The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 09-19-2002Secretary t Lucie County Planning and Zonitiig Coirtmission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor Roger Poitras Annex September 19, 2002 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements VW Disclosures AGENDA 1 �>\(— l b G— AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — August 15, 2002 V. Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of August 15, 2002, meeting G NDA ITEM 2: MEETING MINUTES — August 29, 2002 leo Action Recommended. Approval Exhibit #2: Minwes of August 29, 2002, meeting This is the petition of FLORIDA-CENTER FOR RECOVERY, INC., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Care Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. This item was continued from the August 15, 2002, meeting. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps This is the petition of RODNEY HOPKINS for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: Staff Report and Site Location Maps This is the petition of TIMOTHY AND DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a car wash facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. This item was continued from the August 15, 2002, meeting. Cyndi Snay will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #5: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps Page 1 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting a September 19, 2002 7:00 P.M.`7 AGENDA OTHER BUSINESS: 4�e r business Commission M here' discreeti A. Other basine_., at Com sio.. _em____ er.. B. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Commission Chambers at the Roger Poitras Annex Building. ADJOURN will be held on October 17, 200 , in 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 Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Members FROM: Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary DATE: Thursday, September 19, 2002 SUBJECT: P&ZAttendance Mr. Lounds and Mr. McCurdy will not be attending this evening's P&Z Meeting. Their absences are with notice. M St. Lucie County �'.6 fft � Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING August 15, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Akins, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Trias, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Jones (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 1 M1"C�fA!Y 1 CALL TO ORDER �d9`756+437as ."' Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hearn stated that he has heard that there was quite a bit of discussion in the community with regards to Rose Car Wash. He continued that he has answered some questions from the public about this issue. Chairman Matthes stated that his employer was involved with the project in Agenda Item # 2 and would recuse himself from that item. Chairman Matthes advised that Agenda Item # 4, Timothy and Debra Rose Car Wash has been requested to be continued to the September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. He explained that if there were any public present tonight that wished to speak they could do so when they open the public hearing on that item or they could just return in September for full deliberations. He also stated that the petitioner made this request at the last minute and that Staff did their best to notify everyone. Mr. Kelly stated that we had notified the church of the continuance and asked them to try to notify everyone possible. He also stated that both hearings on the issue are public hearings and that everyone would be allowed to speak with regards to the petition. 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.. Thy; 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 Comrissioners. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 2 » . - Mr. Kell mate that Agenda let m # % Ordinance 02- 20 W&U8 also be continued t night tot the August 29, 200 Special Meeting at 20 P.M. or as soon thereafter mpossible. Noother announcements ocomments. ®-xq9 S, - } a C'�lq§q A[//ITI P&ZMeeting August 15,200 Page 3 A'x ENDA ITEM 1: ,TUNE 20, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: _ � PUNNING � APPROVAL Mr. Grande stated that page 26, the fourth paragraph, third line should read "ordinances" and not ordinance. Mr. Trias asked that his name be added as being present on the first page. Chairman Matthes questioned if the word POD at the end of page 6 is correct. Mr. Kelly stated he did believe it does read correctly but should not be capitalized and would be corrected for the iecord. Mr. Grande moved for approval as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NOz ,RZ-02-013 — GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, INC.: sure 'T CCM�ilSSIoN APPROVAL Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Glassman Holdings, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 25.99 acres of property located on the Northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Road. He continued that the petitioner is proposing to develop the property for commercial uses. He also stated that the surrounding zoning was RS-2 (Residential, Single -Family - 2 du/acre) to the south and west. He continued that there was AG-1 (Agricultural — ldu/care) Zoning to the north, south, east, and west, IX (Industrial, Extraction) to the east and I (Institutional) Zoning to the east and north. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board. of .County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Lindsay Walter stated that he was from West Palm Beach and was representing Glassman Holdings Inc. He continued that this application was for a straight rezoning and that they had no development plans at this time, but are just trying to bring the property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial. Mr. Lounds questioned if there were any preliminary plans for future use of the property. Mr. Walter stated that Glassman has preliminarily done some sketches that would include a possible shopping center with an out -parcel or two. He also stated that there is nothing definite at this point in time. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Glassman Holdings, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District, because it complies with the land use element of the code. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 5 ill AGENDA ITEM 3: FILE NO. RZ-02-014 -CHURCH OF THE, REDEEMER ��`�� LUCIE COUNTY: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of :. Church of the Redeemer of St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single -Family — 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 8.47 acres of property located on the Southeast corner of the intersection of Edwards Road and Selvitz Road. He stated that the purpose of the rezoning is for the possible expansion of church facilities. Mr. Flores continued that the proposed zoning district designation — I (Institutional) — is consistent with the zoning district designation for the church's existing property located directly to the east of the subject property. He also stated that approval of this petition would create an 18.80-acre parcel under common ownership at the intersection of Edwards and Selvitz Roads. He advised that a review of the Institutional Zoning District and its permitted and conditional uses shows the scope of the impact that an Institutional parcel of this size could have on the area. He continued that the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District was created specifically for the designation of church facilities and the types of uses that would generally be located within a church establishment. He stated that Staff believes that the RF Zoning District designation is more appropriate at this location for the additional property. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it generally conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not.in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staffs recommended they forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial for the Institutional Zoning District and instead recommend they forward a recommendation of approval to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District. Mr. Grande questioned why the application was filed requesting I (Institutional) Zoning instead of RF (Religious Facilities). Mr. Flores stated that was how the applicant has filed the application and was compatible with the existing I (Institutional) Zoning. He continued that once ^fF the full application was reviewed Staff concluded that RF (Religiou., Facilities) Zoning would be a more appropriate zoning. Chairman Matthes asked if this was discussed with the applicant. #' Mr. Flores stated that he discussed it with Mr. David Sowerby, who is working with the petition >> and stated that he believed that they were in agreement. He continued that churches are allowed under both zoning districts and that the conditional uses allowed under RF (Religious Facilities)` are also allowed under I (Institutional) Zoning. Chairman Matthes questioned if this would have to go through the site plan review process if approved. Mr. Flores stated that if a proposed site plan is submitted that meets the 6,000 square foot or greater threshold that would be correct. Mr. Merritt stated that there are some ancient historical issues on this property and questioned if they were being protected. Mr. Flores stated that in this point in time they are not reviewing the development of the property only a change in zoning and therefore would not be impacted right now. Mr. Hearn stated that he too is concerned about the historical issues of the property and wants to make sure it is not destroyed. Mr. Clyde Heffelfinger stated that he resides 1008 Echo Street in Fort Pierce and he is on the Board of Directors of the Church of the Redeemer. Chairman Matthes questioned if he understood Staff's recommendation with respect to an RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning instead of the I (Institutional) Zoning. Mr. Heffelfinger stated that he discussed the issue with Mr. David P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 6 •. `'. .i'.i 3.'J^U T rAri P,9Ey Sowerby yesterday and explained everything to him and he didn't see,.Uny reason wh} the cange wouldn't be okay. Mr. Heffelfinger stated that with regards to Mr. Merritt's comments, he wasn't aware of anything historical on that lot and would like to know what it is that he is speaking of. Mr. Merritt stated that there is an ancient Indian burial ground on that location. Mr. Heffelfinger questioned if they knew where on the property this burial ground was located. Mr. Merritt stated that he believed it was to the rear of the property and was a significant Indian burial site. Chairman Matthes stated the Commission, as a whole would probably suggest that he seek professional guidance in review of that information. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Church of the Redeemer of St. Lucie County, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single -Family 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District, because the more appropriate zoning for the property would be the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn, with discussion. Mr. Hearn questioned if Mr. Grande would include something in his motion with regards to the Indian burial ground. Mr. Grande stated that he felt it would more relevant to the approval motion rather than the denial. Chairman Matthes stated that he did not believe that they could condition a zoning application. Ms. Young confirmed that was correct. Chairman Matthes stated that he is sure it has been duly noted in the minutes and their concerns will be expressed to the Board, but they could not condition a zoning application. Mr. Merritt stated that if the applicant was satisfied with the I (Institutional) Zoning and wasn't requesting the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning he didn't think it was appropriate for them to change his request. Chairman Matthes explained that Staff recommended RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning instead of I (Institutional) and the applicant did agree with the new zoning recommendation. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Grande stated that he didn't believe that Mr. Hearn's comments regarding the burial ground were meant to be a condition of the rezoning, but just to be sure that it was a comment with the motion to point it out to the County Commission as they read the motion. Mr. Akins stated that he too was concerned with how they would be able to signal their intentions to the Board. Chairman Matthes stated that the minutes of the meetings are read by each of the County Commissioners and it was made abundantly clear in the record that they had concerns about preserving the Indian burial ground. He also stated that he wasn't sure that adding it to the motion would be appropriate because it may come across as a condition and they cannot do that. Ms. Young stated that Chairman Matthes' comments were correct and that they could ask that Staff include those concerns in their memo to the Board. She also stated that the only other option would be to include that as one of the reasons for approving the RF (Religious Facilities) P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 7 7— IMIG' A hROVAL O FI I L- L€� TO y & 7 aNIIG designation and they cannot condition a zoning application. Chairman Matthes st al"' WN ',APPROVAL was concerned about doing something that might risk the future of the petition. Mr. Merritt stated that he did not raise the issue to put the petition in jeopardy and just wanted to be sure that the petitioner and Staff were aware of the potential problems in the future. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Hearn if adding it to the Staff report to the Board would be sufficient and ease any concerns. Mr. Hearn stated that would be fine. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, i hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Church of the Redeemer of St. Lucie County, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single -Family - 3 dulacre) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District, because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be good for the community and it causes. no potential dangers. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 8 3 [+ C I L F . f's & ZONING AGENDA IVEM 4: FILE NO. CU-02-001 TIMOTHY & DEBRA ROSE CAR WA MISSION APPROVA;' Chairman Matthes stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of Timothy and Debra Rose < Car Wash and that the petitioner has requested a continuation until the September 19, 2002 ajs Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. McCurdy made a motion to continue until the September 19t', 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. ' Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon, a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to be continued to the September 19ei, 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as �; possible. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 9 Y um ;1 (� iq �:sFAN Ya �.a , gF . , �"+P �i kF MINING X �° �� s : KT "I APPROVAL 417 AGENDA ITEM 5: FILE NO. CU-02-007 - FLORIDA CENTER FOR RECO��'.� , t Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the Application of Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services (specifically an inpatient drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation center) in the I s.= (Institutional) Zoning District for 12.17 acres of property located at 3451 West Midway Road. Mr. Flores stated that Florida Center for Recovery, Inc., has applied for the requested conditional use in order to provide an establishment for the inpatient alcohol and substance abuse treatment facility similar to the operation at New Horizons of the Treasure Coast. He also stated that the - operation is proposed to be a 24-hours a day with a maximum of 35 staff and 40 patients in the short term. He continued that in the long term, the applicant has stated that a maximum of 72 patients were expected to be treated. He explained that Social Services and Health Services are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County fit: Commissioners. He stated that the proposed treatment center is to, be housed in the now vacant Twins Oaks Alzheimer's facility. } Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is f; recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition: The number of patients shall be limited to a maximum of 72. Mr. Lounds reconfirmed that the original condition was to be a maximum of 40 but as per the applicants request the condition was amended to 72. Mr. Flores confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that he felt the staff memo should read that the general existing use surrounding the property is residential and some institutional instead of the way it was originally printed. Mr. Lounds questioned where CASTLE was located on the maps. Mr. Flores stated that it was to the west of the property. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Jack Fitzharris, the petitioner, stated that he resides in Vero Beach and also maintains a residence in New York. He continued that this facility would be an upscale substance abuse treatment facility and would not be like New Horizons. He stated that New Horizons deals mostly with mental illness and their facility would not include mental health. He also stated that they would cater to the upscale population and would be similar to that of the Betty Ford Clinic and Hazelton treatment centers. Mr. Lounds questioned if the patients would be court appointed and if not, where would they come from. Mr. Fitzharris stated that their patients would be voluntary, self -paid patients and that they would not accept any court appointed or Medicaid patients. He continued that their fee is approximately $15,000 a month. Mr. Lounds confirmed that their facility would consist primarily of voluntary patients only. Mr. Fitzharris stated that their facility markets for only voluntary patients. Mr. Lounds stated that they have some feedback from concerned citizens regarding staffing at night and their safety. Mr. Fitzharris stated that the amount of staff at night would depend on the number of patients being treated. He also stated that this facility would generally be run the same as their other facility in Long Island. Mr. Lounds questioned how the facility would be staffed if running at the full capacity of 72 patients. Mr. Fitzharris stated that there would be therapeutic aides at night as well as a nursing staff who will monitor where the P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 10 -ilai!r. ' "EP, T T patients are during the eveAilig. Mr. Lounds stated that the community also has coh6l—` 31 �1vi+i' 0 their idea of what is involved with rehabilitative services. Mr. Fitzharris stated that since the individuals are all voluntary, they are more motivated for treatment and less likely to try to leave than those who are court appointed and need to be locked down. Mr. Lounds questioned if it would be a locked down facility with gates and guards. Mr. Fitzharris stated that it would not be like that and that anyone who is asked to leave the facility for any reason would be transported back to wherever they came from and not just dropped outside of the front door of the facility. He continued that in his experience these people don't generally leave against medical advice. Mr. Merritt questioned wily Mr. Fitzharris chose Fort Pierce to locate 'Ws facility when he lives in Vero Beach. Mr. Fitzharris stated that the property and buildings they needed were already available in St. Lucie County. He also stated that he only handles marketing of the facility and the location for treatment didn't really matter to him and if there were facilities and property already available somewhere else, it would have been located there. Mr. Merritt stated that he is concerned about St. Lucie', County becoming a dumping ground for Martin and Indian River County and feels that they have done their share already. Mr. Fitzharris stated he didn't really understand what he meant by a "dumping ground". Mr. Merritt explained that there is a treatment center on Midway Road, which is funded by the state and takes in patients from the other counties and their Section 8 housing is large enough to handle those counties as well. Mr. Fitzharris stated that Martin, Vero and Okeechobee only have 139 substance abuse beds to accommodate 4 counties and that was one of the reasons they chose this area. He continued that they didn't pinpoint Fort Pierce but that they just found the buildings and land already here and available. He also stated that he didn't feel they were dumping on the County and that their facility would bring employment and taxes into the County. Chairman Matthes questioned if this is an existing facility. Mr. Fitzharris confirmed that was correct. Mr. Fitzharris stated that he believed the previous owners only operated for about six months and that the buildings are relatively new. Mr. Akins questioned which four counties Mr. Fitzharris was talking about when he referenced the 139 beds. Mr. Fitzharris stated those were Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Indian River County. Mr. Akins questioned his statement that they would not accept any Medicaid, court appointed or court ordered patients. Mr. Fitzharris stated that was correct. Mr. Akins asked Mr. Fitzharris if he was aware that St. Lucie County's crime rate was about 90% tied to substance abuse and of those 90% about 98% of those are indigent. Mr. Fitzharris stated he was not aware of those figures. Mr. Akins confirmed that his facility would not benefit the existing substance abuse problems in St. Lucie County and Mr. Fitzharris confirmed that it would not. Mr. Fitzharris stated that he believed New Horizons was opening a facility in Vero Beach that will accept the St. Lucie County indigent. Mr. Akins stated that he was concerned about having a small amount of space in the existing facilities for the indigent and that there should be more space available to benefit the problems in St. Lucie County. Mr. Fitzharris stated that he presumed that at least 50% of their business would come from Florida, but not necessarily from St. Lucie County. Mr. Lounds stated that he appreciated Mr. Merritt and Mr. Akins comments but that he believes that this type of facility will be high end and isn't sure that would be bad for the County. Chairman Matthes stated that he agreed since a state run facility would not pay taxes and this type of facility would help the tax base. He continued that there is an existing facility sitting there that isn't being used and isn't generating any tax base to the County. Mr. Lounds questioned if the staff s salary level would be higher than the states. Mr. Fitzharris stated that P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 11 ZONING APTRO AL �Sgr-�[an�Y�1�49 TO P1�-e3i'�""ate:' ® was correct. He also stated that he had an affidavit from the Long ?r:stand Center Phi Rt�� g`°a�f_3liS�N��_..__., . stating who their clients are and what type of facility they run. Mr. McCurdy questioned if the applicant would consider adding a restriction that they would not accept court appointed or Medicaid patients if he were granted approval. Mr. Fitzharris stated that he would not have any objection with that type of restriction at all. Mr. Hearn stated that the issues addressed by Mr. Lounds and Mr. McCurdy were valid but that he is worried about condemning nearby property owners who are concerned about what is going into their neighborhood. He also stated that he felt it was very -important for people to have protection in their neighborhoods to ensure their quality of life. He continued that he felt if the petitioner was willing to accept the conditions suggested by Mr. McCurdy then we would be more comfortable voting for the project. He stated that he did want to make sure that these restrictions be part of the motion so that it is legally correct and binding. W. Rodney Schuckhardt stated that he lives at 4588 Shoewater Lane in Naples Florida. He advised that he is the president of a subsidiary of TIB Bank of the Keys, which originally financed the property for the Alzheimer's facility and now owns the property. He stated that they are selling the property and hope to be the future lender to the Florida Center for Recovery. He continued that when they reviewed the applicants contract and proposal they were introduced to the quality and fiscal soundness of their other existing programs. He also stated that .the program they planned to operate in St. Lucie County was an upscale program designed for primarily self -pay patients and found the plan to be sound. He stated that they are also bringing substantial financial resources to the area to get the program off the ground and they are very comfortable with their plans. He continued that with regards to security, this facility of residential and administration buildings are equipped with a security system that locks the doors when it is set and also limits the movement of patients between rooms and various areas of residences. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Rhona Perry stated that she resides to the east of the facility at 5080 West Virginia Drive. She advised that there are not just a few houses in her area; there are fifteen homes there. She stated that when she first received notification she was very reluctant but after doing some research and speaking with the applicant she felt better. She continued that she still has some concerns about the project and likes the idea of adding the conditions to the request. She also stated that there are many children in that area who like to play in the woods and when the Alzheimer's facility was there the patients got out. She advised that they ended up in front of her home and didn't know who they were and she had no idea how they had gotten out. She stated that she is aware that this facility is going to be upscale and they would be more likely to leave out the front door than to sneak out but there could be one bad apple. She continued that they would like to know that there was going to be some very good security at the facility because some of the area is not completely fenced in. She also stated that they were also concerned about the facility turning into a court appointed type facility if they are not able to make it financially as an upscale self -pay facility. She stated that she was unsure about what exactly falls under the classification of Social Services in the regulations for conditional uses. Mr. Flores stated that under Social Services as in the Land Development Code, there is a number behind (3) behind it that references the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. He P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 12 M , lifts fy"a'p is - continued that under Social Services in the SIC Manual they allow Individual and Family Socialy £ OPROVA Services, which include Counseling Centers, Family Counseling Services, Temporary Relief Services and a variety more on the lists. He continued that one of the ones listed is for Alcoholism Counseling and also for residential care and also for social services that are not elsewhere classified. He stated that under Health Services it lists Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine and Hospitals. Ms. Perry stated that they are concerned because Welfare does fall under that as well and want to be sure that there is a condition that they cannot accept those types of patients to protect them. Chairman Matthes stated that he would believe that to be correct if they can condition the conditional use permit that way. Ms. Perry stated that she would be comfortable with the facility if all of the conditions are listed as part of the approval and legally applied. Chairman Matthes questioned Ms. Young if those types of conditions could be applied to the applicant's request. Ms. Young stated that she didn't see any reason that they couldn't make the fencing and security issues as part of the conditions. She continued that with regard to the nature of the client base she would not be uncomfortable adding that as part of the motion since the applicant has consented to it. Ms. Kelly Carter stated that she owns lots 112 and 119 behind the facility and is concerned about lot 107. She continued that there are 79 acres between all of those lots and lot 107 is woods, which used to be entirely landlocked until she put a culvert in. She stated that she is concerned about what the applicant is planning on doing with lot 107 because it is directly in front of her front yard. She also stated that the County has contacted her about preserving the areas that she owns as well as lot 107 because they were just granted the funds to purchase those 79 acres. She continued that if the County were able to purchase all of that property they would like to turn it into a preserve with nature walks. She stated that they have even asked her not to clear her lots because they are very interested in preserving the area within the next three or four months because it is the largest piece of Florida Pines left in St. Lucie County. She also stated that if a patient decides to leave the facility they would be hidden within 79 acres of woods and her home is the first house they would come to. She continued that she has children and her property is zoned for agricultural use and they !.lave Horses, dogs, °donkey:, and deer and they intend to build an area for team roping. She stated that she has no problem keeping her 16 acres and living in the middle of a 79-acre preserve. Mr. Fitzharris stated that they have no plans to do anything with that property at the moment except to maybe put in a serenity walk for the patients. He also stated that he did receive a call from the County today about the property and stated that nothing is going to happen until next year and he will discuss those options with them at that time. Chairman Matthes questioned if the existing facility had the capacity to house their maximum of 72 patients. Mr. Fitzharris confirmed that was correct. Ms. Carter stated that she was concerned about their patients being able to walk free and what will happen to the property if the County does buy the 55 acres in the next 4 months or so. Mr. Lounds questioned if there was any crossing on the canal separating the division of lot 107 and if the patients would be able to go from the north side to the south side without getting wet. Mr. Flores stated he did not believe so. Mr. Lounds asked if they would have to go out onto Christensen Road to get to that property. Ms. Carter stated that there is a brick wall on Christensen Road and there is a crossing that is part of lot 107 and is located on the County right- of-way and the County would not let her put a gate with a lock there. