discussion is reflected in the
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 12
May 16, 2002 meeting minutes and their second discussion, which was to separate the ordinance
from non-conforming lots, was detailed in the June 20, 2002 meeting minutes. Mr. Grande stated
that he felt this ordinance was fully discussed in the May meeting and that those discussions
were not reflected in what was brought before them tonight.
Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Merritt reconfirmed that if they forward. a recommendation tonight Staff would go back
afterward and revisit those specific areas for their input after the fact. Mr. Murphy stated that
was what they were intending to do.
Chairman Matthes questioned if this draft ordinance was basically patterned after the City of Port
St. Lucie. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct and that the only thing was removed were
some procedural issues that the city has, which are different from the County. He also stated that
they were seeking voluntary compliance to these standards from the developers but without an
ordinance they would not be able to force them to comply if they chose to be defiant. Chairman
Matthes asked if he was present at the May meeting when they had discussion with regards to
these issues. Ms. Gilmore explained that both he and Mr. Trias were not present for those
discussions at the May 16, 2002 meeting. Mr. Merritt stated he didn't remember those
discussions either and questioned if he was present. Ms. Gilmore explained that he was present
at the May meeting.
Mr. Lounds stated that paragraph A on page 5 of the standards discusses prohibited facade
features and materials and specifies plastic siding, plastic laminates. He questioned if that
eliminated all use of vinyl siding. Mr. Murphy stated that would be correct. Mr. Lounds stated
that he didn't understand what the problem would be with putting vinyl siding on a commercial
building. Mr. Murphy explained that these standards would apply to commercial projects only.
Mr. Lounds stated that he also questioned the wording of irregular modernistic window shapes
and didn't understand what was wrong with having them.
Mr. Merritt stated that colors change with the times and trends and wanted to know if the
preferred color chart would be revised every five years to accommodate that. Mr. Murphy stated
that he agreed that colors do change but that as in all of the regulations they would have to be
looked at later in time to see if they need to be amended then.
Chairman Matthes stated that he believed this ordinance works for the City of Port St. Lucie
fairly well but that he isn't sure that the whole County is ready for one specific set of guidelines
to govern all of it's architecture. Mr. Murphy stated that if the Commission felt they wanted to
get more into more area specific guidelines then he would need a specific recommendation from
them to take to the Board of County Commissioners for their review.
Mr. Grande stated that he doesn't feel that should be the only alternative and that he feels that
this may work well in particular cities but he agrees that it isn't good for us countywide. He
continued that he feels the starting point should be to view Port St. Lucie's information and then
revise it based on their input from the minutes so that it could work for us on a countywide basis.
He also stated that he would like to see a revised ordinance with their suggestions that is a lot
less restrictive than what was submitted now and that would allow them to make a
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 13
recommendation as a starting point of standards.
Mr. Merritt stated that the city of Sebastian adopted an architectural standard in and they lost
some very upscale business because they were too restrictive for them to keep their corporate
image so they couldn't comply. He continued that he really liked the idea of having some
neighborhood input workshops prior to adopting something like this. Mr. Murphy stated that
Midway Road input is already in progress and the rfp is looking at everything. Mr. Merritt stated
that Lakewood Park has the opportunity to do some nice things out in that area. Mr. Murphy
agreed but stated that without some sort of guidelines on the books there would be no way for
him to be sure that they do something good in the area. Chairman Matthes stated that he agreed
with Mr. Grande and if the immediate need for something is there it should be less restrictive.
He advised that he also believes the County should review this on a community by community
basis and set standards for those particular communities.
Mr. Grande made a motion to not pass Draft Ordinance 02-028 along but ask that Staff
bring it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency as soon as
possible with their revisions as requested in the May 16, 2002 minutes, make it less
restrictive, and then once they review the revisions they would make a recommendation
along with a request for individual neighborhood workshops for area specific input.
Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt, with discussion.
Mr. Merritt stated that he would like to have a recommendation submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners that they would like to consider this on a street by street basis rather than as one
complete countywide ordinance. Chairman Matthes questioned if he would like Staff to compile
a list of specific corridors as well as specific neighborhoods for these standards to apply to. Mr.
Merritt stated that he is trying to make sure that the community gets involved and have an input
on what is going to be done in their communities. Mr. Grande stated that he does agree that
neighborhood input and that is why he wanted what is resubmitted to them to be less restrictive
and should include only those items that could be generalized countywide. He also stated that
anything that could be questionable for a specific corridor should be left out until the
neighborhood input is gotten.
Chairman Matthes stated that he did not feel it should be up to him to pass standards that would
affect everyone in the county without any input from the public. Mr. Akins confirmed that
currently there are no standards whatsoever. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Mr. Akins
questioned if it would be feasible to consider this a minimum standard for now with the intention
that it would be amended based on specific areas at a later date. Mr. Murphy stated that was
what they were originally requesting and that is why they were calling these "interim" standards.