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 13 v � +�}5Zy ONINatG AL Mr. John Ferrick stated that he visited the location yesterday and was concerned about not having any fences, especially when the Alzheimer's facility was there. He also stated that most of the people he talked to about this project stated their biggest concern is with people wandering off onto their properties. He continued that the facility should also be concerned about people wandering into their facility especially when these are well -financed patients with a substance abuse problem because there are people in the Fort Pierce area who would want to sell them some. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that he did not have a problem with this project because he felt it would bring better money and facilities than were there in the past instead of having a vacant building still sitting there. He also stated that he is pleased that it is proposed to be a high -end facility but does feel that there should be conditions regarding fencing and the types of patients they will accept. Ms. Young stated that she believed that applicant has stated that their facility would be self -pay or insurance paid patients only and not Medicaid or court appointed. Mr. Akins stated that he did not feel that the applicant could state definitely that they would not accept court appointed patients because there are high -end individuals (Governor Bush's daughter) who are court appointed and could afford to self -pay the applicants fees. He continued that he didn't believe that the petitioner's representative was in a position to agree to that because there are high -end individuals who could be court ordered but still in a financial position to pay. He also stated that he felt if the Commission wanted to add a condition on this they could do so for the Medicaid and any State funded individuals only but that he didn't believe that the petitioner would be able to guarantee not taking court ordered high -end individuals. He continued that presuming that someone who is court ordered needs to be in a facility that is highly guarded isn't the case for a lot of facilities. Mr. Lounds stated that he does agree with what Mr. Akins is saying and would not want to restrict the owners to that level. He continued that he believes they all understand that they really want to be sure This :faei.Yity 'isn't geared towards- the indi&n.t and Medicaid patients. Mr. Grande stated that he feels that there isn't enough information in the application and the petitioner's presentation for him to make a decision one way or the other right now. He continued that the assumption that because there is an existing failed Alzheimer's facility there that we need to do something of this nature doesn't sit with him. He also stated that this property is valuable and could be used for any number of things and he doesn't feel that this type of facility really needs to be in the County. He advised that he feels what was presented to them was incomplete and doesn't feel they should be responsible for coming up with a list of detailed conditions to protect the surrounding residents. He stated that he would not be able to vote for this conditional use permit no matter what conditions are added to it. Mr. Merritt stated that no matter how you say it, it is still a substance abuse center. He also stated that the woman who owned property next to New Horizons ended up selling her property to them because of the harassment from the patients in their facility. He continued that Midway Road is going to be the gateway to St. Lucie County and he cannot vote in favor of putting this type of facility on Midway Road. He also stated that he didn't believe this facility would be beneficial to those living in St. Lucie County because they couldn't afford it and therefore could not support this project. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 14 TOp6?7 �..._. .: �'".. Mr. Hearn stated that he un&rstood the concerns of Mr. Grande and Mr. Merritt and would like to see some additional time spent by Staff and the petitioner to come up with some more detailed conditions and bringing it back before them at that time. He continued that he felt they needed the additional information and condition to make a truly informed position on the issue. He also stated that upscale facilities in St. Lucie County generally are good for the County and would not want to condemn the facility if it would fit in with the neighborhood. He advised that he personally felt the property needed to be securely fenced and landscaped so that the surrounding property owners are protected. He also stated that if they decide to recommend approval he would like to see this conditional use not be able to be transferred to another owner at a later date without having to come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Lounds stated that he appreciated everyone's feelings about this application but he felt the petitioner's presentation was pretty good especially compared to some other applications that they have approved in the past without any types of drawings or ideas. He continued that the applicant does have the money behind them and that if you have 72 beds at $15,000,each it would mean about $1,000,080 in that facility that would be turned over many times.. He also stated that he felt the Staff that would be at this institute would bring money to St. Lucie County and would offer some prestige to the medical professions in the County as well. He advised that the concerns regarding anyone being able to walk away or walk into the facility are genuine and that the fencing issue should handle that. He stated that other than that, he has no problem with it and feels it would be good for the community and good for the County. Mr. Akins stated that he would not be able to support this petition for vastly different reasons and as he stated previously St. Lucie County has a finite tolerance for these types of facilities. He continued that this type of facility does not benefit the existing problems in St. Lucie County, except for tax revenue. He advised that if it does not benefit the people who are already in St. Lucie County who need this type of treatment and cause the problems we have been facing for many years, the he couldn't support it. Mr. Merritt stated that his family has a long history in White City and they have a considerable real estate investment in that area and would ask each member to consider if they would want this type of facility next to their home. Mr. Hearn stated that he personally would not mind having this type of facility next to his house if it was done right. He continued that is why he would like to see this go back to Staff and the petitioner for some further review and presentation. He advised that he would not be able to support it based on what they were presented tonight but does think that further review may change that. Mr. Hearn made a motion to continue to the September 19a'11 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-3 (with Mr. Grande, Mr. Akins and Mr. Merritt voting against) to continue to the September 19a', 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 15 R APPROVAL ILI .i AGENDA ITEM 6: FILE NO. RZ-02-015 — WYNNE RANCH:Ai",�v@�,tA�.+ Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments stated that Agenda Items # 6 and # 7 were the applications of Wynne Ranch for a rezoning of 9.9 acres of land from AG-5 to U (Utilities) and a conditional use permit to operate an air curtain incinerator on the 9.9 acre parcel. She continued that the subject property is located on the north side of Orange Avenue approximately 3/4 mile west of Minute Maid Road and north one mile from the entrance to the Wynne Ranch property and is a portion of a 671 acre parcel of land. She also stated that the applicant has indicated a ucsire to operate an air curtain incinerator on the property fur the purpose of disposal of yard waste material from various properties owned by the Wynne Corporation. Ms. Snay stated that based upon the St. Lucie County Land Use Compatibility Matrix the Utilities Zoning is considered an appropriate zoning. district within the AG-5 (Agricultural — 5) Land Use designation. She explained that the existing area is agricultural in nature. She also stated that additional Wynne Ranch property is located to the north, south and west of the subject property and that there were citrus groves located to the east of the subject property. Ms. Snay advised that the proposed use is considered to be consistent with existing and proposed future land use designations in the area. She continued that the surrounding properties are being used as either citrus groves or cattle ranches and that the permitted uses in the Utilities zoning district are not expected to unduly impact the surrounding area or areas. She also stated that there were no residential structures adjacent to the subject property. She advised that the rezoning of this property was not expected to create demands on any public facilities in this area and that public utilities have not been installed this far west within the county. She also stated that St. Lucie County's Public Works Department has scheduled road construction on the shoulders along Orange Avenue, thereby, significantly reducing the roadway deficiencies within this area. Ms. Snay stated that the reclassification of this property to a limited use -zoning district such as Utilities would vnot result im the introduction of incompatible land uses or activities with the surroundirig'low-density agricultural activities. She also stated that the proposed amendment was not in conflict with the public interest and was in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Development Code. Staff has reviewed both petitions and recommend the rezoning be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. She also stated that with regards to the Conditional Use Permit staff has reviewed the petition and recommends that the petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the 9 limiting conditions found on page 5 of the staff report and would like the following condition to be included in the recommendation: P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 16 �7 i `y �y casaA 4 r t a i APPROVAL, 6�Fu 09eiia..++v SJ Y9 The use of the air curtain incinerator will only be permitted for use on this site for a maximum of five years. At the end of the 5-year period, the petitioner may request from the Board of County Commissioners a 1-year extension. No additional extensions may be permitted for this use. If the petitioners wish to continue operation of the air curtain incinerator beyond the 5 years + 1 year extension they will be required to submit an application for a new Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Grande stated that he believed that they had heard another petition for an air curtain incinerator on the same property. Ms. Snay explained it is the same location and the same property as previously applied for. Mr. Grandc stated he would likc Staff to explain why this is different from the last application submitted. Ms. Snay stated that it does not differ from the original request except for the modified conditions of approval in the Staff report and that the applicant is different. Mr. McCurdy questioned when the shoulder work would be done and completed on Orange Avenue. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not have any specific dates but from what he has heard it was in the process right now. Mr. Hearn asked what the distance was from the site to the nearest habitable structure. Ms. Snay stated that it was approximately a mile or two away. Mr. Hearn questioned if the previous application was withdrawn and what the reason was that it could be resubmitted. Mr. Kelly stated that the previous application was withdrawn and that the limitation in the Land Development Code only applied to a rezoning that was denied, but there was no time limit for conditional use permits. P „s- Chairman Matthes questioned if the U (Utilities) Zoning was the only option for the petitioner in order to be able to operate an air curtain incinerator. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. Chairman Matthes stated that he would like to see if there were any other options because he has a problem with rezoning a piece of property permanently just for a five year conditional use. Mr. Kelly stated that the only other option would be to amend the Land Development Code to allow for this type of use as a conditional ruse hif the AGI.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District. Chairman Matthes questioned how' long that type of request would take to be reviewed. Mr. Kelly stated that those types of requests are usually grouped together but with the direction of the Commission could be done sooner and possibly brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the October meeting. Mr. Akins questioned if it would be possible to approve the change in zoning with a type of clause that states the property would revert back to it's original zoning after the five year period for the conditional use. Mr. Kelly stated that a change in zoning cannot be conditioned and Ms. Young agreed. Mr. Lounds questioned how far the subject property was from Orange Avenue and Ms. Snay stated it was approximately 1 mile north of it. Mr. Grande stated that previously the most significant testimony he heard with regards to the air curtain incinerator that was passed prior to this request was that it was not able to function properly and had many problems. He then questioned if there were any updates on the current conditions of that offending facility. Mr. Kelly stated that he was not in that department but believed they were still in violation. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 17 V . ' ' I t nssR, d,e 'SI hu 7?`3INAL Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Matthew Wynne stated that a was the petitioner and that he did have a representative from the Division of Forestry as well as an air curtain incinerator business representative present to answer any of the Commissions technical questions. He also stated that he had signed petitions from those who have homes surrounding the subject property who all have stated that they have never had any problems with their operations all these years. He advised that the change in zoning and conditional use permit would allow them to install and operate the incinerator, which would do an even better job. He continued that he was aware of the complaints and problems with the other facility that is currently operating and submitted a letter from the St. Lucie County Code Enforcement Department that states that there have not been any complaints with regards to their property in the past ten years. Mr. Wynne stated that they have been burning on his property for several years and that many of the neighbors weren't even aware that they were doing that out there. He also stated that he has heard some concerns about Spot zoning and he does not consider this spot zoning because there are no pre -determined areas for U (Utilities) Zoning and must be requested to be changed to that zoning. He continued that the conditional and permitted uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning are compatible with the agricultural area operations. He also stated that most of the uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning would not make any economical sense to place out in the area of the subject property, with the exception of the air curtain incinerator. Mr. Wynne advised that some of the previous concerns were the increase in truck traffic. He stated that they have been doing this for the last three years and didn't see how there would be any increase in the traffic since they have already been there. He also stated that their main reason for doing this is because they have over 2,000 acres of old grove on their ranch and would like to burn that grove material as well so they can convert it into pasture land. He continued that if they chose to keep the grove instead of making it into pasture they would be generating much more truck traffic than by operating an air curtain incinerator. He stated that another issue of concern was the bad road conditions on Orange Avenue and that issue is being addressed by the current reconstruction of that area by Dickerson. He advised that the travel lanes are being widened by two geet and>tbe:a will be resurfaced: -(the entire, road) with two inches of asphalt and striped with reflective striping and also center bumpers may be added. Mr. Wynne stated that he did not feel condition number three of the original Staff report was accurate because their site would not just be for materials from Wynne Ranch. He advised that information was not correct because Wynne Ranch is the landowner but Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, which is operated by Mr. Revels, would be the only company using the site. He stated that he wanted to make it clear that it was not just Wynne material that would be disposed of in the incinerator, but just that the only company using the site would be Port St. Lucie Tractor. He continued that this incinerator would not be open to the public and would not allow anyone else in the land clearing business to use the site. He also stated that they have no problems with having restrictions placed on the operations. He advised that after some discussions with several of the opposing parties they came up with some restrictions of their own. 1. The Conditional Use Permit will have a term of 5 years and shall "sunset" at the end of 5 years. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 18 t 3y 4r� rt °; AL 2. The incinerator will be used only for vegetative material from ucie i County, delivered to the site by trucks owned and operated by Port St. Lucie Tractor. 3. The Conditional Use Permit is limited to "one" aboveground air curtain incinerator approved by DER Mr. Wynne .stated that they have been open burning on the subject property for three years without one complaint. He advised that his residence is actually the second closest residence to the site. He asked that if the Conuiu scion recommends approval of their request, that they include the three agreed upon conditions previously listed. He continued that he has had discussions with Ms. Adams, Judge Alderman and his wife Jean and have come to the compromise of these conditions and are now agreeable. Mr. Akins asked Staff if they could condition the conditional use permit for a reapplication for a change in zoning after the five-year period. Mr. Kelly stated that would most likely be considered conditioning the rezoning and that they could ask the petitioner to reapply at that time but didn't believe they could make that part of the conditions of the conditional use permit. Mr. Wynne stated that he would not have a problem with doing that after the conditional use permit expires. He submitted copies of all of the surrounding property owner letters as well as a copy of the conditions and the letter from Code Enforcement to be kept for the record. Mr. Merritt stated that his previous objection was the width of Orange Avenue and questioned what the time frame of the widening would be. Mr. Wynne stated that the work has already begun on Orange Avenue and that Dickerson has advised him that the entire project was supposed to be completed by Thanksgiving. Mr. Hearn questioned if Mr. Wynne was planning on having any material brought into the site from outside of St. Lucie County. Mr. Wynne stated that they would not be dealing with anything outside of the County as stated in condition two of his list. Mr. Lounds confirmed that Mr. Wynne has been open burning for three years now. Mr. Wynne stated that they are planning on taking out the orange groves, but over the past three years they have actually been open burning the material from job sites within St. Lucie County. Mr. Lounds questioned if condition number six of the original staff report was also a condition of the offending facility that was previously approved. Mr. Kelly stated that he was not sure that it was one of their conditions, but that if it was, it was clearly being violated, with regards to stockpiling. Mr. Lounds stated that he is concerned because they need to be able to pile this debris in advance to allow it time to dry before it can burn and didn't feel that could be done within 48 hours. Mr. Wynne stated that he was not aware of that 48-hour time limit and that would be a problem because the material needs time to dry completely before burning so it doesn't smoke a lot. Mr. Lounds questioned if the conditions in the Staff report applied to the whole property or just to the 9.9 acres. Ms. Snay confirmed it only applied to the 9.9 acres that deal with the actual operation of the air curtain incinerator. Mr. Wynne stated that he would like to change the time limit from 48 hours to a different amount of time. Mr. Kelly stated that the intent of the condition was to avoid having a very large pile of material building up, unburned. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 19 qf7c 5 i iJ r�s� CA '10 .,r Mr. Paul Revels, of Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, stated that DEP doesn't mind if tl�is"�'�e`1cc�yll� APPROVAL operation is done for six months on any parcel of land and then off for six months. He continued that the County code is the one that states that a conditional use permit and rezoning to U (Utilities) is required, not DEP. He stated that when they started these operations three years ago and used open burning because it was less expensive than chipping it. He also stated that the Division of Forestry must issue the burn permits and that if it is raining or foggy they will not issue any permits. He advised that he employs thirty people and that burning the material rather than chipping it, helps to keep the cost of land clearing down for homeowners. He continued that he agreed that 48 hours would not be enough time to allow the materials to dry and burn properly and that he thinks that it would need to sit for 60 to 90 days to dry completely. Mr. James Alderman stated that he resides at 13510 NE 224 h Street in Okeechobee and that his property adjoins Mr. Wynne's property to the west. He advised that he was present the first time this petition was presented and raised several objections to the project, which is why Mr. Revels withdrew his petition. He continued that they have: had an opportunity to sit down with Mr. Wynne and discuss their objections and see if they could reach a compromise in order to allow him to do what he needs to do but give them comfort at the same time. He stated that the three conditions he presented did come as a result of the meeting. He also stated that they still have some concerns, one of which is establishing a precedent on Orange Avenue for incinerators. He advised that they are aware that these types of incinerators can be operated correctly and that Mr. Wynne usually does his work right. Judge Alderman stated that they take Mr. Wynne at his word and doesn't think that simply because Mr. Wynne gets a conditional use with restrictions that someone else would be able to come into the same general area and use that as a precedent. He also stated that this is a unique situation that cannot be duplicated and that the time limitation is also unique because the total amount of time that Mr. Wynne wants to operate this type of site. He continued that the reason that Mr. Wynne agreed to the condition of the specific above ground type of incinerator is because they have seen that the usual trench type system doesn't work properly. He also stated that the road improvements and these conditions are what they were looking for and that the additional me -year -.xten3iori that is mentioned in tIV Staff report was not part of their agreement and therefore should not be included as part of the conditions. He stated that they have requested that the conditional use sunset after five years and that any further requests to do anything other than the permitted agricultural uses they would object to. He again stated that is a unique situation that he did not feel could be duplicated by anyone else between the County line and the offending incinerator that already exists. He finished by stating that he and his wife do not object to the petition with their added conditions. Mr. Merritt questioned if Judge Alderman had any information about how the Commission might handle any other requests that may come in for another incinerator that may cite this petition, if approved. Judge Alderman stated that he believes that Mr. Wynne's application could not be used a precedent for someone else because they would not be able to duplicate the unique facts of this particular situation. He continued that this application is several thousands of acres with this ten acres embedded within the area and that the only other ranch in the area that might have a similar situation would be the Adams' and he didn't believe they would be requesting this type of operation there. He stated that if they received a request, it would probably be from someone who operates this type of business all the time and that would not be the same. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 20 61 ij , n ° ri;'a' 6OVAL Mr. Lounds stated that of etof Judge Alderman's previous objections was with regards td stli6 haze and the heat plume and questioned if he was satisfied now that this type of incinerator would have a quality burn. Judge Alderman stated that he is satisfied based on the information he was given by Lee and Cindy Adams, who went to Martin County to actually inspect and view the proper operation of an above ground incinerator. He continued that since Mr. Wynne is going to personally responsible for this operation and they respect his reputation and his word that it will be done correctly. Mr. Hearn stated that he has heard enough testimony from those in favor of the project to convince him that they --should move this forward, but would like to see if there was anyone in the public who has objections to the project. Ms. Gloria Wymen stated that she lives west of the Alderman's and wasn't against the petition, but had a question as to approximately how many trucks would be entering and leaving the facility daily. She also q�.zestioned if the applicant would not be allowed to burn on Saturday or Sunday. Ms. Snay stated that one of the conditions listed in the Staff report was that they would not be allowed to operate on either Saturday or Sunday. Ms. Wymen stated that she too would like to have the wording concerning the extra year removed from the conditions since that was not agreed upon. Ms. Snay stated that since Mr. Wynne is requesting only the five years, they would go by his request. Ms. Wymen questioned where the nearest fire station was in regards to the subject property. Ms. Snay advised the nearest one was Station No. 11, which is on Shinn Road and is approximately 8 miles to the southeast. Mr. Lounds confirmed that she resides west of Judge Alderman and Ms. Wymen confirmed that was correct but stated she travels down that road daily to other property that she owns on Orange Avenue. Mr. Lounds questioned if she burns her pastures on her ranch and Ms. Wymen stated they do occasionally do controlled burns. Ms. Wymen also stated that they burn in conjunction with their neighbor and have tractors standing by and many people monitoring the burns at all times. Ms. Cynthia Adams, 25305 Orange Avenue, Adams Ranch stated that the problems with the offending incinerator to the east of their property do continue to this day. She advised that the owner has been cited again and that she has been in constant convict with Mr. Spitero at the Division of Forestry, who advised her that the situation has been turned over to DEP for review. She continued that for the past year they have been in the down draft of the smoke from this facility, it has been a public nuisance and that St. Lucie County had not been willing to step in to remedy the situation, until now. She advised that her major concern with approving another one of these types of operations is that the County will take measures to remedy any problems that may arise with these operations. She continued that she did visit Airbumers LLC in Palm City, who manufacture the incinerators and the principle is wonderful if it is applied and used properly. She also stated that the offending site couldn't properly run their facility because of the amount of debris they are bringing in and that she feels it has become a commercial operation. She advised that she wants to be sure that it is on record that the problems with the previously approved facility have gone on for far longer than they should have. Chairman Matthes stated that he would like to strongly suggest that she present that information to the Board of County Commissioners when it is heard before them because they have the ability to act upon these issues and this Commission is only an advisory board. Mr. Akins questioned if Ms. Adams was in support of Mr. Wynne's request with the three extra conditions that he presented. Ms. Adams stated she was in support, they want to be good P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 21 ,y Ae nRgf m,ighbors to the Wynne's, this is a very- special circumstance and they would ndf allow t9is under any other circumstance. Mr. Joe Spitero stated that he was the Forest Area Supervisor from the Division of Forestry for St. Lucie and Indian River Counties. He advised that 48 hours, under their requirements, would not be sufficient because under Florida Law you cannot burn green or wet materials. He stated that he thought a waiting period of 3 months might too excessive and that they recommend 30 — 45 days. He continued that generally after that amount of time it is dry enough, but if it has been raining a lot then there would be a problem and would need a longer waiting period. He stated that the amount of time really depends on the time of the year.- He also stated that trench burners do work properly when used the way they should be. He advised that DEP should be the permitting agency for the proposed incinerator on Wynne Ranch and that they are supposed to be handling the existing offending facility as well. He continued that he has requested a meeting between their agency, the DEP and St. Lucie County so that they can have this all transitioned over to DEP's authority. He stated that generally front-end loaders are used ,.with trench burners and track hoes are used for box burners and both can suppress a fire if it escapes. Mr. Grande questioned why the existing offending air burner has not been able to brought under control and if it is under the jurisdiction of the Division of Forestry. Mr. Spitero stated that there was some misunderstanding in the beginning because they thought it was part of a County ordinance and under their rules, they can only ask the offender to get the incinerator back into compliance. He confirmed that Ms. Adams has contacted them on numerous occasions and they have gone out and talked to Mr. Vickers and Mr. Tally and they brought themselves back into compliance for a while. He advised that the pits of a trench burner deteriorate because of the soil and once the problems are developed they have to continue to burn down and then make them redo a new pit. He also stated that unfortunately under their statutes there are no provisions for numerous violations and if they continue to bring it back into compliance, they must issue the authorization until another offense occurs. He advised that they deal with three different sets of burning laws and there are no restrictions or provisions for constant offenses in any of them. He also stated that he feels if Mr. Wynne goes with the above ground box burner instead of a trench burner they will not have those types of problems. Mr. Lounds questioned if the Forestry department had a preference one way or the other with regards to trench burning, box burning or open burning. Mr. Spitero stated that under Florida law they are allowed to do any of those as long as they meet the setbacks but he would prefer, under the Wynne's situation to see the box burner over a trench or open burning. Mr. Akins confirmed that Mr. Spitero's opinion is that the debris should pile 30-45 days to allow enough time to dry before burning. Mr. Spitero stated that is a general time frame and it really depends on the time of the year and the weather conditions as well as the types of material. Mr. Hearn questioned if they were conditioning the applicant to have a box burner. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Wynne has requested an above ground air curtain incinerator as one of his conditions. Mr. Spitero stated that he believes that summary would be considered to be a box burner. Mr. Kelly questioned if they should be adding that DEP should issue the permits as part of the conditions of this application as well. Mr. Spitero stated that DEP should be the regulating facility since this would operate for more than six months and was listed as a condition that way under the previous offending facility's conditional use permit. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 22 C n c i s 7 AL Mr. Gary Ford stated that he was the Vice President of Afi urners LLC of Palm City and stated that there is not much more he can add to what has previously been said. He advised that he would just like to reinforce a couple points. He passed out a brochure of the different types of incinerators for the record. He stated that there is no guarantee that Mr. Wynne will use their equipment specifically but they make both trench burners and the above ground fire box burners. He advised that both systems do work provided they are operated correctly but the difference is that the trench burners are much more operator dependant than the box burners. He stated that box burners in most instances burn much hotter and cleaner than trench burners do. He continued that their equipment has been proven to meet all of DEP's standards and requirements. He stated that open burning smoke levels are generally in the 60% range and a properly operated air curtain incinerator would be within the 5% range. He also stated that there is a much higher risk of a burn becoming out of control with an open burn as opposed to an incinerator. He advised that the above ground boxes contain the fire and that the air being forced over the box actually will contain the fire within the box. He continued that their manuals do give all the specifics necessary and even include setback distances froin:where the air curtain shouldbe with regards to the nearest combustible pile. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St: Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Wynne Ranch for a Change in Zoning from ' the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District because of the need to do so to complete the petitioners need to install and operate a proper above ground burner. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a .roll ; call . vote, the motion was passed unanimously (with a vote of. 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 23 AGEYFDA ITEM 7: FILE NO. CU-02-008 — WYNNE RANCH: This item was presented at the same time as Agenda Item # 6. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing. -r k' y �N AL Judge Alderman questioned if the three conditions that they had discussed with Mr. Wynne and that he presented would be incorporated into the motion with regards to the conditional use permit. Chairman Matthes stated they would be read into and incorporated as part of motion as requested. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Staridards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Wynne Ranch, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an air curtain incinerator in the U (Utilities) Zoning District because. the presentation has addressed all of the prior concerns, this appears to be beneficial because it is such a unique situation and is not intended to set a precedent and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The business operation authorized under this conditional use permit shall be limited to the short term storage, processing and burning of land clearing debris generated from land clearing operations as defined below: a. Land Clearing Debris means uprooted or cleared vegetation resulting from a land clearing operation. b. Land Clearing - 0,,neration linemis the uprooting: or clearing of vegetation in connection with construction for buildings and right- of-ways, residential or industrial development, mineral operations, or the clearing of vegetation to enhance property value and aesthetics. The removal and destruction of shade trees due to storm or insect damage is included as a land clearing operation. The business operation authorized under this conditional use permit is specifically prohibited from engaging in the business of land clearing and yard trash recycling unless and until a new conditional use permit is granted and the site is determined to be in compliance with the provisions of Section 7.10.12(C) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2. The use of the air curtain incinerator will only be permitted for use on this site for a maximum of five years and shall "sunset" at the end of 5 years. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 24 Fla i 3. The air curtain incinerator will be used on.Nyi for vegetative material from St. Lucie County, delivered to the site by trucks owned and operated by Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc. 4. No more than one above ground "box burner" air curtain incinerator shall be allowed on this site at any one time and must be approved and permitted by DEP. 5. The total site area devoted to the processing, storage and combustion of the collected land debris shall be limited to 9.9 acres. 6. The hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday — Friday. The ignition of the combustion fires may not occur before 9:00 a.m. and must be extinguished one hour before sunset. Absolutely no operation of :the air curtain incinerator may be conducted on either Saturday or Sunday. 7. The petitioner shall, prior to the issuance of any final zoning compliance, which is required for this conditional use permit to be fully executed, shall submit a copy of a Fire Prevention Plan for the combustion operation that has been approved by the St. Lucie County Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau. 8. The petitioner, including any assigns, shall submit to an annual fire prevention inspection to be conducted, upon reasonable notice, by the St. Lucie County Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau. 9. In the event that St. Lucie County is declared a federal disaster area following or as a result of either hurricane or freeze damage, the County Commission may suspend any or all of the standards above, with or without restrictions, for the duration of the declared emergency in order to facilitate the removal of vegetative debris. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds, with discussion. Mr. Lounds stated that one of the conditions is requesting that Mr. Wynne must now go to DEP to get all of the permits. He advised that he isn't sure about this because Mr. Wynne must now go back and get their approval because he was aware previously that they must be the agency to permit this. Chairman Matthes stated that the incinerator must be approved by DEP. Mr. Lounds stated that he read the condition to mean that the incinerator be approved for use by DEP but that doesn't mean that he is approved by DEP. Mr. Grande stated that he understood from Mr. Spitero that this operation would be under the control of DEP, as the permitting agency and any complaints would be made to DEP and not the Forestry Service. Mr. Lounds stated that was okay then. Mr. Hearn questioned if this took all of the enforcement out of the hands of our County Code Enforcement. Chairman Matthes stated that was not correct and that any citizen has the right to complain to Code Enforcement and they can enforce those concerns. Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 25 UNOFFICIAL � urME T T _ AGENDA ITEM 8: ORDINANCE 02-020 — CLARIFICATION OF3 ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS: Mr. Kelly stated that this item would be re -advertised and heard at the August 29, 2002 Special Meeting. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 26 OTHER BUSINESSMISCUSSION: Cog NSSION APPROVAL, Mr. Lounds questioned what would need to be done in order to considering allowing U (Utilities) conditional uses in the Agricultural Zoning Districts. Chairman Matthes stated that he too would like to have that considered. He stated this would avoid having to do a total zoning change and then have to have it rezoned back to agricultural later. Mr. Hearn stated he would like to get a little more information about what Agenda Item # 8 was because he would not be able to attend the special meeting on the 29t'. Ms. Young stated that currently the Environmental Control Hearing Board is enforcing that ordinance and this would change that to the Code Enforcement Board instead. She continued that the Environmental Control Hearing Board meets on a very infrequent basis and it was thought that it would be more appropriate to bring this under Code Enforcement. She stated this would deal with anything related to land clearing and recycling issues. Mr. Grande questioned the information they received with regards to the conference in Key West. Mr. Kelly stated that the information was provided for their information and they are not required to go. He advised that some of the members might feel it could be useful to them and that the County would be able to cover the cost of the registration fee but that the travel would be their own responsibility if they wish to go. Next special meeting will be August 29, 2002. Next scheduled meeting will be September 19, 2002. Mr. McCurdy stated that he would not be able to attend the meeting on the 19`s of September. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Approved by: Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 27 PA VIA 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,4/10W 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 °i F., _. ., •: 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 Ai-1NOUNCEMENTS 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 DRI, 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 o� 6he 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 RP AGENDA ITEM 1: ORDINANCE 02-020 — Clarification on Enforcement Proceedings i Violations of Section 7.10.12 Scrap, Waste & Recycling 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 inure 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. 1VIr. 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 IL Mr. Mwritt 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 r77 T T AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE 024025 — Class "A" Tow Trucks: AL 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 recominendation 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 e.. :i LiiJ ivr� 4F.lJ ti �:• busitoiss vehicles on his neighbors but isn't willing to allow his neighbors to inflict their b isiAks ,_ 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 locksmish, 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 01 a,. 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 riot 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. J.Je. 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 , ninute, 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 nkL put into service. Mr. Meuiitt 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 r Murphy stated he did not believe they wouirh 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 driversthatwere 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 area 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 r of any form would be cause to stop the driver- from keeping the truck these;: Chairrian'1Vlatthes` ' .. 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 slated that he feels the operators need to structure their business in such a way that they can meet the time requirements or else they-&ieu4d bid to be in that business. hd cC (Jk--f 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 tS'hester DRI: Mr. Dennis Murphy stated that Agenda Item # 3 was Ordinance 02-02Z 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 i AGENDA ITEM 4: ORDINANCE 02-028 — Interim Architeht-oral Standards. �,t s.• ,y: , 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 ...inirnu... 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 vatiety 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_oiat he didn't feel that bringing this ordinance forward just to get something r on record wasgood idea. He advised that he felt it shouldn't be brought to them for review a 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 itkrohibition. 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 ha:m 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- th--y 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 Staffs 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 separW'th6 bidmance, 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 faqade 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 understard. what was'. I 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 shouldp" 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 i recommendation as a starting point of standards. "o 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 V 4 { t � AGENDA ITEM 5c 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 cou.'.d be donet[a ,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 slated 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 wog ild 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: awn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Special Meeting August 29, 2002 Page 17 Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 08/15/02 JG�6 CpG �y yam► File Number CU-02-007 Ly 'o MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager[ DATE: August 9, 2002 s g ` SUBJECT: Application of Florida Center #or Recovery, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services in the I (Institutional) Zoning District: LOCATION: 3451 West Midway Road. ZONING DISTRICT: I (Institutional) j FUTURE LAND USE: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 12.17 acres PROPOSED USE: Social Services and Health Services SURROUNDING ZONING: AR-1 to the south; east, north and west..-1 (Institutional) to the northwest and west. RS-4 (Residential; Single -Family - 4 du/acre) to the northeast. SURROUNDING LAND. USES: ' The 'general existing use surrounding the property is institutional and some residential The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area is RS. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #6 (350 East Midway Road) Is located approximately 3Y2 miles to the east. UTILITY SERVICE: The subject propertyi's in the FPUA service area. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS I RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for West Midway Road is 80 feet. August 9, 2002 Subject: Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. Page 2 File No.: CU-02-007 . SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: lConcurrencyDeferralAffidavit. 7. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST.LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT, CODE In reviewing this application for the proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(X)(7), I (institutional) Zoning District, allows social servicesand health services as conditional "uses subject to Board of County Commission approval. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have F an adverse impact on nearby properties; The proposed conditional use is not expected, to -,adversely impact the surrounding properties. j 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed' conditional use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit; This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on' I' any public facilities in this area. 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. I Social Services and Health Services are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed treatment center is to be housed in the now vacapt Twins Oaks Alzheimer's facility. Staff finds that this petition meets the, standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives,and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. 'Staff :recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of, approval, subject _to the following conditions: The number of patients shall be limited to a maximum of 40. Please contact this office if you have any questions, on this matter. Attachment hf cc: County Administrator County Attorney Jack Hamilton File CENTER FOR RECOVERY, INC., OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SOCIAL SERVICES AND HEALTH SERVICES IN THE I , (INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations X. I INSTITUTIONAL 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect and environment suitable for institutional, public, and quasi -public uses, together with such other uses as may be compatible with institutional, public, and quasi -public surroundings. The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not define_ d under the SIC code but may be turther defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Community residential homes subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.07. (999) b. Family day care homes. (999) C. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by HRS. (999) d. Institutional residential homes. (999) e. Parks. (999) f. Police & fire protection (9221.9224) g. Recreational activities. (999) h. Religious organizations (e66) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a. Amphitheaters. (999) b. Cemeteries. (6553) C. Membership organizations (66) d. Correctional institutions. (9223) e. Cultural activities and nature exhibitions. (999) f. Educational services and facilities m) g. Executive, legislative, and judicial functions. (91,92.93,94.95.96.97) Adopted August 1, 1990 132 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations h. Fairgrounds. (m) i. Funeral and crematory services. (726) j. Theaters. (999) k. Medical and other health services. (ao) I. Postal service. (43) M. Residential care facilities for serious or habitual juvenile offenders. (M) n. Social services (83) o. Sporting and recreational camps (7o32) p: Stadiums, arenas, race tracks (7,94) q. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (sss) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages related to civic, social, and fraternal uses). (M) b. Restaurants. (Including the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premises consumption only.) (90) C. Funeral and crematory services. q26) d. Heliport landing/takeoff pads. (ags) e. Detached single-family dwelling unit or mobile home, for on -site security purposes. (M) f. Residence halls or dormitories. (sss) L Adopted August 1, 1990 133 Revised Through 08/01/00 1 u � �MA mMMIUAMI EE =IMSI �� qs".:F,. W Al I!W-4-11-lit MArWAIPPPI 1 0 • t- �'�,,• - w d 3; Y t 5 Land Use Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. �9 RS II II P/F RS i I P/ CU 02-007 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates City of Port St. Lucie Map prepared July 29, 2002 TW V been wqW aQ.-WpW.+,a w W� P-p— «w- Wh% e" ~h. been nI d. p W.4" CM a --t" eogeWe � `i Zoning AR-1 M Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. Ii II AR1 I I I � I I I I I CU 02-007 This pattern This pattern indicates subject parcel indicates City of Port St. Lucie 'M GJSj Map prepared July 29, 2002 TMa ffW bd been C-PW mraaraWW—*Q rer— PlIP— «w. NWe every eeal has beat made to Waade die mep an and aoeYftle rdomwa Pom"e, R Is rot k"nded for u ae a bpeey bkK*V documwt A Petition of Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Q1 Canal H I 1 105 II , II I I I � I 9� 03 --- I I I u: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � Q ~� •� ` 0 99�3 c 0 N Z 7,' n -- — CU 02-007 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates City of Port St. Lucie I -el GIST Map prepared July 29, 2002 Hom.etion po V-k. i Is nat k W4W to, we n a Ieg.1y bkK" d..-14. Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. a9 0.052 -------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 0.033 0.005 0 I -------------. - - - 0.98 ac. 0.941 1.644 ac ac. 92 : - 2.03 1.936 1.904 1.959 ac. 2.25 0.98 2.752 ac. arl, - ac. ac. ac. ac. ,i C U 02-007----------500' boundary E�� This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates City of Port St. Lucie Map prepared July 29, 2002 This —P hY bean brQ—W Pr.rsJr9 w If-- P'Pese. a*. Wh% awry eff t hu bean n-W b P-4d. the rrori a.rer. -d .ay.re Wm W P..R*..9 eo( kt-d d for use e.. b9W WON d--t i�I. ✓' - '4 i ILI MI $ � c��%� ��w ,' �� yP > tx�, � ��? .r � � i .4'�w°,+.� ° � e �{ � n � rs "t� •"T `� { Z—,m { sa- r-. a r�, - i iz �' -Lr-�� i i �g '�`° � r :. ,��•a�}�' r rz,. t 4'�^'�'; �'` y ✓ d j �,:x � � 3 4 �1 Rx _ � � : ,a,t. ,3 �. �° 3".tea ' .J t pV ,. d i� a b�.•a,. rr �_ 4 � Y �hI.6 -,i � � w . _: � �.•, � a s Le.. €,"' x "" ', w 'ti� S �y -`+� � f �-/- d^. �'a,'' � 3 T'- t ,". � Y ' �'� - k s � •ia�'m..'d v '. � .�!• i t 4 v5 ✓ m� ?rs ti` r .�' - 4 � T-r t °`Fcr-ax.�a"�.�-fi',�""}. �:. �.,xc 5- ta* ,a � i✓ ^x' i w �� . � � s ✓ ,4 yp� �� s r s mu ��ka rez�s3 �x,,.a .�.�-�s ,�' yfi �'�, � a ��'P i+ �s .-.� F� .,1$ s �•�, tf� l„v r. [ f °d'-#2i.}a,�.3..b.rat a-y>'a.,,, ..xt., a""U`,ksial s.` .. °� G a '✓`' ' Y �` ,,t 2ro s na y 4-W � ' 4 "5 { Y. 4,J Ito' e '`'' t +�, 3� (" ..�' � � s { + i 5 t . m•,a r l i- 'n • Fd ',� �'_ s f3 "r m � 1.. r.�_ ��KA ��.. k a <_. _,--.>c,�x xi"'^ - s'az... s.�,.k� �i'vr aL. ad . sa, {r , .s, .�i�s.. �.. -.: .. A.ze:''�_`' �.t � 4� 5ea� _d. '`•d i .✓?.. J ',e".?�.e (FILE NO. CU-02-007 Florida Center for Recovery, Inc.) N S h b M '7 M N -- b M M 01 -- 0o O a\ ^+ '.: n t�j �/1 7 ^+ b N 00 �/1 DO V1 00 h •.• M •.-• M 01 V O N g 01 M 01 N ^ M O N 01 K ... b O M O N h V'1 O. h n b t� b 01 N 01 eT pp O a\ 1 M 00 U 1 M 00 O O V1 01 N O Vl 01 � i M ��_ `7 o' O% a 0% O1 O� O1 O M O�}� O� of O O� O� O% O1 �_ M 00 ONO 00 I V W tl 00 w 'n h W 00 w 00 00 w ONO 00 00 n OO 00 00 00 00 w 00 a0 00 00 00 N V O. V O. of t` W O. V 01 V D\ 7 01 'R 01 v .--� M O1 V O. V' 01 V 01 <T m IT U V 01 V 01 -T 01 7 01 'V O. 7 U '7 01 V ON V 01 'R 01 V' 01 V 01 V 01 of 01 V 01 V N M M M M N M M M M M M M M M M. M t+f M M M M M M M M M M M M Ott M M u ww wwwww ww wEa uL. zwkwww`u�u:"wwwwwwwww 0 0 °Y' w V N1. O U V U U U V V V U U V pyy p U U U qqqq 5J ppp W W c. G. d 0. 93% RC..-1 a W w a 'rsi iL w W O c. W c. w c. a a c, r% A. A. LL iSi a A. r C° r C C C Y. C .... �' Y. C ti C C C x C d Z x X Y. Yg U 03 Lz LL .v w 4.. wo w w ww" www ww°wciwwww°O ww tr0rww°ww ww w W oo N I .0 a R7 a •O x>x 'O 'O .7 V 'G xaa •O 'O 'C aa.� •C7� a. AQ > •O a '0 aax Q rn 'o U o a din y at a s y O� O :O C :O_ 'V •� $ F N •a W W. ;p ... c �1 3 •O Tl 3 't7 3 'O ^ 4: .