Mr. Grande stated that is why he wanted these standards revised as to remove anything that
would not be universal countywide and brought back to them as soon as possible.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 5-0) to not pass Draft
Ordinance 02-028 along but ask that Staff bring it back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission /Local Planning Agency as soon as possible with their revisions as requested
in the May 16, 2002 minutes, make it less restrictive, and then once they review the
revisions they would make a recommendation along with a request for individual
neighborhood workshops for area specific input.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 14
AGENDA ITEM 5: ORDINANCE 02-029 -Planned Development Sign Standards:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was Ordinance 02-
029 for Planned Development Sign Standards. He advised that this ordinance would provide for
a series of minor adjustments to the regulations governing signage for all Planned Development
projects in the community. He stated that this would make available a process for larger Planned
Development projects to submit an optional alternative signage plan for their planned project,
instead of defaulting automatically to the sign restrictions normally applied to smaller Planned
Development projects. He also stated that if the County's general sign codes were to be applied
literally to these projects the Planned Development projects would only be allowed one ground
sign for their entire parcel that could not exceed 32 square feet in area. He advised that staff is
proposing that an optional signage plan be provided for that would be developed as part of the
Planned Development Plan review process and could then be included into the base approval for
given Planned Development projects.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward
Draft Ordinance 02-029 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval.
Mr. Grande stated that he believes changes do need to make and on page 8, section 9.03.00,
paragraph H there is a typo that should read "housing" instead of "hosing". He also stated that
on page 3, section 7.01.03, paragraphs 1 and 2 have quantification that leaves out anything that is
200 acres and should read "less than or equal to 200 acres" and "greater than 200 acres". He
stated those same type of changes should be made on pages 4 and 5 as well.
Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Betty Lou Wells stated that she was concerned with the number of billboard signs that were
being put up throughout St. Lucie County especially when compared to Martin and Indian River
Counties. She stated that she was hoping that somewhere in the context of these changes
something could be done to stop the number or maybe add to the distance between these
billboard signs. She also stated that many years ago she served on a sign committee that was
concerned about these issues then and nothing happened. She advised that she would hope that
we could phase out the massive billboards, especially along the I-95 and Turnpike areas.
Chairman Matthes questioned how billboard signs are regulated along I-95 and the Turnpike.
Mr. Murphy stated those types of signs are only permitted within certain zoning districts. He
advised that St. Lucie County regulates it based on zoning district. He continued that DOT
regulates them based on the Land Use Category. He also stated that DOT would not allow
outdoor advertising signs in any area that is residentially classified. He advised that they do
allow them into non-residential land use categories and those billboards up and down the
interstate are because DOT sees them as non-residential land use categories. Mr. Murphy stated
that he would take a look at those issues but for the most part those two particular areas are
already at their maximum and probably couldn't have any more.
Mr. Lounds stated that there were billboard signs being put up along the Orange Avenue corridor
and questioned if they were within the regulations of the City. Mr. Murphy stated that he
believed that particular area was under the regulation of the County. Mr. Lounds asked if they
were permitted because of the land use and Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 15
Murphy stated that the frontage in those areas is mostly non-residential and that is why they were
allowed to place those billboard signs. Mr. Lounds stated that he agreed with Ms. Wells and said
he thinks that there is an abundance of these signs on all the corridors coming into the County.
Mr. Murphy stated that on page 8, paragraph A of the draft ordinance it states that they are
removing the ability to put up signs along Okeechobee Road and also parts of Orange Avenue
and Kings Highway. He continued that any that weren't purchased prior to these changes would
not be able to be installed. Mr. Merritt questioned why Midway Road wasn't on the list. Mr.
Murphy stated that outdoor advertising signs are already not allowed along Midway Road. Mr.
Merritt stated that there are signs along Midway Road. Mr. Murphy explained that the ones that
are there are along the access area of I-95 and the Turnpike only.
Mr. Grande wanted to confirm that the changes on page 8, paragraph A, actually reduce the
number of areas where these types of billboard signs could be located. Mr. Murphy confirmed
that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that he felt this was a positive step in reducing the number of
billboard signs in the County.
Mr. Lounds stated that he wanted to remove all of Orange Avenue instead of just the section to
the Okeechobee county line as they did on Okeechobee Road. Mr. Murphy stated that he
believed those particular areas on Orange Avenue have already been mapped out and bought for
the signs and changing that wouldn't stop them from installing signs that they were already
approved for. Chairman Matthes questioned that if we deleted the whole section on Orange
Avenue that we would then be left with non-conforming uses. Mr. Murphy stated that would be
the case. Mr. Lounds questioned if Kings Highway north and south possibly the same way. Mr.
Murphy stated those areas are zoned AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) with a small bit
of commercial, however they have non-residential land uses. So therefore they would probably
be able to get a permit on the State's side because of the land use category.
Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Grande made a motion to approve with the changes as amended.
Motion seconded by Mr. Akins.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 3-2 (with Mr. Merritt and Mr.
Matthes voting against) to forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval as amended.
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 16
OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION:
Next scheduled meeting will be September 19, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: Approved by:
ilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman
P & Z Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 17