- ... '-• X 00 .-. 'C /. ,�' O f. Tr �r fy N .^.. F Q W .7 .� !. 'CN o o 0 3 o comomowao�o XoU oU3�N 333 Gu3w =tnAv� 33 3AU33 33 A3 o m wo '7 l� !` !\ oboN�n$ov b e� 01 h h N o0 b b oMne0eTTg 10 b MM o0 co .O 00 S n O N 0 O •T o O 01 h v O N O O N O O ^ O O N 0 N O O b N 0 O `�r N N O 0. V P. V •T m'n ^ M M M h VN v1 N o0 h M IT M h h M M Q M ent leniM M N b V z U A U Q 00 QQ Qca z c� m 3 as U zz ww qa: M N •t�pi N IJ p Ilk E il x x a 'Wyl z w ul wo3 z aaa qq N Q rn Co o c o °. 09 ,� a t�i o 0 0 u v o pp Gti Q c o 0 �& co U;a tic3 aet7 mm 1 H w 13 O j w t9 Y U 8 U V) c °1 o, e� U EU cl 1a w O o a9 i1 i0 C 0 C A v u rn n m C .� C p x v y d y u vyi u y d H a`3 N C U •� 3 a v o f 2 �v o x o a 2 a 5 a z'C m wUUwwwwC7C7x c xx xxxxxx as zz as U V M O n •T N O O. fV b 0\ �/1 N 00 `V n t'1 w^ O. 00 N m Vn N h �T 01 M V' N eT '6; I� O ..,,TT V N N 7 N 00 -+ eeyy `O r N O t�1 N O M Nj V' O N 01 b tt p cs b 7 R,� e1yY -- N C v1 O V N tV C C O --� C C O -� 1� O C- O O C C O^ 00 fV O C -+wl O O Q c U O M O O N b M- O� M N �/1 O O t` O h M O M O^ V) t- O O1 O 7 O f O t- O V' O N^ O. O 0O 1- O O O N `7 lO q O M M M Vl N Vl n M M M O 'c{ S �D O� 1/1 O. O O0 b M Il ^ C M N E '1 S O 01 O O, vi '- O m 01 o' ^ O; N M M N O V' O '7 N -+ V tz n N o O. ^ 6 O O O ^+ o N p O-^ 0 0 -+ O O p, C 0 0 N C 0 0 -- Do i i 0 0- O M N �O O O -+ O O O ^� " O 0 I I �o 7 No FF�y O U N O S N 88 O O O O O O O �/1 O O N S O N O S O O Col O �Q p p Np S b S 0 O 0 O ol O O O O p� O O --� O p� O O O O pQ 8^ O O b S 0 pOp 0 O pp^ 0 ep� 8 pQ S MMQQ v U O 0 D 0 n 0 b 0 �T 0 O 0 t` 0 M 0^ t` t- oo b v1 0 N 0 S l� O l� O N ao S 0o O oo t- n ao t- O of 0 O 0^ 0o ao M b N [� tz N n b /l 7 oo b^ % v1 O b v1 v1 n t` n M ao M t` w w 0 01 O 00 v1 O b v1 - 0 h 0 O p N O C N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 M 0 N O N O N O N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 M 0 N 0 N 0 N O N O N V a 3! O V1 O �/'1 O V1 O V1 O V1 O h O h O v1 O h O O h h M - O v1 0 �/1 0 v1 0 v1 0 V1 0 v1 0 h CD V} v1 0 vl 0 V1 0 vl 0 V1 0 v1 0 v1 O vl O v1 O h M O 0 0 0 h 0 h M M O M O M O M O M o M O M O M O M M O o V1 O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M o M 0 M o m p „_, M O M O M O h O M m Oo0 M m M M M O M OX LHOUO M M m tm'1 tm'1 M M .�'1 M M M tR_ f+�1 M M M O M M tm�1 M M m M M M m m O M M M t��1 Ar t��1 t��f �O t��1 M 0 V .w -i,.; >'-JI. LUCIE COUNTY. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION;_; O PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA t, August 15, 2002 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given in accordance: with': Section 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development.Code and the provisions of the St: Lucie County Compiehens(ve Plan, the following applicants have requested that. the St. Lucie County Planning and. Zoning Commission:consider their following requests: - - 1. CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single= Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the -I (Institutional) Zoning District for the following described property: THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 Of, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS ROAD RIGHT -OF= WAYS AND FURTHER LESS THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE SOUTH 210 FEET. Location: Southeast corner of the intersection of Selvitz ,Road and Edwards Road. 2. TIMOTHY AND DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH; for a Condi- tional Use Permit to allow the operation of -a car. wasfil Facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Dis- trict for the following described property: LOTS 11 & 12, BLOCK 169, !AKEWOOD PARK `w41T 12A, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 11,`PAGE 35, PUB-. LIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY; FLORIDAF' 1 Location: 5321 Sunshine State Parkway /.Turnpike Feeder Road. 3. GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, INC., for a Change In Zoning', from the AGA (Agricultural - I du/acm).Zoning Distract to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning.Disfrid for the fol- lowing described. property:: a < :- IN SECTION..15, -.TO.WNSHIP 34 RANGE • 39, THE SOUTH 830 OF.THE.EAST1550'OF:THE:SOUTHA/2 OF NORTHEAST"1/4 LESS EAST 80'`FT AND.LESS SOUTH 60 FT. FOR ROAD AND CANAL.R�W (6) (O.R 348-1874) Location: Northwest cornet of the intersection of Indrrb Road. and Emerson Avenue. t 4. WYNNE RANCH for- a .Change fn ;Zoning Erom; the AG-5 (Agricultural-1 du/5aa•es) Zoning'Districttd# U (Utilities) Zoning' District fore the following described propeitt'i A PARCEL OF LAND EYING IN THE SOUTHEAST:ONE QUARTER (I/4) OFrSECTiON-5 TOWNS�JIP 35_SQUTkf; RANGE-37-EAST,,S7 CUGIE CO(INTY;*FLiDRlOA AND, COMMENCE AT?HE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5;. THENCE SOUTH 87°5745" WEST AS, BASIS OF BEARINGS, `ALONG THE SOUTH WNE i'OF SAID SECTION.5;-A DISTANCE OF- 2672.00 AEVTO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER -OF. SAID SOUTNEA$T:.ONE QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 5; .THENCE: NORTH 00°27'15 EAST. ALONG. THE WEST" LIME OF SAID ;SQUTHWEST,ONE QUARTER.(1/4) OF. SECTION'.5 A ,,DISTANCEOF .1894 32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN= NING; THENCE CONTINUENORTH'00'2715"=EAST ALONG SAID. WEST `LINE„ A DISTANCE QF 656 70 FEET, THENCESOUTH899916" .EAST AEPARTING SAID -WEST, LINE, A DISTANCE OF.. 656.70 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 00'27'15" WEST, A .DISTANCE OF 1656.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°19'16"WEST; A 015• TANCE .OF 656.70 FEET, TO. _ THE .'POINT :OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT -FOR. INGRESS AND EGRESS AND. PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE OVER THE WEST 25 FEET THEREOF. CONTAINING 9,900 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Location: - North side of Orange Avenue, approximately. 5.75 miles west of Minute Maid Road, 5. WYNNE RANCH, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation -of an Air Curtain Incinerator in the. U (Utili- ties) Zoning District for the following described property: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER (1 /4) OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 87°57'45" WEST, AS A BASIS OF BEARINGS, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 2672.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE ' QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTIONS; THENCE NORTH OV27'15" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 1894.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN- NING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 00°27'15" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 656.70 :. FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°19'I6" EAST, DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 656.70 FEET;. THENCE SOUTH 00°27'15". WEST, A DISTANCE OF 656.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89-19'16- WEST; A DIS-TANCE OF 656.70 FEET TO THE . POINT OF. BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO ` AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS , AND EGRESS AND PUBLIC: UTILITY AND DRAINAGE OVER THE WEST 25 FEET_THEREOF. CONTAINING 9,900 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. [. Location: ` North side of _Orange Avenue] approximately .6.75 miles west of Minute Maid Road. •6. FLORIDA CENTER FOR, RECOVERY, INC.,-for a Cotrdl=: S tional Use Permit to allowocial Services and, (fealfh Care Facilities.' the I (Institutional) Zoning District for the'fol-. owing described -property t W WHITE CITY S/D 05Y3640" BEG,4T NW.COR OF LOT 100. RUN E135 FT TH W135 FT, TH N TO P.08-LESS RD AND CANAL R/W;= (44) (1.72 AC) (MAP 34/05S) (OR 1524-2594) N ` WHITE CITY S/D.OV 40 THAT PART OF LOT 106 Qd LYG E OF DRAINAGE .CANAL Al 03 -LESS TFAT PART LYG N.OF-DRAINAGE CANAL #103 -.AND N-130.FT T .' I- OF LOTS-112.AND 113 LYG e. DRAINAGE CANAL c jj f #103 AND ALL OF LOT 107 -`LESS RD.AND CANAL jk R/W- (10.45 AC) (AAAR34/05S) (OR 1524-2594) . a.' Location: 3451 West Midway Road > PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held -in Commission Chdmliers, . Roger Poitras Annex .2300 Virginia. Avenue, For J'lerce Florida on August 1.5,'2002, beginning at 7.00 P.M. or as L soon thereafter as possible F- PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105 Florida Statutes >F at. person decides to appeal any decision made by �a board, ,ageiwy;-or commission with respect to any, maltet wn;fd -s_ ered.at:a meeting or heaiing,.he will need o record of tfie 41 proceedings and Niaf; for.such purposes, he may need, ro ensure that a yerbatim record of the proceedings is tnadAf which record includes the testimony and: evidence which the appeal is -to be based. ' 1S' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA , /S/ Stefan Matches, CHAIRMAN . Publish: August 1, 2002 2487476 From: <Herbertjbeach@aol.com> To: <comdev@co.st-lucie.fl.us> Date: 9/19/02 1:08PM Subject: P&Z Meeting-09/19/02-Agenda item # 3 Mr.Murphy - Please forward this message to each member of the P&Z board: Dear Board Members: In regard to Agenda item #3-Florida Center for Recovery,lnc.;file # CU-02-007-1 believe that there is a great need for a facility of this type in St.Lucie County and the presently vacant facility or buildings, located on West Midway Road is very suitable for this type of ministry to the community. I know that you will receive objections from those that "don't want it in my backyard" or those that proclaim that it will not be safe for their children. However, there has never been, to my knowledge, any problem from a similar type of facility located on the same road not far from this proposed facility, which probably some of the surrounding neighbors may be in need of. Therefore, I strongly request that you vote to approve this petition and forward it on to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval. Please forward this letter along with your recommendations to the Commissioners. Respectfully, Herbert J.(Herb)Beach 1012 Saeger Avenue White City, FL 34982 Tel.-772-464-5899 Fax772-460-3144 Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 09/19/02 JG�E CpG �y yam► File Number RZ-02-018 U.) 1 OR��P MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager `, DATE: September 12, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of Rodney Hopkins for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District. (File No.: RZ-02-018) LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: FUTURE LAND USE: PARCEL SIZE: PROPOSED USE: 4891 North U.S. Highway No. 1 CG (Commercial, General) I (Institutional) COM (Commercial) 2.54 acres Adult Congregate Living Facility PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A" - Section 3.01.03(X) I (Institutional) - contains the designated uses, which are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted through the conditional use process. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further review and approvals. Any use not found within the zoning district regulations are designated as prohibited uses for that district SURROUNDING ZONING: CG (Commercial, General) to the north, south, east, and west. I (institutional) Zoning is to the north. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property is vacant. There are some commercially developed properties in the area. The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area is COM (Commercial). September 12, 2002 Subject: Rodney Hopkins Page 2 RZ-02-018 FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #7 (4900 Ft. Pierce Boulevard), is located approximately 4 miles to the west. UTILITY SERVICE: Water and sewer facilities are provided by an on -site well and septic system. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for North U.S. Highway No. 1 is 200 feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and has met the standards of 11.06.03. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The request is compatible with the COM (Commercial) Future Land Use classification, which allows institutional zoning. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; (Institutional) Zoning is consistent with the existing commercial uses in the area. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment. September 12, 2002 Page 3 Subject: Rodney Hopkins RZ-02-018 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Any development will need to demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities in the area to support opening of an institutional use in existing buildings would not necessarily trigger further, review.. Adult Congregate Living Facilities (ACLF) generally do not generate very much traffic. The existing well and septic system will be need to be certified by the Health Department as meeting the requirements for an ACLF. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed amendment is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is currently developed. Any further development will be required to comply with all state and local environmental regulations. 7. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such patterns; The proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern. 8. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code; The proposed amendment may not be in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. COMMENTS The petitioner, Rodney Hopkins, has requested this change in zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District on property located at North U.S. Highway No. 1 in order to establish an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) on the subject property. Attached is a copy of Section 3.01.03(X) — I (Institutional), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, which delineate the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in these zoning districts. If a change in zoning is approved, the applicant, by right, would be allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses section. Any use under the September 12, 2002 Page 4 Subject: Rodney Hopkins RZ-02-018 Accessory Uses section would be allowed only if one or more of the permitted uses exist on the subject property. Any use under the Conditional Uses section could only be allowed if it first receives approval through the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of approval to Board of County Commissioners. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment hf cc: County Administrator County Attorney Rodney Hopkins File Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning. MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF RODNEY HOPKINS, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE I (INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE .... [CITE REASON[S] WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, 'AND THE- STANDARDS OF. REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF RODNEY HOPKINS, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE I (INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE.... [CITE REASON[S] WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. t OR . _Section 3.01:03 .g Zoning District UseRegulations„} ("at t, (2) Used merchandise stores ts93? fir` (3) Sporting;;goods (s9a�i ". . " (4) Book &stationary s�U,r 4 t 7 t$9426943j . (5). Jewelry (6). Hobby, toy and games (ssasi t (7) Camera "& photographic supplies" ts9asi " " r Gifts, novelty aril souvenir t694i" 9luggage leatfier oods ssaei " �` (10) Fabric and rrtill.products t5040i. '" .; (11) Catalog;"ma! l order, and -di recf sellin g ts9sus9s3i f (12) Liquified petroleum gas:(propane)'ts9eai (13) Florists ts992i 0 4) Tobacco tsss3i (15) News dealers/newsstandsrs99ai (16)` ' Optical goods ts99si ' (17) Misc retail (See SIC Code for specific_uses) (s9s9) hh: Misoellaneous personal services (see SIC Code Major Group 72): (1) Tax return services (mi): (2) Misc retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (rag): ii. Mm"Ilaneous business services (see SIC Code Major Group 73): (1) Oetective,;guard and armored cacservces (7351)" " Security system services n3ezy ' (3} News syndicate (7383) (4) Photofinishing laboratories tsarF..t: p. (5) Business�services.- misc. n3esi Mobile home dealers tsz» kk. Mobile food vendors (eating places, fruits &vegetables -retail) tsssi " II. Motion pictures Lei' mm: " " Motor vehicl parking - commercial parking & vehicle storage; nn. aszr Museums, galleries: and gardens:(sa} oo. Personnel supply services nisi PP.- Photo finishing services treat qq. Photographic services t7zzi '- rr. Postal'services tali ss. Recreation facilitieSim) tt. Repair services Lei ' uu. Retaif'trade-intloor display and sales only, except as provided in Section 7.00.0 ' t9s9i W. Social services: {,1) Individual & family'social services (e32/939), (2) Child care services te3si (3) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services (e33) " ww. Traver agencies (4m) xx, Veterinary services (074i I Lot Size Requirements . Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. �i Adopted August i, 1990" 119 Revised Through 08/01/00 i _0 ,, • SQctidd 01;03 y Zoning Oistnct Use Regulations F _44 W3 Y 4. Dimensional Regulations x �S / i ., _ 3g Dimensional requirements shall ;be rn accordance with Sectionfi7Q4 00 �ttf g 5 C7ff street'Parkrng:and Loading"Requirements�`�W s , 7f i a S k F -,T1lp Off, street parking and loading re. quirements ate subject to Iectron f7 Q6.00. €"1 ;4 5. Landscaping Requirements , LanJscapmg requirements are subject to Section L L - 7. Conditional: Uses .' Adult establishments subtact to requirements-1 of Sec:.7 b.: Drinking'places (alcoholic beverages)) ='free-standing: t563). c: Disinfecting pest control"services. ��az d: Amusement parks c sss� ' $�_ Go=cart tracks (7,999) . F f. Hotels &motels. no�� _ N g. Household goals warehousing antl storage -mini warehouses.(sss) ` h. Marina recreational boats only. (o«a) is Motor vehicle repair services -body repair, ns3j 1: Sporting .and (esxeational camps. vo3z� k: Retail trade. s _ (1) : liquor stores. (ssz) k. , Stadiums, arenas; and race tracks. nsa) F I Telecommunication towels - subject to""the standards of Section 7.10.28 8. Accessory Uses 4: Accelspgry uses ar'e subject to the requirements of Section 8.00 00, and include ttze foiti ),,ir : a a• (alcoholic beverages as an accessory use to a restaurant and/or civic; social, d` and`fratemal organizations).. " b. One srngle=family dwelling unit contained within the commercial building, or a detached si�gfe-family dwelling"or mobile home, "(for on -site security ptjrposes). c. Retail trade:, (1) Undistilled alcoholic beverages (accessory to retail sale of food). _ 1 Adopted.August 1 1990 120 Revised Through 08/01/00 under she S1C code;but'.maybe further.defined )n Sect'" 2.Q0 00 of tht3 codes 2 Permitted Uses "AM j a. Community residential homes subject to the`provisions of Secttorr 7 90.07; teas>j b. Family day care homes(990) c, Fanif y `residential 9�omes provided that such homes shall not be ipcate- Within a ratlius of % .' one thousand (I000) feet of another existing'such;famtly r'esdentfal home;and provided that the.'sponsoring,agency or the `Department of Health and, Rehabilitatwe,Services (HRS)" r� x: notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home oCeupancy"thot the home is "licensed by HRS'. ter d.'"' Institutional residential homes, (ees) e. Parks.•tese) `F> f., Police &"fire protection tezz,.ena) g. Recreational activities. h: , ` - Reiigtousorganizations (eas) 3. , Lot Size Requirements Lot, size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations � J Dimensional requtrements.shail be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 3 5. Off•=§treetParking.anct Loading Requirements Offer"street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00, 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses 1" a. Amphitheaters. tee9) b. Cemeteries. tssss). c. Membership organizations tea) d. Correctional institutions. (9m) e. t Cultural activities and nature exhibitions. (ees) . f. Edueational services and facilities (w) g. Executive, legislative, and judicial functions. ters2s3s4,95.e6s7> Adopted August 1, 1990 .132 Revised Through 08/01/00 VJ ettk� m 9 Z D O U z F- ir A Petition of Rodney Hopkins for a Change in Zoning from the CG. (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District. V Indrio Road Del Monte Street Map prepared August 27, 2002 V*ft .y~t—b--&b� " o.oa .,d FRnnWm pon 11 A 11 —k-ld d br use e • bQ* bk.*9 d— Rodney Hopkins :WE I Indrio Road Indrio Rood Map prepared August 27,2002 Tt" -W t- b— —Obd brp_wpw�v W W— VAft --V ~h� b— —ft W W.M. 0. ..a .d kft. � . kb n ft—W 1. — - . b,* ' - Indrio Rood RZ 02-018 ThIS pattern indicates Map Prepared August27, 2002 subject parcel nft n*p /e beat Wr~ 1mY��0—ft �w wbmno0 P �/- Mde A—Y aA fm bs maft A,PoAk ft nnmananlao0 �ea� ' `T _ Ydunrlm poatf;ih MiM�JeO loan n a Ypry ��0 Oo�a�t- 1 BOARS OF COUNTY COMMUNITY COMMISSIONERS,_ DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR' September 9, 2002 �OR10Q' In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that RODNEY HOPKINS, has petitioned St. Lucie County -fora Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the f(Institutional) Zoning District for h%6 following described -property: Location: 4891 North U.S. Highway No.1. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The first public hearing on the, petition wig be held at y:00 P.M., or as`'soon thereafter as possible, on Thursday, September 19, 2oo2, County Commissioner's Chambers, St..`Luck County Administratlion BaWng Annex, '2300 Yughda Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public, hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled` hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or ` provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying x during.n hearing will be sworn in. Any patty .to, the proreoding wijl -be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date -certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above -described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. Please call 7721462-1582 if you have any questions, and refer to- File Number RZ-02-018. Sincerely, _ ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AM ZONING COMMSSION Stefan Matthes, Chairman JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 PAULA A. LEW15, District No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHIN50N, District No. 4 CLIFF DARNE5, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300,Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590 • Planning: (772) 462-2822 GIS/Technical Services: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fax: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 • Fax: (772) 462-2132 -af 9 - Notices s: Ili LL1C1E COUNTYNINGAND - PLAN ZONING COMMISSION ZLIC HEARING AGENDA Septembw 19 2002 -TO WHOM,iT MAY, CONCERN: NOTICE iz hereby'glven in ,rkordance gh Setlion ' 11.00.03 of �0. St. Lucie County land: Development Code and tha ptorizlons of the St. lWa County Com_ prefienslve Pion. the ioilow- Ing apPRcaM hos raloeskd - tlyd, dto St. WCk County . Ploening and Zoning Com- - mission 5oonsider thek fol� : RODNEY HOPKINS. for a Change In Zoning from Rie co (Commefc14 G&W.4 Zoning DIWIct to the I (Inz satutiomq Zoning Ql-fdo fonds following described PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 9/19/02 File Number CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager 0N DATE: September 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of Timothy Rose, for a Conditional Use Permit and minor site plan to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility, to be known as Rose Car Wash in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. LOCATION: 5321 Sunshine State Parkway (Turnpike Feeder Road). West side of the Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Road, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of Sunshine State Parkway and Winter Garden Parkway. ZONING DESIGNATION: CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) LAND USE DESIGNATION: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 0.74 acres PROPOSED USE: The construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility. SURROUNDING ZONING: To the north is RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family— 4 du/acre) and I (Institutional) Zoning; to the south is CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning; to the east is RS-4_ .(Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/acre) and CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning and to the west is RM-5 (Residential, Multiple -Family 5 du/acre) Zoning. SURROUNDING LAND USES: RU (Residential Urban) and P/F (Public/Facilities) to the north, RU (Residential Urban) to south, east and west. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #7 (4900 Ft. Pierce Boulevard) is located approximately one and one-half (1 1/2) miles to the west. UTILITY SERVICE: Onsite water and septic sewer system. At the time that sewer services are brought into this area (currently projected to be September 11, 2002 Petition:- Rose Car Wash Page 3 File No.: CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 The proposed car wash facility is located in between two distinct residential areas, Lakewood Park and Holiday Pines. Existing "commercial areas" are located in the immediate area of this car wash facility are located to the south/southwest of this site along the Turnpike Feeder Road frontage. The proposed car wash use, at the requested location, would support the residential uses within the surrounding area. 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on nearby properties; The proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The proposed site is located within an area zoned for neighborhood commercial businesses. To the east of the subject site I is the Holiday Pines single-family residential subdivision. To the south/southeast of the subject site is vacant commercial land and some limited retail uses that address local service needs (Bank of America, Habits Bar and Grill and a Mobil Station). To the north/northeast are the Lakewood Park Methodist Church and the recently approved Portofino Shores Planned Unit Development. To the west are additional single-family residential units within the Lakewood Park Subdivision. As part of this application, the petitioners submitted a noise impact study that attempts to show that the noises generated by this facility would not be in violation of the County's noise regulations and standards. Accepting for the moment the presumption that the noise study used a comparable example of a self-service car wash, (the comparable example selected is a self-service car wash facility located at the intersection of North US #1 and Avenue D in Ft. Pierce) the conclusions from this report do not appear to be readily transferable. to this site. The comparison car wash facility is located in a Commercial General (or the City of Ft. Pierce equivalent terminology for the County's Commercial General Zoning Designation) zoning district. The petitioned use. is located. in an area of Commercial Neighborhood Zoning and as noted in the above purpose statement; the'CommercialiNeighborhood-Zoning District is designed to support limited commercial uses, commonly seen and accepted as neighborhood ,type services/uses. Concluding that a self service car wash, located in a General Commercial area in the City of Ft. Pierce, with the FEC Railroads Mainline located along the parcels eastern boundary line, North US #1 along the parcels western boundary line, and with only limited residential uses within 500 feet of the actual site, is an equivalent use for impact assessments seems to be an inaccurate' comparison. The noise study concluded that the proposed use would satisfy the requirements of Chapter 1-13.8, entitled Noise Control, of the St. Lucie County Code. of Ordinances: The applicant through, the site design process, has. attempted to mitigate any negative effects to these residential properties. The County finds that this site meets the minimum technical requirements necessary to consider granting; approval to this project. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit; This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Water and sewer services will be provided via a well and septic system. At the time that sewer services are brought into this area (currently projected to be within a 3-5 year planning period from the date of this memo), this commercial development will be required to connect into that system. Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Road, a state roadway, has been determined to currently operate at a Level of Service Standard of B, immediately adjacent to the project site. The applicant, based upon the proposed square footage, is not required to submit a traffic impact analysis for the project. The right-of-way width for the Turnpike feeder Road/Sunshine State Parkway is 100-feet in this area. The proposed commercial project will not impact any other public services provided by the County for this area. An additional 15 feet of Right -of -Way will be required as part of final site plan reviews 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposedconditional use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to create significant adverse impacts on the natural' environment. The developer's Existing Vegetation Plan indicates a number of existing oak and pine trees on this site. During the design of the proposed project, the developer has proposed to preserve two -pine tree hammocks located along the eastern property boundary adjacent to the Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Way adjacent to the project entrance. The applicant's site plan indicates a retaining wall being installed in order to protect and preserve the tree hammocks from proximity to paved surfaces, finished grade changes and the proximity of the sites septic drain field. STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT/SITE PLAN REVIEW In addition to the minimum standards of review and project development set out in Section7.00.00, Section 11.02.07, of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code identifies the minimum Standards of Reviewfor all proposed Site Plans. These standards must be met in order for any site plan approvals to be considered. Staff has reviewed the request for Minor Site Plan approval,, utilizing these requirements and notes the following: A. CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed building or use is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of this Code, the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and ,the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County, and the proposed use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the particular provisions of this Code authorizing such use and any other requirement of the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County. The proposed Rose Car Wash' site plan has been determined to be consistent with all applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 7.10.22 of the County's Land Development Code sets forth specific design standards that are to be complied with as part of the development of any self service car wash facility. - 1 September 11, 2002 .,-=Petition: Rose Car Wash Page 5 Fide No.: CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 i B. EFFECT ON NEARBY PROPERTIES 1 The proposed building or use will not have an. undue adverse affect upon nearby properly,' the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities, and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare'. The proposed Rose Car Wash, as submitted, has been determined to not have an undue adverse effect upon nearby properties. The proposed site is located within an area zoned for neighborhood commercial businesses. To the east of the subject site is the Holiday Pines single-family residential subdivision. To the south/southeast of the subject site is vacant commercial land and some limited retail (Bank of America,, Habits Bar. and Grill and'Mobil Station) uses that addr::ess local service needs. To the north/northeast are the Lakewood. Park Methodist Church and the recently approved Portofino Shores Planned :Unit Development. To the west are additional single family. residential units within the Lakewood Park Subdivision. ('he'design of the site, which directs the service bays in a, perpendicular manner, can be expected to produce a. condition where incompatible visual effects may be expected. on the residential properties located to north/northeast of the facility. To offset this visual effect the applicant has proposed an eight -foot high -articulated wall. The applicant's design of the eight -foot high masonry wall includes 20-foot panels with two -foot offsets. As previously stated, the petitioners submitted a noise. impact study that attempts to show that the noises generated by this facility would not be in violation of the County's noise regulations and standards. Accepting for the moment the presumption that the noise study used a comparable example of a self-service car Wash, (the comparable example selected is a self-service car wash facility located. at the intersection of North US #1 and AvenueD in. Ft.•Pierce) the conclusion from this report do not appear to be readily transferable' to this site. Chapter 1-13.8 of the Code`of Ordinance .provides the acceptable noise level for uses within St. Lucie County. Based upon the acceptable noise level, the proposed use has been foundconsistent with the surrounding area. 2. All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the ! proposed building or use on the immediate vicinity, through building design, site design, landscaping and screening. The proposed Rose Car Wash site plan has been determined to be consistent with all applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 7.10.22 of the County's Land Development Code sets forth specific design standards j that are to be complied with as part of the development of any self service car wash facility. 3. The proposed building or use will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as not j to interfere with the development and use of neighboring property, in accordance with applicable district regulations. I September 11, 2002 Petition: Rose Car Wash Page 6, File No., CU-02-001 and M14SP-02-004 The proposed Rose Gar Wash site plan has been determined to be consistent with, all applicable provisions of the St, Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 7.10.22 of the County's Land Development Code sets forth specific design standards that are to be complied with as part of the development of any self service car wash facility: C. ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES li The proposed building , or use complies with the standards of Chapter V, Adequate Public Facilities. The subject property will receive water and sanitary sewer services through an onsite well and septic system. At the time that sewer services are brought into this area (currently projected to be within a 3-5- year planning period from the date of this memo), this commercial development will be required to connect into that system. Roadway capacities in- this area are LOS B. This facility will not cause any failed Level of Service condition to exist in`this area. The proposed development activities do not violate any of the minimum level of service standards set forth in Chapter V, Adequate Public . Facilities,, of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. D. ADEQUACY OF FIRE PROTECTION , The applicant has obtained from the St. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written confirmation, or has otherwise demonstrated by substantial credible evidence, that water supply, evacuation facilities, and emergency access are satisfactory to provideadequate fire protection. The applicant has obtained from the St. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written confirmation that the proposed site plan conceptually meets the minimum access and water supply requirements for fire protection services at this facility. E. ADEQUACY OF SCHOOL FACILITIES L The proposed building or use will be served by adequate school facilities The applicant is proposing a commercialuse that will not impact school facilities. i F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT For developments required to provide an environmental impact report under Section 1102.09(A)(5), the proposed development will not contravene any applicable provision of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, or of Chapter Vlll, "Natural Environment Analysis of the St. Lucie County Barrier Island Study Analysis of Growth Management Policy Plan, Kimley--Hom and Associates, Inc. (August 1982). The subject property is less than 10 acres in size, therefore, it does not trigger the thresholds for submitting an environmental impact report. i I Al - .. September'11, 2002 Petition: Rose Car Wash Page 7 File No.: CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 The developer is proposing to work with County Staff during the vegetation removal process, in order to preserve existing native vegetation found within, the open areas for the site. In addition, as part of the sitedesign, the developer has incorporated a number of existing oaks, pine and palm trees within the landscape buffers and has incorporated retaining walls which will be utilized to protect and preserve existing tree hammocks proposed for preservation on the site. The water. utilized within the operation of the car wash facility will be recycled. COMMENTS The petitioner, Timothy Rose, is seeking approval for a conditional use permit in order to construct and operate a 2,542 square foot self -serve car wash facility for property located at 5321 Sunshine State Parkway/'Turnpike Feeder Road (approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of the Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Road and Winter Garden Parkway) in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. The project will be known as Rose Car Wash. Self- service car wash facilities are permitted as conditional uses in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners. TheSt. Lucie County Land Development Code sets forth the overallpurpose of a conditional use permit and the authority for granting of a conditional use permit. According to Section 11.07.01(A) and (B) the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is: Section 11.07.01(A) I 'The purpose of this section is to provide for uses that are generally compatible with 3 the use characteristics of a zoning district, but which require: individual review of their location, design, intensity, configuration and public facility impact in order ,to determine the appropriateness of the use on an y particular site in the district and their, compatibility with adjacent uses. Conditional uses may require the imposition of additional' conditions to make the uses compatible in their specific contexts." Section 11,07.01(B) `The Board of County Commissioners may, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of:this Code, grant conditional uses permits for those uses enumerated in each of the zoning districts in Section 3.01.03 of this. Code. Staff finds that this petition does satisfy the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is .not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and I policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. '4 Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. i Attachment ,I I g -ls-C7Z- PLANNING AND ZONING COMNUSSION REVIEW: 9tt870T File Number CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Community Development Director DATE: July 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of Timothy Rose, for a Conditional Use Permit and minor site plan to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility, to be known as Rose Car Wash in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. LOCATION: 5321 Sunshine State Parkway (Turnpike Feeder Road). West side of the Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Road, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of Sunshine State Parkway and Winter Garden Parkway. ZONING DESIGNATION: CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) LAND USE DESIGNATION: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 0.74 acres PROPOSED USE: The construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility. SURROUNDING ZONING: To the north is RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family-4 du/acre) and I (Institutional) Zoning; to the south is CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning; to the east is RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/acre) and CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning and to the west is RM-5 (Residential, Multiple -Family 5 du/acre) Zoning. SURROUNDING LAND USES: RU (Residential Urban) and P/F (Public/Facilities) to the north, RU (Residential Urban) to south, east and west. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #7 (4900 'Ft. Pierce Boulevard) is located approximately one and one-half (1 1/2) miles to the west. UTILITY SERVICE: Onsite water and septic sewer system. At the time that sewer services are brought into this area (currently projected to be July,1:0, 2002 Petition: Rose Car Wash Page 3 File No.: CU-.02-001 and MNSP-02-004 The proposed car was facility is located in between two distinct residential areas, Lakewood Park and Holiday Pines. The only "commercial areas" in the immediate area of this car wash facility are located to the south/southwest of this site.along the Turnpike Feeder Road frontage. As part of this application, the petitioners submitted a noise impact study that attempts to show that the noises generated by this facility would not be in violation of the County's noise regulations and standards. Accepting for the moment the presumption that the noise study used a comparable example of a self-service car wash, (the comparable example selected is a self-service car wash facility located at the intersection of North US #1 and Avenue D. in Ft. Pierce) the conclusion from this report do not appear to be readily transferable to this site. The comparison car wash facility is located •in a Commercial Ceneral(or the City of Ft. Pierce equivalent terminology for the County's Commercial, General Zoning Designation) zoning district. The petitioned use is located in an area of Commercial Neighborhood Zoning and as noted in the above purpose statement, the Commercial Neighborhood -Zoning bistrict is designed to support limited commercial uses, commonly seen and accepted as neighborhood type services/uses. Concluding that a self service car wash, located in a General Commercial area in the City of Ft. Pierce, with the FEC Railroads Mainline located along the parcels eastern boundary. line, North US #1' along the parcels western boundary line, and with only limited residential uses within 500 feet of the actual site, is an equivalent f use for impact assessments seems to.be an inaccurate comparison. it is therefore determined that the proposed car wash use, at the requested location, is not compatible with the adjoining uses of land in that there are numerousresidential uses within thel immediate area of the proposed use, the highway on which this use is located_ carries a lower volume of traffic than does the comparison use in Ft. Pierce and other mitigating noise generators (e.g. the railroad) are not present at the proposed. Lakewood Park site. 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on nearby properties; The Proposed conditional use is expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The proposed siteis located within an area zoned for neighborhood commercial businesses To the east of the subject site is the Holiday Pines single-family residential subdivision,' To the south/southeast of the subject site is vacant commercial; land and some limited retail uses that address Jocal service needs . To the north/northeast is the Lakewood Park Methodist Church and the recently approved Portofino Shores Planned Unit Development. To the west are additional single-family residential units within the Lakewood Park Subdivision. �i applicant The ppli ca through, the site design process, has attempted to mitigate, any negative effects to these residential properties. However, the site plan as submitted fails to meet the minimum screening standards of Section 710.22 of the County's Land Development Code. , Specific areas that remain to be addressed include perimeter landscaping and screening around the site and the location and type of on -site lighting. So long as the applicant' fails to address these minimum design standards, the County cannot find that this site meets the minimum technical requirements necessary to consider granting approval to this project. July 10 , 0 2 02 Petition: Rose Car Wash Page 4 File No.: CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit; This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Water and sewer services will be provided via a well and -septic system: At the time that sewer services are brought into this area (currently projected to be within a 3-5 year planning period from the date of this memo), this commercial development will be required to connect into that system. Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Road, a state roadway, has been determined to currently operate, at a Level of Service Standard of B, immediately adjacent to the project site. The applicant, based upon the proposed square footage, is not required to submit a_ traffic impact analysis for the project. - The right-of-way width for the Turnpike Feeder Road/Sunshine State Parkway is;100-feet in this area.. The proposed commercial project will not impact any other public services provided by the County for this area. An additional 15 feet of Right -of -Way will be required as part final site plan reviews 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to create significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The developer's Existing Vegetation Plan indicates a number of existing oak and pine trees on this site. During the design of the proposed project, the developer has proposed to preserve two -pine tree hammocks located along the eastern property boundary adjacent to the Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Way adjacent to the project entrance. However, site conditions, proximity to paved surfaces, finished grade changes and the proximity of the sites septic drain field may dictate that all or partthese trees be removed. If that is the case, appropriate mitigation is to be provided for. STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT/SITE PLAN REVIEW In addition to the minimum standards of review and project development set out in Section 7.00.00, Section 11.02.07, of the St. Lucie 'County Land Development, Code identifies the minimum Standards of Reviewfor all proposed Site Plans. These standards must be met in order for any site plan approvals to be considered. Staff has reviewed the request for Minor Site Plan approval, utilizing these requirements and notes the following: July 10,'2002 Petition: Rose Car Wash Page 5 File No.: CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 A. CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed building or use is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of this Code, the St. Lucie. County Comprehensive'Plan, and the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County, and the proposed use complies with all additional standards "imposed on it by particular provisions of this Code authorizing such use and any other requirement of the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County. The proposed Rose Car Wash site plan has been determined not to be consistent with all applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 7.10.22 of the County's Land Development Code sets forth specific design standards that are to be complied with as part of the development of any self service car wash facility. Specific areas that remain to be addressed include perimeter landscaping and screening around the site and the location and type :of on -site lighting. So long as the applicant fails to address these minimum design standards, the County cannot find that this site meets the minimum technical requirements necessary to consider granting approval to this project. B. EFFECT ON NEARBY PROPERTIES 1: The proposed building or use will not have an undue adverse affect upon nearby property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities, and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare.. The proposed Rose Car Wash, as submitted, has been determined to have an undue adverse effect upon nearby properties. The proposed site is located within an area zoned for neighborhood commercial businesses. To the east of the subject site is. the Holiday Pines single-family residential subdivision, To the south/southeast of the subject site -is vacant commercial land and some limited retail uses that address local service needs. To the north/northeast Is the Lakewood Park Methodist Church and the recently approved Portofino Shores Planned Unit Development. To the west are additional single-family residential units within the Lakewood Park Subdivision. The design of the site, which directs the service bays in a perpendicular manner, can be expected to produce a condition where incompatible visual effects may be expected on the residential properties located to north/northeast of the facility. This visual impact may be expected to have detrimental effect on the character of the surrounding area. It is therefore determined that the proposed car wash use., at the requested location, is not compatible with the adjoining uses of land in that there are numerous residential uses within the immediate area of the proposed use; the highway on which this use is located carries a lower volume of traffic than does the comparison use in Ft. Pierce and other mitigating noise generators (e.g. the railroad) are not present at the proposed Lakewood Park site. July 10, 2002 Petition: -Rose Car Wash Page 6 File No.: CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 4 2. All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed building or use on the immediate vicinity through building design, site design, landscaping and screening. The proposed Rose Car Wash site plan has been determined not to be consistent with all applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 7.10.22 of the County's Land Development Code sets forth specific design standards that are to be complied with as part of the development of any self service car wash facility. Specific areas that remain to be addressed include perimeter landscaping and screening around the site and the location and type of on -site lighting. So long as the applicant fails to address these minimum design standards, the County cannot find that this site meets the minimum technical ;requirements necessary to consider granting approval to this project. 3. The proposed building or use will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as not to interfere with the development and use of neighboring property, in accordance with applicable district regulations. The proposed Rose Car Wash site plan has been determined not to be' consistent with all applicable` provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 7.10.22 of the County's Land Development Code sets forth specific design standards that are to be complied with as part of the development of any self service car wash facility. Specific areas that remain to be addressed include perimeter landscaping and screening around the site and the location and type of on -site lighting. So long as the applicant fails to address these minimum design standards, the County cannot find that this site meets the minimum technical requirements necessary to consider granting approval to this project. C. ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES The proposed building or use complies with the standards of Chapter V, Adequate Public Facilities. The subject property will receive water and sanitary sewer -services through an onsite well and septic system. At the time that sewer services are brought into this area (currently projected to be within a 3-5 year planning period from the date of this memo), this commercial development will be required to connect into that system. Roadway capacities in this area are LOS B. This facility will not cause any failed Level of Service condition to exist in this area. The proposed developmentr activities do not violate any of the minimum level of service standards setforth in Chapter V, Adequate Public Facilities, of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 1 July 10, 2002 Petition: Rose Car Wash Page 7 File No.: CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 D. ADEQUACY OF FIRE PROTECTION The applicant has obtained from the St. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written confirmation, 'or has otherwise demonstrated by substantial credible evidence, that water supply, evacuation facilities, and emergency access are satisfactory to provide adequate fire protection. The 'applicant has obtained from the St. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written confirmation that the proposed site plan conceptually meets the minimum access and water supply requirements for fire protection services at this facility. E. ADEQUACY OF SCHOOL FACILITIES The proposed building or use will be served by adequate school facilities The applicant is proposing a commercial use that will not impact school facilities. F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT For developments re9 wired to rovide an envPironmental im act re ort under Section P P 11.02.09(A)(5), the proposed development will not contravene any applicable provision of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, or of Chapter Vlll, "Natural Environment Analysis", of the St Lucie County Barrier Island Study Analysis of Growth Management Policy Plan, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. (August 1982). The subject property is less than 10 acres in size, therefore, it does not trigger the thresholds for submitting an environmental impact report. The developer is proposing to work with County Staff during the vegetation removal process, in order to preserve existing native vegetation found within the open areas for the site. In addition, as part of the site design, the developer has incorporated a number of existing oaks, pine and palm trees withinthe landscape buffers. The water utilized within the operation of the car wash facility will be recycled. COMMENTS The petitioner; Timothy Rose, is seeking approval for a conditional use permit in order to construct and operate a 2,542 square foot self -serve car wash facility for property located at 5321 Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Road (approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of the Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Road and Winter Garden. Parkway) in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. The project will be known as Rose Car Wash. Self- service car wash facilities are permitted as conditional uses in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners. July 10, 2002 Page 8 Petition: Rose Car Wash File No.: CU-02-001 and MNSP-02-004 Staff finds that this petition does not satisfy the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment cc: County Attorney Planning Manager Randall Mosby, Mosby & Associates Timothy Rose, Property Owner File Suggested motion to rec ni4mend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF TIMOTHY ROSE, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,542 SQUARE FOOT SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH FACILITY IN THE CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENYTHE APPLICATION OF TIMOTHY ROSE, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,542 SQUARE FOOT SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH FACILITY IN THE CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] 51 Section 7.10.00 Supplemental Standards 7.10.22 CAR WASHES, SELF-SERVICE In the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District, self-service car washes may be authorized as a conditional use, subject to the meeting the standards of review set out in Section 11.07.00 and the following supplemental criteria: A. The car wash operation is considered to be a drive -through facility and is subject to the site plan submission requirements of Section 11.02.00. No application for conditional use will be considered complete until all minimum site plan criteria have determined to be met. B. The property on which the car wash is to be located shall be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size. C. The car wash, and all related activity areas shall be screened from all adjoining side and near properties with an eight (8) masonry wall, or a wall constructed of similar materials. The wall shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet inside the side and rear property line. The wall shall be of similar composition, construction, and color and shall not include chain link fence, with or without slates or wooden screening materials. If any side property line is adjacent to any street right-of-way line, no screening wall will be required along that property line. The five (5) foot landscape buffer that is located on the outside of the masonry wall shall be landscaped with 1 tree for every 30 linear feet and with one 1 shrub or vine for every 5 linear feet of wall length. At least five (5) feet of the area inside of the required wall along the side and rear property lines shall be landscaped with 1 shrub or vine for every 5 linear feet of wall length. All landscaping shall be irrigated in accord with the provisions of Section 7.09.03 of this Code. A strip of land at least fifteen (15) feet in depth shall be located between any abutting street right-of-way and the car wash, and its related activity areas, shall be landscaped to include one (1) tree for each thirty (30) linear feet of abutting right-of-way or major fraction thereof. In addition, a hedge, wall or other durable landscaping barrier shall be placed along the interior perimeter of the landscaped . strip. All landscaping shall be irrigated in accord with the provisions of Section 7.09.03 of this Code. D. No more than 7 car wash bays and 7 vacuum stations shall be allowed in any one car wash facility. E. All car wash bays shall be enclosed on 2 sides and covered by a permanent roof. F. All on -site lighting fixtures shall be directed so that adjacent properties are not illuminated. In addition to the above mandatory standards and the standards of review setforth in Section 11.07.00 of this Code, in considering any application for Conditional Use the Board of County Commissioners may also consider reasonable limitations on the cash wash operations, including but not limited, the hours of business operation and the necessity for manned attendance during those business operation hours. If limitations are imposed on the hours of operation, or if manned attendance is required or if any other special limitation is imposed, the Board shall expressly include in any approval Resolution or other form of Final Development Order the specific reasons that such limitations have been determined to be necessary. 7.10.23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITING Adopted August 1, 1990 567Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations Q. CN COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for limited retail trade and service activities covering a relatively small area and that is intended to serve the population living in surrounding neighborhoods. The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Beauty and barber services. (723924) b. Civic, social and fraternal associations (8641) C. Depository institutions (eo) d. Laundering and drycleaning (self-service). (721s) e. Real estate (ss) f. Repair services: (1) Electrical repair. (762) (2) Shoe repairs (725) (3) Watch, clock, jewelry, and musical instrument repair. (7631) g. Retail trade (each building shall be less than 6,000 square feet gross floor area, all uses inclusive): (1) Antiques (5932) (2) Apparel and accessories. (ss) (3) Books and stationery. (594M943) (4) Cameras and photographic supplies. (s946) (5) Drugs and proprietary. (5912) (6) Eating places (5812) (7) Florists. (5992) (8) Food stores (54) (9) Gifts, novelties, and souvenirs. ($947) (10) Hobby, toy and game shops (5945) (11) Household appliances (m) (12) Jewelry. (5944) — (13) Newspapers and magazines. (5994) (14) Optical goods. (5995) (15) Nurseries, lawn and garden supplies. (526) (16) Radios, TV's, consumer electronics and music supplies (573) (17) Sporting goods and bicycles. (s941) (18) Tobacco products. (5993) h. Video tape rental ye4) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. Adopted August 1, 1990 114 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations 5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a. Car Washes (Self Service Only) - subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.22. (999) b. Day care - adult (8322) - child (8351) C. Postal services. (4311) d. Retail trade: (1) Gasoline services - accessory to retail food stores under SIC-5411. (999) (2) Undistilled alcoholic beverages accessory to retail sale of food. (5921- Exceptforliquor) e. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00 and include the following: a. Drinking places (undistilled alcoholic beverages) accessory to an eating place. (999) b. One dwelling unit contained within the commercial building, for on -site security purposes. (999) Adopted August 1, 1990 115 Revised Through 08/01/00 O t r coM> N R{ e a Q C ' V O u C) � Lco U // U t -S'1£ OSeat .- F— tO_•MW • p 0 p A f K 9 aS a3p w 4 ar f9M� g� H� !lr ON w � W ` W T M w Oa roa >'n Z z Gvou HLIRMON O z oroa lo" coon 3t41 39artl O CJ U aroa i J ►. Y[ moa Iran awrax cr W F i oa oaaloa 1r3a W Z �. wai ~ ffi oroa a33as proa aoiwn ¢ Q Q !Z -0 1rNq Z W / II La A � ap'p M M g � S K I S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 kLNno:D 3390H033AO o� 1s0 A Petition of Timothy and Debra Rose Car Wash for a Conditional Use Permit and Minor Site Plan for a. car wash facility. 2/ 22 20 19 17 18 l6 15 !3 14 12 1! 9 10 8 7 5 6 4 3 / 2 24 23 21 22 20 19 O 18 16 15 !q Il 13 12 9 10 8 7 5 6 4 3 2 ! Eden Rood 25 26 24 23 2l 22 20 19 18 16 15 13 14 12 1l 9 10 8 7 5 6 4 3 2 CU 02-001 This pattern indicates 7/7/7/7A subject parcel N -- --- a 1 5 6 364 U O 363 4 3 3 G\Q� Da 362 G.c ! 2 W ° 276 �( 360 ! lea 277 271 1� 359 358 qJ 278 270 J57 279 269 OCR 268 Q� 556 280 206 355 2& 267 8 207 282 266 ,\ 354 — — 7 \\ 283 265 208 \ 353 \ 284 264 209 352 O N N 285 263 p� 2n \ p O D W 351 286 262 28 2 350 287 261 l e 02 5 3 349 286 260 213 348 289 259 i 214 290 258 I 30 05 91 257 346 Map prepared June 25, 2002 7tYe maP 1u beer cWVW for Qe^ P4 r" WW Merdroe Wpp only. N WMe Mary ellglt- Oeen made W p W. P a oneM eM —4. H-0- p..&A, it it n handed I.,epy r — as a bpbkn kV d.—.n. Zoning Timothy and Debra Rose Car Wash 2/ �, 24 2J 2 4 21 a24 `T 20 19 2/ 22 23 -- M ro /6 19 — — a /6 RM-5 n C,n 20 q 18 16 15 a/6 /5 N -- 18 N C 16 15 -- 13 14 C !3 L 8 /5 l5 --- > Q l3 N 12 p O <7 /2 — — — 11 C J 14 — 12 !f (7 C 12 9 ` 9 to 2 9 p 9 p a N 9 !0 a — Y B 6 7 8 7 8 > O > a 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 J64 + J + J + J 4 J U O 3 J63 \0 G s0" 2 1 --- 2 I 2 / 2 Ca W Oa 36z G�( O P74 ! Q- as 7l3 Eden Road �� 360 276 272 11 p ' , /�� ` J ; --�` i \ / \ 0 2n 27/ 359 12 Lake ,�: �7t71eS \\ 10 \ 9 358 9 278 270 2 Q�� 9 13 % ��'� \ \ `r1J \ O� `� \\ \ \ � 357 279 269 Q� 204 6 �: Qr n J0 \ 8 7 \\ Q 356281 E68 205 /+ P 6\\ \ \ 2a6 267 i .; 15 5 \ 7 \\ 94 \\ J55 6 \ \ J �`Cp \ 8 282 i t 15 5 \ �•\ \ \ 1 \\7 \ 6 283 265 O + 3 p 22A ryO� \\ G apt 2/%\ \ \\ \\ \\ 5 \ J53 284 254 209 � 2 Ct�r Q \ \ + \ \ J \ 352 O O O l 285 20 0 N 2 \2 \ a- w 1 1 \\ \ 35! 286 262 2/l 1 I JO 2 \\\ I 350 287 2& 1 2u � � P, GC 2J2 \ \ \ A 349 288 260 16\\\\\\ o 3 2/3 1 i n 348 289 259 f !6 ::014 I i 11 290 256 1 1 9 /J J47 1 H Kl 2 � 2/5 I B \ \ 12 1J \\ \ 9 N � 346 291 257 / I C U 02-001-4. �o GIS; This pattern indicates Map prepared June 25• 2002 I subject parcel „.-ptut.- W9-9 -dle.—auP—a0. wHe -" ~teo teen auto W provide aw a aRreN" .cw \' iY-0. p—kA. i u —handed br ace ee a %g* Nr q da.^�e t 1 `� .�� Timothv and Debra Rose Car Wash 25 2! 22 24 23 ti 22 2/ 22 23 - - 20 /9 20 19 T 3 2! -- 22 q O /8 p 18 / 9 n IB 16 15 i /8 N l5 /6 15 -- d N '� C -- H IS I3 13 H C --- i4 CO - 14 > Q T /3 __._ J3 12 /1 l2 11 C9 ` 12 C C O - - a C O 12 9 /0 9 9 10 9 10 4+ N = Y 8 8 7 8 ' 8 7 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 ' 3 4 J 2 4 3 4 3 / 2 / 1 2 l 2 Eden Road I N w CU 02-001 This pattern indicates Zyzvh subject parcel P/F '358 Q 357 356 355 28 282 354 283 J53 2& 352 O N 285 v a_ 35/ 296 350 267 349 268 34B 289 �r ==i z a 36 363 5 7 362 4 75 36/ Map prepared June 25, 2002 I Thm mep h bean tanipW for gwwW W�*,7 ra ref— WPoeee a<W. N KTie ems„ ~hat been mad. b P,Ade Use moti amOrQ" .m W. iim,m9wi rotSw M 4. Yrte,Nad br — u e I gwtj bid q dacurwn. 77 i isy d> irk bg a. it t .�,>� K} 3 �{ t'_fy9$ati 47 r✓, .a 't» Y Ij� L y . 9 4 .. ,:� i ,� 9s''-f�.�y, 6 " � � L�` V df ✓� � ,�, .,-z, i � x' v a $v � ,�-9 r R€ ! ,a An iy 4 P 4 a 9'� -�� +� i � � ; � e t �s {f { _ •� ¢ _ � � r �s.�Y.n � z �1.�°.#'i f A� i.� r "x '�Cyyy��'��.``ggy'''�� c � _3A VW T ■x..,, - a� t f �t i` x a � '°� Y ) _ - � � '�3—.s _'i .vim..- 1Z3g_ )3` �a Pi4 as ¢ �''v > k �.:; � �� £ e t : "x�� " ¢ate � • s,�;t �'` �� K R �{ t�s 4 t �: �� -r '� z > e �A`'C � err Ll s ; I s aj�j1 �s s 3 �� r - a, L X=; � �n� a �3 �'A ¢,: �^ �� ° ��,.� '�z _� � pia ti'a �^�. �°�; � � .t�'� �� ' ✓� �..P-: s � } + i j � t r y r. °•t. � (�fc'3� -✓_td >....;; b'.�...e.¢K�t' a 1 tf 5 q`j�� .',4� w a NS i �f"k NO _r� P a s� �-,- Fes'+- cam)° : s• �» 3 � .�{.. j _ a A , a J � fA 0 R3.NO ; �� i • � °' y � -, +� � 'dap � � ] i � - �� '� �f _ Y,c's.S y, rip, LK - S' & 3 art 6 a4, `t`. { bd Fi^r.y I • A� 'i� -fit �E l I,a ' 4 7 '°>a s �--,t,�5c z-u- ,P� F t-�a - tz `s: 'x � �'S.�v` �•n � � �+„s i, y, ,�+,K.x .€iE - � s F a4 .'�. r r `��6 fi t ` Y�S ` t>A ✓ '� - y ,{ '� �'7 �,`�a. a*'_.*y J y �,i„ a # E! a •, �W, $^:.,';i� _... r." \ _ .. .. �t� •.4��. - ... .,i. )�'� .:. s41 � ` '1. 2L�F� � `.�.,.. �� u. ..,, z -.$' 3 ,�?rr$,.s' `��'s�.�.�.:c� AGENDA - PLANNIYG & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, August 15, 2002 7. 00 P.M. TIMOTHY AND DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a car wash facility in the CN (Commercial, .Neighborhood) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 5321 Sunshine State Parkway / Turnpike Feeder Road.. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing x411be sworn in Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners August 5, 2002. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on August 1, 2002. File No. CU-02-001 r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS August 5, 2002 COMMUNITY -� DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �OR10P In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that TIMOTHY AND DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a car wash facility in the C:4T (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 5321 Sunshine State Parkway / Turnpike Feeder Road. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPYION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The first public hearing on the petition will be held at 7.00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on Thursday, August I5, 2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony.and.evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the.request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing'upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date -certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above -described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. Please call 7721462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number CU-02-001. Sincerely, ST. LJJCIE COUNTY PLANNING NI)l ZONING COMMISSION Stefan Matthes, Chairman JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 - DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 - PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 - FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 - CLIFF DARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue - Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590 - Planning: (772) 462-2822 • GIS/Technical Services: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 • Fax: (772) 462-1581 Tourisr/Convention: (772) 462-1529 • Fax: (772) 462-2132 www.co.st-lucie.fl.us 'D �O M M M N 00 �O OV 10 � b M n OO N [� N O 1n O N W N M N V 00 N 01 V M N V y1 M N O N tVn N M Vl O fV M N V Vn VO 1n Vn 'OV h 'Oa1 V1 V N .-. O1 c} N M N M b h N N •"' V1 N v N•--• v1 V1:n .-. M ohvl .-. 01 n V N o M V h 0\ V •--. h�hw"" .-. .-. :-. .-. .--� Cl b%o M M o H1 og M M o - � ^ O M ..-. n�oo [� V .-. nbvl o 01 a ..-. h N T 01 D\ Q\ 01 01 01 01 t- M 01 M C, 01 01 m O1 Q1 01 0\ 01 m 0\ 01 M 01 Q1 0\ O 01 M 01 V M V M V M N M V M V V V^ M M Mcu ^ '� M V M V M V M V M V M V M N M N M N M N M N M N M V M V M V M N ^ V M V M L Z w w w w w w w w w w w w w z w w w w w w w w ua ` U 1y 7 U p 0 0 0 p U U V U 00 cu V 0 0 y 0 N O U 0 of p p p a m o i%aaaaaaa'a' mmmmm(� N Q p rna c �1aa oa�n'a'a C O C G C Y C o w 0 ar 0 a 0 t. 0 a o a y O O .Da E Z paaa �� C 1 i' U www°O>wawpw°ogwww°w°ww°ww°w° C C >>>>> v�tn aw°aGapw°Uww°w •d ai 'd 0 s nt v a1 i=+ C d a`i o C o o o 0 0 w�oP. Ji 0.0 a. > p^ a) � a,Aaa. a C C N CO •� a � w ^ vyi W •No ,� 0 O �/' y a N o y b�iav~i N N 1 3a .4.; �' a a¢¢ a C^ aw C �w .�.I^+' b "(Y N O boiwUaviw t-- O N O 1n 1n M V r O m 'V c^Oy . v1 M M O m u`� r O V O N O N O Vl O zzzzzz M .-. M •-• t+1 .•• M ••- M •-• M o ao 00 ^ O 4� O �[xiaa O O ^ b b V v1 t` b O N N 1n N N '7 1n M v1 01 M v1 MOM v1 a " V .n V vA n N V va M :n t- '7 t- t- v n V !` V t` v ^ N o N w 01 V vn 01 v ow 00 N V 'n O N M V'1 M v1 to tn �o ba¢aaa O v v v TO z � waaaaa 0 0 0 0 0 0 z a°o z er 0 a v •o •o •o •o U c s2� v z 5Ca w u lu en C. •V p 'd ... X O 'y O 00 ,.Cn m rm«.. •G •E O O a3 y'� Cd G z UAAA QCr c5zzzzz c7 �xx y N C., N A xw z a4 aa¢aad ) w Q,w 3 0 o •a) v0i p O C- „ C C Q C U o'c3 •> Q ^ d > C d C O C d C N C N •C •pp 'Col :Cj o o N o-S'V p +�� •� `0 O 4) H O 'Cl O O ... •C OS .�.. 9 N C O D O tV 0i O 0 0 �. ^• nt C z Q'4 Ind Cn W fxA> ti.0, 0a.tnw .0 O wwW Www AA Axa[ a Aa c a '� ee o q cl ppF^�yI; p r� Mil `o�'f «x O .D A .y '.rC" CCpq N O y Q;titi t3 Q;ti 3 W 00p N y • Xy N a) v � 0 N L _. O N� :D .� O O ,= be O be O a «S l H � N N O O a0. O O �V z ¢mmmUUAAAAAAwwww010 C7C7C7C7C7C7 C7C7 c7c7c7c7xxxxaa �. o C N CQ V 01 V M T ^ M h 01 N b ^ 00 •-+ W N M 1n 00 00 V N M 01 T N Vl t� N .•-� 1n 10 _ V b 01 _ VV ^ N N b t, N _ N 10 O 1D O Vn V h 00 h O 01 N n VV O y%� Cl c i v1 0 b M 0O 01 01 0^ b N 01 O V N b r N t` M 01 v1 n ^ V N O O O t- 10 b 10 O 2 0 V M t` oo ^ N t� O to O N 01 M 01 01 00 01 N h '••� M O 00 V 00 00 N C n 7^ M O a Cl N ^ N Y1 V N N M C N N N N^ N N b h O C n 10 N 01 1••: M N N N N N N l� C. O 0 0 0 0 C O Cl C C C C. 0 0 C. C ..� C C O G M ^ O tV 10 O C C O O O N 1D 10 p ++ •'� N O^ V M 1n M 01 M N N O ^ M M M 01'vl V 00 M O O N M M 01 T� 01 O 00 t- N O ^_ V Vl b n .a ^ V N M to N M M ^ N 01 �••: N N t� m M M 00 O O 1n 10 b 01 N 01 N ^ r 00 M .� N O v1 O O 00 h^ O\ N 00 •-- N O O N N O O N N O -� ^ O O 1n O 00 O b O1 ,... M 00 n V M ". M^ l� b O _ M O 00 r 0^ O N O V 00 O N 0 0 0 0 O O �. C O O O O O N O O O O N O M O b O N O O O O V1 O 01 N ^ 01 O O N O C. N O O N O O O N^ O N O O 01 O M O O N O O V1 C. OO O 1n O :n O N O O N C. O M O N O 1n O 01 O N O 1n O t- O M O N O M O - 10 O vn O tl- O 1n O 00 O V O 00 O 00 O :n C. N C. -y i+ G (A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 1p -� O b N O 10 O O ^ C. O 00 O O 10 O O O O O ^ O O O O �n O O t- C. O 00 O O :n O O O O 10 O O O O l O r N 10 b M 1n 1n 00 t2 C. 1n b N o0 ^ ^ 1 1n 10 10 O r M M O 00 ^ O N 01 00 N V V V 1n V 1/-1 b O N t- Cl O O 10 •--• t� v_1 M 00 ^ O it O O O O O O O O O_ _O O O O O O O O_ O O O_ 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O_ 0 O 0^ O O_ CCC O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ O_ O O O •-. O V V O^ v1 O V O V O M N^ V O v1 n ^ V1 •-� v1 v1 ^^ v1 V1 ^^ v1 O ^ _O O V 0 n 0 V _O 0 0 0 _O 0 V1 1_0 b 10 10 00 b 10 10 00 0 DD b o0 0 0o v D W b p b b p b 0 0 0 2 00 0 0 0 MMMM O O O O M4M O en M O M M .N0. M M M M O M M 0 to cc A. O 10 C. V M o0 - N 0 N 0 N 0 10 10 O O O 4 O N CD N 00 r- It V 0 C N a M N CD 11 N O N M C M - I O 1�1 O I? O I? I i o0 �p M N M N .._. y� O O I? M N W M 0 0 M O M M O O M `Ce' N N 01 In 0` Vl 01 v1 01 In 01 10 Q1 Vl In 01 01 �/) 01 In 01 In 01 N M 01 01 0, M h 01 In 01 Vl 01 N M n h h M 01 vl 01 h 0% h 01 N 01 v 01 to 01 Vl 01 1n 01 1n 01 vl U V M V M "t M It M V' M N M V IT M M a M V M .4,V M M V M I V M V M V M O V M d' M V M V M "I.V M M a M V M V M V M V'� M c'I I 1 `l aaaaaaaa+ aaa aaaa as aaaaa as aaaaaa'al rig w w w w w w w w www w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 0 Gl N N N N N N N N N N v d v aaa w'aa.a as a°QUawa i%a aaaaa.aa �,'a'.aadaap4aa r r r r r 0 r r r r r r r r r r r 2 r r r r r r r r r r C r r U ww°w°w°w>w°w° w°ww° >w°w°w° w°w° w°>n°w°w°w° w°w° w°w°w°u°k°uouo i I I >> �3 x =� >> L) uu > > > � 'AA.o� � �0la-O r CC ra. 'OO a0aoNN¢ a.cC4) P. n'� aO%a. C 00 -t 0 O> O O O O O WaCv ��iC wv Wttl �� Id am Waa aa.a.waaCi. 0 0 0 b In —_ 10 O 01 N h 01 01 01 In In V In O O M O N --� vl v1 O O 01 O 01 V M 'rJ O O en O V1 O N 10 O M V O V O V O V 1) V O V O V O M O O -• M O N O N O '7 O M •- M O 'V' O K O M 00 00 O M O It C, -It O r- C, '7 Q N Vl In 10 In1D In Vl 1n Vl V1 N In V) In Vl In M In In vl Vl In In 10 N In In 10 In �O I ZI Itn x z .e a 1 I� /4' ti Ua hrn A. W AA wAaFl 9 F-9 I, O e7 r C: •0 •O ,C xo 0 4) O O a� td 0 d d O O o d y O eta 3 u g g o a�i e�i y o ca y u e4 o ¢ a. Ur,, `ai as f a a 3 W o °° E o a� a c o 0 o a rA w , •C $ o E.� o 0 0 E= C Z ac7a°oavimU C7 z [=w nC7x Uf ti3c�c7v 0 c� w A � mod+ ate+ L x a o I 0 I O U I,d O F IdCA a)C o oC y W 4 cy N `� •G U O O 3 y 0 'O 0 m N "0 d w o I'1C y .07 N O 4).G ai o O .... x C a� o ybe N .' b. +. a e) z aaa wa apGi�vi�°nr°n33333� C O E� C cd L 'If N M M 0 N_ N 1� 1` T O 00 In 1� f` N O M " M M 1� O N 11 10 M N O M 10 V O 00 n --� O 00 N In - 0\ 01 1-I -nj M T 00 a N--� 1� 00 8 M N M V h 10 O N V f` M 10 01 0 N b N_ M In 01 N N 'R ��OO 10 00 O 10 y1 N M M N In 0 — In N O T V 1D N In 01 ,... N M vl M V V' 0 M M 10 00 N o0 QI O Q F b 'V N N M M N N N N N bI N o I N N O O N O C O O O > z v1 O O o 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 o O i I o o ' C o o 0 o O G C O G ,•-I O C O �r O M In r- M^ . N O W 00 M - 10 O N N I 01 01 ' M C I I W 01 T M O' 01 !--' r.M 10 O t� M 10N 01 10 01 M M In v1 00 V N IO ,--, 00 �O -- Vl N M M 10 N O 01 �O N Vl o0 N V 01 1 Vl O [� V 00 InMV'1000T� O M N O 1c) - M i N N 0 M 0 V y1 N V' O1 N- 01 M O NfV 01EO� I M cococc0 N N M 0 0 o c o N 0 N 0 V 0 O 1- 0 N- 0 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 V 0 � N o N o o o olol ME �'+ O O 1` O V O N O 10 O '4 O 01 O 01 O O O 10 O 1- O In O I 00 O V1 O O 0\ O O O M O O O 10 O 10 O 00 O 01 O M O M O 01 O O Vl O 1� O 1- O O O O O O O O O O O O O^ O O O C. O O O O O O O C. O O O O O h O O O 01 C. V O N O V O 01 O .n O r- O In O 00 O 01 1 O O 10 O 01 _O O 7 O N O M O 01 O 1p O O -+ O '7 O 1, O M O O O oo O O O_ O l 0) �1 O M o0 O V1 1n 00 M M M O vl 10 O O 1p In N o0 10 M M 00 O 1p o0 1p O �.' pp ZM O O O O O O C. O O_ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ O O O O O_ O O O O O O O O O '7 C. O O O O O O O O O O O - O L F A N V •-» Vo CD, V' V '7 V h V V y1 V --' - V ^ V V V- Oj•„'r 10 00 1p o0 o0 00 10 1p 1p 10 C 10 1p 00 "" 10 0o ao 10 10 00 10 00 00 10 10 o0 1, 07 ye N .-+ O- N O N --- N N -' O - O O O N 0 0- N O O ^ N A t L M Mll M M M M M M M M M F ¢ M M M M M F M ¢ M M M M M M M M M M M M M C5 o ry o r, N NN �o Ch M w v� w i � a z U w° I� I A 0 v, c b o d� �o a> z cc z d cl z en N z N a� Q V � C, z �cis as oAw C is a o 6 8 0o F, I z .> d4 ac C, C4 10 o A 10 C ^ O M L` to N ..-0�� Cl U � '^ 0 o w ++ o O O N o A Cd E-F w O a r T. LUCIE COUNTY PLANhlirvG AND ZONING COMMISSION.' PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA August 15, 2002 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE. is hereby given in accordance. with. Section 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development. Code and the provisions of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, the following:applicanh have requested;that. the St. Lucie County Planning and. Zoning Commission. consider their following requests: ]..CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER OF Si. LUCIE COUNTY, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single - Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District for the. following described property: THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF! SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST; ST. LUCIE COUNTY; FLORIDA- LESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-1 WAYS AND FURTHER LESS THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE:, SOUTH 210 FEET. Location: Southeast comer of the intersection of Selvitz' Road and Edwards Road. 2. TIMOTHY AND DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH, for a Condi- tional Use Permit to allow the operation of a car wash' facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning'Dis- .trict for the following described property: - LOTS I & 12, BLOCK 169, LAKEWOOD PARK,. ;UNIT 12A, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 11; PAGE 35, PUB- LIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.'- Location; 5321 Sunshine State Parkway / Turnpike Feeder Road. 3. GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, INC for a Change In Zoning from the AGA (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the fol- lowing described property . IN SECTION. 15, TOWNSHIP 34,..RANGE 39, THE SOUTH 830':OF.-THE EAST:1550 :OF_ THE.SOUTHyl/2 OF"NORTHEAST`1/4'LESS EAST 80' FT. AND LESS SOUTH 60 FT..FOR:ROAD"AND. CANAL R/W,(6) (O.R. 348-1874) ' ' Location: Northwest corneIr of the ";intersectioii` of- Indrfo 'Road. and Emerson Avenue. 4..WYNNE RANCH, for. a.,Change in`Zoning from 'the AG5 (Agricultural— I du/5-awes). Zoning Drshhct to the U (Utilities) Zoning `'District for"- the following described propeitr- _A PARCEL OF LAND hYING IN THE.SOUTHFAST`ONE ilE1N.G MORE:PARTICU.LARLY DESCRIBERAS-FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE'SOUTHEAST CORNER -OF SAIC SECTION 5, THENCE SOUTH 87°57'45" WEST, AS 'A rBASIS OF BEARINGS,'ALONG THE -SOUTH .6NE'Of SAID SECTION.5,.A DISTANCE OF 2672.00-FEET•TC THE SOUTHWEST CORNER'OF SAID:SOUTHEAST:ONF QUARTER (1/4) OF, SECTION 5 ".THENCE NORTF 00*27'15" .EAST ALONG. THE WEST: LINE OF _SAIC SOUTHWEST. ONE QUARTER (1/4) OF. SECTION".5; 4 r .DISTANCE OF .1 89432FEET TO THE POINT. OF BEGIN. NINE; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH `00°2715" _EAST ALONG SAID. WEST'UNE,. A DISTANCE OF 6k,7C FEET;. THENCE. SOUTH 89'19'16 .EAST, DEPARTING SAID . WEST •.LINE, A DISTANCE OF. 656.70 -FEET, THENCE SOUTH 00°2T15" WEST, A .DISTANCE OF 656.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°1916" WEST; A DIS• TANCE OF 656.70 FEET ..TO .THE 'POINT OF BEGINNING:" SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT- FOR' INGRESS AND EGRESS AND. PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE OVER THE WEST 25 FEET THEREOF. CONTAINING 9,900 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Location. North side of Orange Avenue, approximately 5.75 miles west of Minute Maid Road. 5.`WYNNE RANCH, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an Air Curtain Incinerator in the U (Utili- ties) Zoning District for the following described property: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 87°57'45" WEST, AS A BASIS OF. BEARINGS, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 2672.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 5; THENCE NORTH 00°27'15" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 5,A DISTANCE OF 1694.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN- NING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 00°27'15" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 656.70 FEET; THENCE -SO ' UTH 89°19'16" EAST, DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE,A DISTANCE OF' 656.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH OQ°27'15". WEST, A DISTANCE OF 656.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°1916" WEST; A DIS- TANCE OF 656.70 FEET TO THE . POINT OF " BEGINNING. SUBJEC1, TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS . AND EGRESS AND PUBLIC. UTILITY AND DRAINAGE OVER " THE WEST 25 FEET.THEREOF. CONTAINING 9,900 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Location: ` North side of Orange Avenue; approximately_ .6.75 miles west of Minute Maid Road. .6. FLORIDA CENTER FOR RECOVERY,:INC.,.fora. Cond& honal Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Care Facilites.in the 1 (Institutional) Zoning District for the fof, Ilowing described•propetfy WHITE CITY S/D 05Y36'40" BEG AT NW.COR OF LOT 100 RUNE 135 FT,,TH W;135 FT, TH N.TO POBAESS RD AND CANAL R/W:= (44) (1.72 AC) (MAP 34/05S)_(OR 1524-2594) WHITE .CITY:S/D. 05°36'40" THAT. PART OF- LOT TO LYG EOF DRAINAGE CANAL 41W-LESS THAT PART LYG"N OF DRAINAGE CANAL#103 ".:AND.N,"130 FT = OF: LOTS :I 12:AND 113 LYG E OP DRAINAGECANAL . #103.AND ALL -OF LOT 107 =LESS".RD:AND:CANAL R/W — (10.45 AC) (MAP.34/05S) (OR 1524-2594) Location. 3451 West Midway Road PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held in Commission Chambers; RogerVrjltras Annex, 2300 Virginia: Avenue, Fort .Pierce, Florida on August 15 2002, beginning at 7:00 P.M. oe as soon thereafter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105 Florida Statutes, if 9� person,deddes to appeal any. decision made by_a board, .agency; -or commission with respect to anymatteRcon;id-i. Bred"ot.a meeting.or hearing, he will need d record of this ; proceedings and that for such purposes, he may need: to ensure that a verbatim record of the.proceedmgs is made, . I which record includes the testimony and: evidence it of Which the appeal -is to be based.. r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Stefan Matthes, CHAIRMAN Publish: August 1, 2002 2487476 Should this Board choose to recommend approval of the petitioners request for a Conditional Use Permit, staff recommends that any such approval authorization include the following special conditions: Prior to the issuance of a Vegetation Removal Permit, the developer of this project shall. clearly delineate and protect through appropriate identification and barricades any existing native vegetation located outside the limits of development for the proposed project that is to be preserved in place. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic nuisance vegetation found on the site shall be removed. 3: The proposed car wash facility's hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4. The applicant shall be required to install an 8-foot high opaque wall constructed of concrete and masonry materials or another similar material. This barrier wall may not be constructed of wood or similar material. This wall must be continuous and unbroken. The applicant will be required to install a minimum of 60% of the required perimeter landscaping material on the outside of the wall consistent with the requirements of Section 7.09.04(E) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 5. The approvals granted are contingent upon Rose Car Wash, its successor and assigns, complying with the noise limitations set forth in Chapter 1-�p of the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, as may be amended from time to time. In the event that Rose Car Wash, its successors or assigns, are determined to be in violation of the County's Code and Standards regarding noise regulation, Rose Car Wash, its successors or assigns, shall be required to correct the cited violation in the manner required by code. Failure to provide corrective actions as directed by the County or their authorized agent shall result in an order to suspend the operation of the car wash facility until the noise violations are corrected to meet county codes. LEI Transportation. Land Development•Construction•Expert Witness.Noise Monitoring Programs July 26, 2002 Mr. Randy Mosby, P.E. Mosby & Associates 2455 14t` Avenue P.O. Box 6368 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 RE: Tim Rose Car Wash Site Development Noise Impact Analysis St. Lucie County, Florida Dear Mr. Mosby: At your request a noise impact analysis was conducted at the proposed Tim Rose Car Wash Facility to be located in St. Lucie County, Florida. The purpose of this analysis was to establish the existing field measured ambient noise levels associated with the proposed facility prior to the development of this facility. Similarly, comparative site field noise monitoring was conducted at the Cartoons Car Wash located in Ft. Pierce, Florida during normal operating conditions in order to establish the potential noise impacts which may be depicted at the Tim Rose Car Wash during normal operating conditions. The purpose of this analysis is to determine compliance with the St. Lucie County Noise Ordinance during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) as a result of the proposed development. The results of the field noise monitoring will be compared to the maximum permissible noise levels established by the St. Lucie County Noise Ordinance and to determine if the proposed facility will be within compliance with these established criterion. Consequently, existing and comparative site field noise monitoring was conducted from July 20`" through July 23`a during the PM (daytime) time periods. The first phase of this evaluation consisted of conducting PM (daytime) field noise monitoring at the proposed Tim Rose Car Wash Facility to establish the existing site ambient noise levels prior to the development of the proposed facility. Similarly, PM (daytime) field noise monitoring was also conducted at the Cartoons Car Wash (comparative site) during normal operating conditions. For the purposes of the comparative site noise analysis, field noise monitoring was conducted at both the self -serve and the automated car wash facility locations. Further simultaneous field noise monitoring was also conducted at a distance of ninety (90) feet from the facility in order to establish the existing noise reduction as a function of distance. The field noise monitoring was conducted utilizing multiple Quest 2900 Type II Sound Level Meters. The second phase of this evaluation consisted of comparing the existing field measured ambient noise levels to that of the St. Lucie County Noise Ordinance (Chapter 1-13.8 Noise Control). For the purposes of establishing compliance with the St. Lucie County Noise Ordinance, existing field measured ambient noise levels were established at both the proposed Tim Rose Car Wash Facility to be located in St. Lucie County and at the Cartoons Car Wash Facility (comparative site) located in Ft. Pierce, Florida. This phase of the analysis will determine if the proposed facility will meet the specific requirements set forth in the St. Lucie County Noise Ordinance. 9767 Erica Court Boca Raton, Florida 33496 (561) 483-9129 (Office) (305) 609-7504 (Mobile) Email BernardKinney @ AOL.COM July 26, 2002 Mr. Randy Mosby, P.E. Mosby & Associates 2455 14t` Avenue P.O. Box 6368 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 Page 2 Noise Analysis Results For the purposes of this analysis, Receptors R-CCW-01 through R-CCW-03 represents the noise monitoring locations associated with the existing Cartoons Car Wash Facility located in Ft. Pierce, Florida. The following table depicts the results of the on -site field noise monitoring associated with these receptors. Field noise monitoring was conducted over a three-day period during the PM (Daytime) periods to properly establish the existing ambient noise levels at defined locations associated with the comparative site car wash facility under study. Table 1.0 Existing Comparative Site Field Noise Measurements (PM Measurement Period) Receptor # Date Location Existing Noise Level (dBA)* Comments R CCW-01 Cartoons Car Wash(Existing) Routine Car Wash Activity 07/20/02 72.1— 82.8 L1 77.1 L01 Self Serve Location Through 67.5 — 80.1 L10 73.7 L10 (Daytime Hours) 07/23/02 62.4 — 76.7 L50 66.8 L50 (PM Range) (PM Average) R CCW-02 Cartoons Car Wash (Existing) Routine Car Wash Activity 07/20/02 66.5 — 78.1 L1 73.2 L01 Automated Location Through 62.5 — 73.6 L10 70.6 L10 (Daytime Hours 07/23/02 58.7 — 70.3 L50 65.1 L50 (PM Range) (PM Average) R-CCW-03 Cartoons Car Wash(Existing) Routine Car Wash Activity 07/20/02 61.6 — 69.6 L 1 64.9 L01 Distance of 90 Ft. Through 57.7 — 63.2 L10 61.0 L10 (Daytime Hours 07/23/02 53.7 — 60.9 L50 57.6 L50 PM Range) (PM Average) * The noise descriptors utilized for this analysis are LO1, 1,10, and L50 and are defined as shown below. LOl is defined as the noise (A- weighted sound level) exceeding one (1) percent of a measurement time equivalent to at least fifteen (15) minutes. L10 is defined as the noise (A- weighted sound level) exceeding ten (10) percent of a measurement time equivalent to at least fifteen (15) minutes. L50 is defined as the noise (A- weighted sound level) exceeding fifty (50) percent of a measurement time equivalent to at least fifteen (15) minutes. July 26, 2002 Mr. Randy Mosby, P.E. Mosby & Associates 2455 14" Avenue P.O. Box 6368 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 Page 3 Noise Analysis Results For the purposes of this analysis, Receptors R-TRCW-01 through R TRCW-02 represents the noise monitoring locations associated with the proposed Tim Rose Car Wash Facility to be located in St. Lucie, County, Florida. The following table depicts the results of the on -site field noise monitoring associated with these receptors. Field noise monitoring was conducted over a three-day period during the PM (Daytime) periods to properly establish the existing ambient noise levels at defined locations associated with the proposed site car wash facility under study. Table 2.0 Existing Proposed Site Field Noise Measurements (PM Measurement Period) Receptor # Date Location Existing Noise Level (dBA)* Comments R-TRCW-01 Tim Rose Car Wash (Proposed) Proposed Car Wash 07/20/02 62.9 — 68.2 L1 66.2 L01 Facility Location Through 59.3 — 62.4 L10 61.1 L10 Daytime Hours) 07/23/02 51.8 — 57.0 L50 55.3 L50 (PM Range) (PM Average) R-TRCW-02 Tim Rose Car Wash (Proposed) Proposed Car Wash 07/20/02 60.6 — 66.1 L1 63.2 L01 Property Line Location Through 56.6 — 59.7 L10 58.1 L10 (Daytime Hours 07/23/02 50.7 — 54.8 L50 53.3 L50 (PM Range) (PM Average) * The noise descriptors utilized for this analysis are L01, L10, and L50 and are defined as shown below. L01 is defined as the noise (A- weighted sound level) exceeding one (1) percent of a measurement time equivalent to at least fifteen (15) minutes. L10 is defined as the noise (A- weighted sound level) exceeding ten (10) percent of a measurement time equivalent to at least fifteen (15) minutes. L50 is defined as the noise (A- weighted sound level) exceeding fifty (50) percent of a measurement time equivalent to at least fifteen (15) minutes. July 26, 2002 Mr. Randy Mosby, P.E. Mosby & Associates 2455 14'b Avenue P.O. Box 6368 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 Page 5 To conclude, the results of the noise impact analysis indicates that the proposed Tim Rose Car Wash Facility will meet the criterion set forth in the St. Lucie County noise ordinance for residential land use classification during the daytime hours. Further it appears that the anticipated noise levels associated with this development will not influence the existing ambient noise levels at the property line of the proposed development. It has been a pleasure serving you on this project. Please feel free to contact our office should you have any questions. Sincerely, Bernard Kinney & Associates Bernard Kinney Jr., INCE BERNARD I. KINNEY JR. 9767 ERICA COURT BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33496 (561) 482-5090/ (305) 609-7504 (Cellular) EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science Degree in Oceanographic Technology, June 1986. Florida Institute of Technology. Major areas of study include Ocean Engineering, Underwater Acoustics, Physical Oceanography, Engineering Mathematics, Applied Engineering Physics, and Chemistry. WORK EXPERIENCE: August 2000 to Present — Bernard Kinney & Associates POSITION: President and Principal Acoustical Engineer DUTIES INCLUDE: Responsible for all aspects of business development and client relations. Primary duties include the development and implementation of sound control plans and noise monitoring programs for transportation, construction, and land development noise impact studies. Also responsible for providing expert witness testimony related to the field of Environmental Acoustics. Recognized Expert Witness in the Field of Environmental Acoustics for the Florida Department of Transportation, Martin County, Florida and numerous local municipalities and governmental agencies. June 1999 to August 2000 — Environmental Noise Control, Miami, FL. POSITION: Principal Acoustical Engineer DUTIES INCLUDE: Responsible for the development and implementation of sound control plans and noise monitoring programs for transportation, construction, and land development noise impact studies. Also responsible for providing expert witness testimony related to the field of Environmental Acoustics. BERNARD I. KINNEY JR. Page 2 December 1997 to June 1999 -- Law Eng. and Env. Services, Miami, FL. POSITION: Project Scientist DUTIES INCLUDE: Responsible for conducting construction noise monitoring programs, highway traffic noise impact studies, land development noise impact studies, transient railway noise impact studies, aircraft noise impact studies, interior noise monitoring studies, and the analysis of real time octave and third octave band spectrum associated with diesel hammer pile driving events. Other responsibilities include the development of a world wide Environmental Acoustics Division. November 1993 to November 1997 -- Keith and Schnars, P.A. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. POSITION: Acoustical (Transportation Noise) Engineer DUTIES INCLUDE: Responsible for conducting highway traffic noise impact studies. These studies include field measurements of existing noise levels, computer modeling of future predicted noise levels, computer modeling of potential noise abatement structures, post construction insertion loss studies, document preparation, and agency coordination. Responsible for conducting the single largest noise impact inventory study in the history of the Florida Department of Transportation titled the Interstate 95 (I-95) Noise Impact Inventory Report. May 1989 to July1992 -- Mar Inc. Test and Evaluation Division. Ft. Lauderdale FL. POSITION: Ocean Engineer DUTIES INCLUDE: Sea Trial Support for Structureborne Radiated Noise Measurement Laboratory under the direction of David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center (DTNSRDC). Responsibilities included daily maintenance and operation of shipboard acoustical array systems and associated data collection systems. Responsible for standing shipboard watches to ensure the completion of SSRNM and SRNM sea trials. Other responsibilities included the preparation and transferring of CLASSIFIED material on behalf of the US NAVY. CLEARANCE: SECRET BERNARD I. KINNEY JR. Page 3 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS: * Florida Department of Transportation Noise Task Team Member * Federal Highway Administration TNM Noise Model Test Team Member * Florida Department of Transportation Noise Analyst (Certification No. 0032) * Federal Highway Administration TNM 1.0 Noise Model Certification * Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Full Member PUBLICATIONS and PRESENTATIONS: Expert Witness Environmental Acoustics: A Case Study FDOT vs. JEB: Transportation Noise and Vibration Expert Witness Analysis Pile Driving Contractors Association Presentation on Noise Abatement Methods Available upon request. BERNARD I. KINNEY JR. Page 4 CURRENT PROJECT INVENTORY: Florida Department of Transportation District IV: I-95 HOV RE PD&E Noise Impact Inventory Report JEB v. The Florida Department of Transportation** 171h Street Causeway Construction Noise Monitoring Program FAU / FDOT Pile Driver Noise Impact Analysis Andrews Avenue Extension PD&E Noise Impact Study Hallandale Beach Boulevard PD&E Noise Impact Study Florida Department of Transportation District VI: Interstate 95 (I-95) PD&E Noise Impact Inventory Report Okeechobee Road PD&E Noise Impact Study Florida Department of Transportation Turnpike District: Chaval Communities Construction Noise Impact Analysis** Land Development/ Transportation /Expert Witness Testimony (**) Noise Impact Studies: Enron North America / Enron Capitol and Trade (Florida Sites)** Environmental Noise Control* Environmental Management Systems Law Engineering** Friendly Village v. The Georgia Department of Transportation** Ledds Enterprises** East Ocean Acquisition CIBA VISION Duluth Georgia K-F Group Inc. Janar Engineering The Florida Club of Stuart* * The Las Olas Company* Harley Davidson Motorcycles, Inc** Martha's Restaurant / SunCruz* * Eastern Shipbuilding Group (Watson Bayou Noise Contour Map) Noise Impact Analysis ** Viera Properties /TRM Recycling Group Veterans Administration Hospital Miami- MRI Suite Noise Impact Analysis Ballen Isles Residential AC Chiller Noise Impact Analysis University of Alabama @ Birmingham Construction Noise Monitoring Program Alliant Energy / Williams Shaker Unit Des Moines Iowa BERNARD I. KINNEY JR. Page 5 CURRENT PROJECT INVENTORY: (Continued) San Juan, Puerto Rico Caribe Village PD&E Noise Study San Juan, Puerto Rico 18/22 PD&E Noise Study Western Pines Elementary (AC Chiller Noise Impact Analysis) — Palm Beach School Board Fountains at Lake Point Highway Traffic Noise Analysis Jamestown Development (HUD) Noise Analysis Haskell Development — Light Rail Noise Analysis Wackenhut Corrections Aircraft Noise Impact Analysis Houston, Texas. Florida Community College @ Jacksonville AC Chiller Noise Impact Analysis Lexington Communities Sound Transmission Class / Real Time Octave Band Analysis G.L. Homes of Florida Highway Traffic Noise Analysis Riverwalk Development — Light Rail Noise Analysis Westinghouse Communities Highway Traffic Noise Analysis" City of Lauderhill / Mieneke Muffler Noise Impact Analysis* United States Navy (DTNSRDC): Structureborne Radiated Noise Measurement Program Spanish Lakes - Country Club Village HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 1 Las Casitas, Ft. Pierce, FL 34951 �� L'2�-tom✓ er) c WANS toPA C" C(l,$jP)e4SUPt 00to. 'MA P/!0 jsdSlC( sj^lu 4v% �f-�i3 ►stws.� Inc n�.a�,T r 0" Oc 04, en i v 4 C 4%. sera, is 464V #at A" 0 146 wow 64 4 71� 14-daite-s7,9. /4s /-7 111�em 7-404 r-7- RON 37,, N ,i 61 U��-eD/w�✓f.(v"lorac, P,6 . boa vo/� 3 �5 5 I �r t ILK 1� � Ii Ise S q f I L C/ . /--Z & p Y- S PT-� &j WE PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a. OR OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2.��° 3. -� 4. 5. .� 6. 7. ion 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ��5 l�0) tee. �i►��' -4uill,141A V1 J:�l iov A ►� ' ;wa-i-�- .r PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. i. � �• � ;��L:� �i�S tip �d Qr. 4. D � %S`,/ fc�G c k c SVEs-/ 5.i'/-,C1 7. <::�Q A, 4 9S' I 10. 11. 11 PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, STR,'O,G OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. R,6bErz- hRr-yNo 1d S .-- • �!'� - b 9► Z !,u', 'Z t v C L ,5501 rm I.0c onP11_ ar. R, Pe (fi —5.5d 1 mc.DoN N EL D-R. R. P%CrcE t PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. if rr iLA iaJ n a p 2P _qr A� P-4j -7 %15" JrwG✓� 15' 1� C 0 CGS 0 Av V- G7od,�A CA- 4�tIPA ek r 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Va W,,WIA / PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6� 7. s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1-,14,1 r.7. 1/ 1: �q eiez c Ie - % Pwr e C) ON wo 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. �� cp, -*T-T floe c/7 Uv 5 PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. Isom-pl-olmWERmz aO3 PCA ITI LIV�fC c &Z' 6, i P,4- p ffix•• �.�. . L 0 19. 20. 21. 22. LIZGC4tow,, 23. -714 24. V 4 cJ L 25. .Bed ��d/✓� s4l 1, (f Ir- 7(f d J r 1 PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, affll= OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. � � r 2. �..�,� 1y 4. Oeu)ll -1" Cln),cS v 5. tf qnP L-5he✓ 6. 7. Y 8. 9. 10. 16 17 18 7b (90- n n L/ L a h r `K weir 2-6�4iZ&- Are,-4� Gp �/ Z � 2a2z,¢ 4 1f v&V f, i 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. -t Q z, �- s,j,N C6U1 vs LGv fP �30 /& Aor 40,4-C PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY,1111111'allillFl OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 2. lid 3. `% ' L , 4. �" 14 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 17.18. c�1/r L%�--- c, 3 i 8L ZZ�- JUG 91 1(**J *, pry. �. noot fowl G 7J '7 A;o t?y ?/v.o J, -7Wit, A ivd 19. 20. 21. 4,4 25. 83a / 1r-, 1 I'/66ez J� V-P. �, v PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, v OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 16. 17. 18. 7/p '!ka3 �a r -'5-007- Igo �70 / W,gIToli 4V 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24 25 J ---7- j / -,y p PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, _ . _W= OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. "X- 2. �= 3. 4. f� 5. C 6. 7./ 8. 9. I -A E'A 89.1 ., T, 4"JR/�044) �, x ell -cS'/A ,a d/,r DA, 3 �? " s'l AV s�v9 .344 4 I - f0 r 19 20 21 22, 23, 24, 25, //p PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, 'RnT OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. OE IN `J �/Z faa� /t // l t �Jovllld-� 24,'&vvt�4-1 < &4-1 443J.4Gy2, �E E-,,'i-0 c_-' c(2_ � � J- 12Z S?5�)(oLToc(\L(e Pee'{cr `28. Zoe- le f 4, If P b I ( i'7 4()/k,/ AJ a �,o 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M 3 -/�lv PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 6 S�' oy Can ✓� , it tG SD� t� tic ti Y / oy / �'? I wo^ d 31150 19. 20. U. 22. 23. 24. 25. 4A f/p PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, i ; OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. S-6 6 f�, r X.A�tl T.,11 44YiLi r 19. 20. IL Y 21. 22. Ls��t(,�o GtALQ� 23. ILI 24. 25. PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, T(lr OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. i t MIA VA I �_ ` 5004- `Xz� Z>r-• �� J_50006&s� Agile, sA. S'A05" . hz . l6w,ov 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ,56 PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, ff,&QXM,", i OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. if v syo� �/�. �f/gB1,te F+L.3y9Si -2- S'i2z o 6:2 12 . J�� ✓ s'ZOro 7y 40 Arl- 1cle 60 Iq 9L#O/* 47/J e, e . Z/ may - " "aX)3 6-c/ /"i Hof 0 l Z—U 0 14co, Fl +q(o (e o Ifs �v ec PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. s. 9. 10. ii. 12. 13. Fl-p ?labs 0 m�er r eyc 1 �/ Z/2 Cam, 4� 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. M-tr O-C r) 1240&A r r Eq�� r 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Lqy-7 ma�,Q,e s "bp_ rcn,, -9 L 47 PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, '' OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST:CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 0flo•% �, �` b-409 Lur.(' 11e Lo ,54m L.uri 1 I c Ln n e- tad C--� 4rAjv -s ao aA RMl 5-2Dr rlf Q ece h1v 22. 23. 24. W63 bb,)rfS# If1p. 3 Y?S*i 5710 E S�M wvLe mil. 3 5�9.fY /Y-)-Fs- lox zgl-, vc- -;z-z_ ? Y e�?.'1 PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, MONGLY OPPOSE THE CONSTRUGTIOM OF A CAR WASH AT 111E iR 5ENI'LY'P 0VOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMMUCA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 14. G is. 16. 17. is. a 3 R r3 o t E 5 )L€4jo t.T-V p., ►N 4S VOiL�AG'UN� �/ ,may, q,;. �(- T%s c4 - r 1%. 19. 20. / �� ro'SCo Fr, l zfxci ' PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, '� ��' OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ( /' � , / -7 4 �R" It, 16. 17. 18. (ZIA 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDE_ NTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, % OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. - "o- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 21! Z 56 EZEt'e- 24 1) 1 I > ) t -*j LL ce &&4 Blip, « r. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.?\OAM,I" V- L 07d- - t 6 �� PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. iylC v�-z 16. / 5-97- 17. 18. O� aye-.�\"v�-L►� Fall, r"115"112 �� NA % / 351 lit�Ct Ale G° eW c� UGC 7 �i 44 L� ..,. 4.7..--T% PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY,' .. �Jjlc'jjj OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 2. 5. • ,^/oi a i4So Re8j,� 6. 1 1, ,4-44 ftK£ n eite f q wtq 8. �Kw Or. ry/ q ' 1 Fy.. 'I f,fo � 1• �-�� 12. th 13. &A o �ciia`n�sC �� S3 ! IT 14. f A- 15. ��ac!4- 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. r'r A PETITION WE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED LOCATION BETWEEN LAKEWOOD PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH & BANK OF AMERICA, ON THE FEEDER ROAD. 1. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. # ti�-witllwnl 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING September 19, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Lounds (Both Absent - With Notice); Mr. Akins (Absent — Without Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hearn stated that he has had conversations with various members of the public with regards to several of the issues being heard this evening. 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 of 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. Ms. Young asked that Mr. Hearn disclose exactly which petitions he had discussions about when they are presented. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: AUGUST 15, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Grande moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: AUGUST 29, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Grande stated that there were a couple of minor corrections he would like to address. He advised that the last line, in the second paragraph, on page 9 should read "shouldn't" instead of "should". He also stated in the third paragraph, fourth line from the bottom, on page 11, it should read, "It's" instead of "it". Mr. Hearn stated that Mr. McCurdy was listed as both present and absent for the meeting and it should be corrected to read that he was present, not absent. Mr. Grande stated that in the third paragraph, second line, on page 11, the word "not" should be deleted because it is a double negative. He also stated that the last paragraph, first line, on page 13, also should have the word "not" removed. Mr. Grande moved for approval, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 3: FILE NO. CU-02-007 — FLORIDA CENTER FOR RECOVERY. INC.: Chairman Matthes stated that he has had members of the public discuss this issue with him. Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services (specifically an inpatient drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation center) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 12.17 acres of property located at 3451 West Midway Road. He also stated that at the August 15, 2002 hearing of this petition, the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussion about the treatment facility and directed staff to outline conditions that would be appropriate for the facility based on their discussions. The following are the conditions being recommended by staff for the proposed conditional use: 1. The proposed facility shall be limited to Drug and Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation only. 2. The number of patients shall be limited to a maximum of 72. 3. A gate shall be constructed at the entrance of the existing wall in order to provide security for the project. 4. There shall be no acceptance of Medicaid patients by the proposed facility. 5. The conditional use granted through this petition is non- transferable. 6. The conditional use permit shall be limited to the area north of the canal, which runs diagonally through the property. Mr. Flores continued that subsequent to the distribution of the staff report, it was determined that Condition #4 should be removed from the listed conditions. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the 5 limiting conditions. Chairman Matthes stated that this item was continued from the August 15t' meeting and had a lot of discussion. He also stated that they had asked the petitioner to give some more detailed information with regards to the proposal. He continued that once the petitioner makes his more detailed presentation they would reopen the public hearing for comments. Mr. Ed Porch stated that he was the representative for the applicant Florida Center for Recovery and lives in Jensen Beach. He advised that this property was being acquired as a subsidiary of another facility, which is located in Long Island. He also stated that letters of recommendation have been provided from the New York City Police Department, Hampton Bay's Civic Association as well as other associations and institutions that have had experience with the facility. He continued that during the events of 9-11, their facility's counselors were active, on a volunteer basis, with the survivors and those on the scene at the time. He also stated that this P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 5 facility will be similar to the Betty Ford Clinic and would be high -end and would probably have some high profile clientele from out of state. He advised that there were previously some concerns about security and wanted to reiterate that these are voluntary patients who pay a lot of money to be there. He stated that several aerial photos showing different angles of the facility were provided to detail the size and location of the facility in relation to Midway Road. He continued that the administration building sits back about 400 feet from Midway Road and he also provided illustrations of the landscaping they were proposing to do. He also stated that there would not be any signs on the property either. He advised that there is a large concrete wall that surrounds the dormitories and that area would have a security gate constructed as requested in condition number three of the staff report. He stated that the interior of the building has several security doors that restrict ingress and egress to the outside. He also stated that there are only forty-four in -residence beds available in St. Lucie County for recovery treatment. He continued that no one would really know the facility is there because of the landscaping, no signs, and no increased traffic. He advised that the property is currently owned by the U.S. Government and was previously owned by a non-profit, charitable organization and was not on the tax roll. He stated that the property is being sold for four million dollars. He also stated that the payroll for the facility would be two million dollars a year and the Alzheimer's facility only had a payroll of six hundred thousand dollars a year. He continued that there would be no additional public facilities or utilities impacted. He advised that they met with the Director of Nursing at IRCC and is setting up a program for interns and scholarships. He also stated that this facility is being restricted, under Staff s conditions, so that only this applicant can use the conditional use and the number of patients is also limited. Mr. Merritt disclosed that he has had a short discussion with Mr. Porch with regards to this petition. He questioned how many beds were found in Martin and Indian River Counties. Mr. Porch stated that there were a total of 139 beds for the entire Treasure Coast, north of West Palm Beach, and only forty-four of those were in St. Lucie County, which are understaffed. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Arlene Goodman stated that she supports this facility but suggested that they make sure that all staff has an NCIC background check as well as an FDC check. She advised that many members of her family were alcoholics and could have benefited from a facility like the one proposed. She also stated that, at the time, her nineteen -year -old son took his own life by using alcohol and drugs at the same time, there were no facilities in the area that could assist him with his problems. She continued that St. Lucie County needs this type of facility and she is all for it. She advised that for the welfare of the patients of the center, the rest of the property should also be fenced in and may help to deter someone from coming onto the property to tempt a patient with any substance. She continued that this is a disease and they need all the help they can get to overcome their addiction. She stated that she was concerned about what would happen if someone were caught trying to bring in or provide substances to the patients in the facility. Mr. Nollie Robinson stated that he was the Director of Criminal Justice and Out -patient Substance Abuse Programs for New Horizons of the Treasure Coast. He stated that he supported the center and at a recent conference it was brought up that the only facilities, comparable to this one, were in West Palm Beach and Daytona Beach. He also stated that he too was a recovering alcoholic and went through a program similar to the one proposed and believes these facilities work. He continued that these applicants have a great reputation in the Long Island area and he would look forward to working with them here on the Treasure Coast. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 6 Ms. Dottie Thompson stated that she was an employee of the State of Florida Children & Families division and was responsible for licensing all of the substance abuse programs in District 15. She continued that she strongly supports this facility as there are not enough beds for those seeking treatment and there are no other facilities like this in our district. She also stated that roughly 50% of those within the district have to go out of district to get residential treatment. She advised that the few small facilities that exist have extremely long waiting lists. She also stated that she does not support fencing in the entire facility because this is a voluntary facility and doesn't need to be that restrictive. Mr. John Ferrick stated that he thinks this is a nice facility and is currently a waste of space that needs to be used. He continued that this proposal is much better than some of the other options that were proposed for the facility. He questioned if the Sheriff would be notified if there were any issues involving patients, staff, or visitors that attend their facility. Mr. Jack Fitzharris advised that if anyone were caught bringing in a substance to the treatment facility, they would be reported. He continued that unfortunately it could happen but if they are caught, the patient would be thrown out of the facility and the Sheriff would be notified. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn questioned if the gate that will be constructed would remain closed except during entry and exit of the area. Mr. Fitzharris confirmed it would generally remain closed. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Florida Center for Recovery, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services in the I (Institutional) Zoning District, because it will be a benefit to the public and a very positive use of that particular parcel. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. Merritt stated that he has mixed emotions about this petition because of the price of the services and the fact that most of the people in Fort Pierce could not afford to enter this facility. He continued that he could not go along with this because he feels it does not benefit the residents of Fort Pierce. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-1 (Mr. Merritt voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE NO. RZ-02-018 — RODNEY HOPKINS: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of Rodney Hopkins for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 2.54 acres of property located at 4891 North U.S. Highway No. 1. He advised that the applicant would like to establish a Congregate Care Facility on the subject property. He continued that the surrounding zoning was CG (Commercial, General) to the north, south, east, and west with I (Institutional) Zoning to the north. He also stated that the general existing use surrounding the property was commercial. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Rodney Hopkins stated that he was the petitioner and that the average life expectancy of the elderly is seventy-six years old. He continued that he was very interested in providing the elderly as close to a home atmosphere as possible. He also stated that there is a large need for this type of facility in the County and he was currently renovating the building to make it look better than it did previously. Mr. Hearn stated that he contacted Staff to ask some questions about the plans. He also stated that the applicant has done a fantastic job in starting to clean up one of the more serious eyesores on north U.S. 1 and is proud to have him in the neighborhood. He continued that he fully supports what the applicant wants to do but does have some concerns about his needing to have the property rezoned before getting his license to operate the facility. He advised that he is also concerned about some of the items that are allowed in the accessory and permitted uses under the I (Institutional) Zoning. He continued that he would feel much more comfortable with the request if he knew that he was already approved to operate this assisted living facility there. He also stated that he was told that they planned to have an Institutional Residential Home, which would be in excess of fourteen people. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was correct and that he was planning on having sixteen people in the home. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt a PNRD would be the most appropriate request for this type of use, especially since he wants to have his office for his plastering company on the same site. Mr. Hopkins stated that he was currently in the process of submitting a new legal description, which would exclude his personal business office site. Mr. Hearn advised that a PNRD would give the neighborhood the assurance of what is going to be done on the property because a change in zoning opens up several other possibilities. He also stated that he was concerned about the noise from the paint ballpark, which is located next door to this proposed home. Mr. Hopkins stated that the park is only open during the day on Saturday and Sunday and isn't too concerned about the noise because the buildings are concrete block with an inch of stucco on the outside and are well insulated with Egyptian plastering, which should buffer a lot of the noise. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would have a problem with changing their request to a PNRD. Mr. Hopkins stated that he didn't really understand. Chairman Matthes stated that Staff should explain what the procedural differences would be before the applicant could attempt to comment on that request. Mr. Hopkins stated that he has all the paperwork from Tallahassee for the application but cannot afford to pay for all of the large cost renovations required to meet all of their requirements before knowing if he will be granted approval from the County for the change in zoning. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Hearn stated that he fully supports what the applicant wants to do with the facility because it is an asset to the neighborhood but is concerned with changing the character of the zoning because of what could be done under the I (Institutional) Zoning if he sells the property at a later date. He also stated that he was concerned about the ability to have a drinking place as an accessory use under the Institutional Zoning. Mr. Kelly stated that there are two major differences between the I (Institutional) Zoning and a PNRD request. He continued that one of the issues is timing because there a number of other documents that must be prepared in addition to the application and more information is required. He also stated the second issue that there is an increased fee for a PNRD. He advised that the site plan probably wouldn't be necessary since the buildings are already in place and exist. Chairman Matthes questioned if he would be required to adhere to all of the other usual site plan requirement issues. Mr. Kelly stated that most of the parking, landscape, and other usual requirements would need to be met and would be reviewed through the building department at the time the permits are required. He also stated that they do not have the ability to condition a straight rezoning but through the PNRD request, they gain the ability to place conditions. Mr. Hopkins stated there is already an existing site plan of the property but he has some small items that might need to be changed with regards to paving, parking and other small things. Mr. Merritt stated that he didn't understand the concern about the ability to have drinking places as an accessory use, since that is available under the current CG (Commercial, General) Zoning too. Mr. Hearn stated that he wasn't sure that a helipad or a drinking place was allowed under the current CG Zoning without a conditional use permit and those items were his main concerns. He also stated that he was going to support this petition and was happy to have Mr. Hopkins as a neighbor. He continued that he would just like to see some additional safeguards that cannot be instituted under a straight rezoning. Mr. Merritt and Chairman Matthes both pointed out that drinking places are listed as an accessory use under both zoning districts. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. Mr. Trias stated that he understood Mr. Hearn's concerns and goals but that he felt comfortable with the petitioner's request as it was currently presented. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Arlene Goodman stated that in her prior experiences with these types of facilities she found that you couldn't get all of your licenses and permits approved from the State without getting the approval from the County for the change in zoning. She also stated that she understands their concerns but was very much in favor of this proposed home for the elderly. Ms. Sharon Stonesiper stated that she resides in Port St. Lucie and would like to say that Mr. Hopkins has elderly parents who he cares very much for. She also stated that his plans were to provide a home -like setting, with a common house where they could gather, for these people to live out the rest of their days comfortably and have a quality of life. She asked that the Commission to please support Mr. Hopkins and his project because he has the best intentions and has invested a tremendous amount of time and energy on this project. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 9 Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated this project is in his neighborhood and he welcomes Mr. Hopkins to the area because he thinks he will do a great job and that his only concern was that there might be a safer way to do this, as far as the community was concerned. Mr. Merritt stated that he was concerned about delaying this project because of the cost to the owner and that he was prepared to vote on this tonight. Mr. Hearn disclosed that this topic was one of the two topics that he has had discussions about. Mr. Hearn stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Rodney Hopkins for a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District, because his plans clearly are an asset to the neighborhood and to St. Lucie County. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion. Mr. Grande stated that he would like to add that the petitioner has presented a very good case and that Mr. Hearn's and Mr. Merritt's points were both absolutely right. He continued that he didn't feel they should be in the position of being asked to send petitioners back for a second shot, which increases their costs. He also stated that he would appreciate it if when petitioner's come in with requests like this, that the Staff gives them all of the available zoning, which would meet their requirements and the benefits of the PUD or PNRD. He continued that the basic reason there is because if a petitioner, at some point in time, sells the property, after a zoning has been changed and he would feel more comfortable if it was sold with a PNRD zoning and an approved site plan and not a generalized zoning district. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM 5: FILE NO. CU-02-001— TIMOTHY & DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH: Ms. Cyndi Snay stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the request of Timothy and Debra Rose Car Wash for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility to be known as Rose Car Wash within the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District. She continued that the subject property is located at 5321 Sunshine State Parkway and is surrounded to the north by the Lakewood Park Subdivision and Lakewood Park Methodist Church; to the south by The Bank of America Facility and vacant commercial land; to the west by Lake James and single family residential units of Lakewood Park; and to the east is Holiday Pines then vacant commercial land. She also stated that the proposed facility would front onto the Turnpike Feeder Road. She advised that the applicant indicated that a 15-foot wide landscape buffer and an 8-foot high opaque masonry wall will be constructed around the subject site. She stated that the proposed car wash facility was not expected to negatively impact any of the public facilities within the surrounding area. She also stated that as part of the site plan submittal packages, the applicant submitted a noise study for the proposed area. She continued that this noise study indicates that the proposed car wash facility will meet the requirements of Chapter 1-13.8, the Noise Ordinance, of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances. Ms. Snay stated that the St. Lucie County Land Development Code sets forth the overall purpose of a conditional use permit and the authority for granting of a conditional use permit. According to Section 11.07.01(A) and (B) the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is: Section 11.07.01(A) "The purpose of this section is to provide for uses that are generally compatible with the use characteristics of a zoning district, but which require individual review of their location, design, intensity, configuration and public facility impact in order to determine the appropriateness of the use on any particular site in the district and their compatibility with adjacent uses. Conditional uses may require the imposition of additional conditions to make the uses compatible in their specific contexts." Section 11.07.01(B) "The Board of County Commissioners may, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Code, grant conditional uses permits for those uses enumerated in each of the zoning districts in Section 3.01.03 of this Code. Ms. Snay advised that the subject petition was found to be consistent with the standards of review of the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. She also stated that should the Commission choose to recommend approval of the petition, Staff recommends that any such approval include the following special conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Vegetation Removal Permit, the developer of this project shall clearly delineate and protect through appropriate identification P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 11 and barricades any existing native vegetation located outside the limits of development for the proposed project that is to be preserved in place. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed structure or buildings on this site, all exotic nuisance vegetation found on the site shall be removed. 3. The proposed car wash facility's hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. 4. The applicant shall be required to install an 8-foot high opaque wall constructed of concrete and masonry materials or another similar material. This barrier wall may not be constructed of wood or similar material. This wall must be continuous and unbroken. The applicant will be required to install a minimum of 60% of the required perimeter landscaping material on the outside of the wall consistent with the requirements of Section 7.09.04(E) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 5. The approvals granted are contingent upon Rose Car Wash, its successors and assigns, complying with the noise limitations set forth in Chapter 1-13.8 of the St. Lucie County Code and Complied Laws, as may be amended from time to time. In the even that rose Car Wash, its successors or assigns, shall be required to correct the cited violation in the manner required by code. Failure to provide corrective actions as directed by the County or their authorized agent shall result in an order to suspend the operation of the car wash facility until the noise violations are corrected to meet county codes. Mr. Hearn stated that he noticed that Staff had not presented a recommendation one way or the other on this petition. Mr. Kelly advised that they had done a technical review and their technical finding was that this car wash could meet the county codes. He stated there needs to be a consideration for compatibility and that if the Commission finds that it is compatible with the neighborhood it could be approved. He continued that the technical aspects have been met but there is a policy issue that they felt would be better left to the Commission to decide. Mr. Hearn stated that when this was previously presented Staff had recommended denial and questioned what has changed from the original request. Ms. Snay stated that there were some minor changes that needed to be made to the site plan, which have since been modified and now meets all of the technical requirements of the code. Mr. Grande questioned if their decision -making allowed them to deny the application if they feel it has a negative impact on the neighborhood or is inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Young confirmed that incompatibility of the underlying use would be sufficient grounds to recommend denial, if they chose to. Mr. Bruce Barkette stated that he was the attorney representing the applicant Mr. Timothy Rose, who was also present. He advised that Mr. Randy Mosby, the engineer for the project and Mr. Bernard Kinney, the noise consultant were also present to answer any questions. He continued that the project site is on Turnpike Feeder Road, just north of the Bank of America, Habits Bar and Grill, and the Mobile station and is zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood). He stated that this specific request was for a self-service car wash, which is permitted as a conditional use in P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 12 the CN Zoning District. He continued that when Mr. Grande confirmed that he could turn this down because it was incompatible, there is law governing those issues. He stated that Florida Supreme Court case Irvine vs. Duvall County Planning Commission states that they must have an articulated reason that is supported by competent and substantial evidence. He also stated that the law states, "Once a petitioner meets the initial burden of showing that his application met the statutory criteria for granting such exceptions, the burden is upon the opposing party to demonstrate by competent, substantial evidence, presented at the hearing and made a part of the record, that the special exception, or conditional use requested by the petitioner, did not meet the standards and was in fact adverse to the public interest". He continued that the court has emphasized that the mere objections of neighbors is not competent and substantial evidence. He advised that if there is an articulated noise ordinance in the code and this application satisfies that noise ordinance, you couldn't then say they are turning it down because of the noise, because the standard has been met. He stated that unless the opposing parties come forward with another noise consultant that shows that they have not met that standard. He continued that if the concern was with traffic and they have a traffic study that shows they have met that standard, it cannot be used as a reason to turn down the application and disregard the expert testimony. He also stated that once they come forward with competent and substantial evidence, which demonstrates that they have met the standards; they are entitled to be approved, as per the laws of the State of Florida and St. Lucie County. He stated that the Staff report has done a good job of presenting the standards that they were required to meet and they have been determined to be consistent in all applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. He continued to point out each of the items listed in the Staff report, which showed they met the four listed items from the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the Land Development Code. He also stated that they have also met the standards required for development/site plan review as well. He stated that they were not aware of the standards when they submitted their site plan previously, which is why they were not met at that point in time. He continued that they felt they were going to be a good neighbor and that the car wash meets all of the technical requirements. Mr. Randy Mosby, Mosby and Associates, showed an aerial photograph to outline the project and where it sits relative to the adjacent properties. He stated that the project site is bordered on the south and southeast by the Turnpike Feeder Road, the north by Eden Road, and to the northwest by Pandora Avenue. He continued that the Lakewood Park Methodist Church is located to the northeast and is 450 feet away from their site location. He also stated that the wall they will be constructing is located along the northeast, north, and a portion of the northwest perimeter, with the only opening being on Turnpike Feeder Road and to the commercial site to the southwest. He advised that they are 400 feet from the first home in Holiday Pines, which is to the south-southeast. He then stated that it is 400 feet to the first house in Lakewood Park, which is to the north-northwest of the project. He continued that the permits have been approved by DOT and that all of the engineering design is contained within the perimeters of the eight -foot wall and both sides of that wall will be landscaped. Mr. Trias questioned if the applicant could address specifically how this proposal is consistent with the code and that it should be approved as a conditional use. He advised that the description of what is being proposed he already understands but he would like to see how that information makes sense with regards to the conditional use process. Mr. Barkette stated that he didn't really understand what Mr. Trias was looking for because the Staff report goes into how the project specifically meets all of the requirements for the conditional use and site plan. He advised that the purpose statement for the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) Zoning District reads in part, P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 13 "The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for limited retail trade and service activities covering a relatively small area and that is intended to serve the population living in surrounding neighborhoods". He stated that a car wash does qualify as limited retail trade and service activities. He also stated that the parcel size is 0.74 acres, which would qualify as covering a relatively small area and that the car wash is intended to serve the population living in the surrounding neighborhoods. He continued that having the eight -foot articulated wall and landscaping on the outside of the wall, has mitigated the compatibility. Mr. Bernard Kinney, 9767 Erica Court, Boca Raton stated that he was the president of Bernard Kinney and Associates, which is an environmental noise consultant firm. He presented a copy of the noise study report and his resume for review by the Commission. He stated that he has over twelve years experience in environmental acoustics, is an appointed member of the Florida Department of Transportation Noise Task team, and has done many environmental noise studies. He continued that the St. Lucie County noise ordinance has two main elements that must be satisfied. He stated the first element is the maximum permissible noise levels and the second is that it is not permitted to go three decibels over the existing ambient noise. He advised that in both cases, the proposed Tim Rose Car Wash facility met that criterion and that the wall that will be constructed will be an even better buffer to any respective noise. He continued that his analysis did not include having mitigation from a wall, so that would help the results of the study even further. He advised that he went out to the proposed facility, over a three-day period, and conducted a series of noise measurements, utilizing noise descriptors provided by the noise ordinance, over a minimum fifteen -minute measurement period to find the current existing noise levels. He stated that the Turnpike Feeder Road dominated most of the noise that was within the area due to the heavy truck traffic. He continued that he then went to another car wash facility, Cartoons Car Wash in Fort Pierce, because he anticipated that site would have a greater volume of traffic since it is on U.S. 1, allowing for a worst case impact to present. He also stated that he took measurements in front of the self-service bays, the automated car wash, and then backed up ninety feet to account for the property line and took more measurements. He continued that with these results they met the code and in many cases fell far below the maximum levels permitted by the ordinance. Mr. Merritt questioned how many loud boom boxes came through the car wash during the fifteen -minute increments that were measured. Mr. Kinney stated there were not a whole lot, but there were a few noted and at the ninety feet, they were still within the levels required within the ordinance. Mr. Hearn stated that the vacuums would be located at the back of the property, closest to the area zoned for residential use. He advised that he lives on North U.S. 1 and there is a Shell station across the highway from him that has vacuum cleaners available and he can hear the annoying noises from them while they are running. He questioned if the study indicated if any vacuums were running while they were taking measurements. Mr. Kinney stated that the vacuums were running all day long while they were there at the Cartoons Car Wash. Mr. Hearn stated that his concern is with the noises that will come from the car wash that would be annoying to the residents surrounding the area. He advised that he does not agree with Staff that this project won't have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Kinney stated there are different items that should be considered because they all contribute to the overall ambient but things that may be annoying still may fall within the required levels of the noise ordinance. He continued that the Turnpike Feeder Road contributes highly to the ambient noise out there and the data shows that in some cases it is far greater than the noise levels registered P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 14 from the Cartoons Car Wash and U.S. 1 levels. He continued that he thinks that the Turnpike Feeder Road would dominate a large portion of the ambient background noise, even when the car wash facility is in place. Mr. Hearn stated that adding more noise to the noise that already exists there would not be a good thing. Mr. Kinney advised that it is a logarithmic function and is on a base ten scale, so adding the car wash would not really increase the decibels over what is already existing from the heavy trucks that currently travel that road. He continued that in some cases the levels at the Cartoons Car Wash were lower than the levels that currently exist along the Turnpike Feeder Road. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bill Adams stated he resides in Holiday Pines and that the Board of County Commissioners denied this petition unanimously previously. He continued that one of the past issues they had was with noise and it is still an issue now. He also stated that there is a Church right next door and a residential district across from, beside, and in back of the proposed site. He advised that he believes this will affect their property values and will also affect those using the Church's meditation garden. He stated that he understands there is already noise from the highway, but that adding this facility will only contribute to that noise. He questioned why the applicant is insistent on putting this facility in that location with a Church and residential areas so close by when there is property for sale south of this area that is more commercial. He also stated that there is already a car wash existing down the street and a truck wash facility a little further down the Feeder Road. He continued that he feels that the northern end of the county gets stuck with all of these controversial projects. He advised that he feels there are some things that are more important than the legality of the project. He also stated that they are concerned about the lights shining into the Holiday Pines area and how this project will affect the new development that is coming into the area. He continued that they are also concerned about the facility being unattended and could become a gathering place, which would incur more police issues. Mr. Grande questioned if this application is the same proposal that was previously denied by the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Snay confirmed that it was the same proposal that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of previously and the Board of County Commissioners had recommended denial of. She stated that the applicant chose to resubmit their request and there is no time restriction in the code with regards to conditional use requests. Mr. Kelly advised that there were some minor changes to the original site plan, but it essentially was the same. Mr. Adams stated that he collected one hundred and fifty signatures from Holiday Pines residents that were against this petition. He presented a copy of the signatures to the secretary for the record. Ms. Adelaide Brown stated that she resides in Spanish Lakes Country Club and is a member of the Lakewood Park Methodist Church. She continued that she has lived in Spanish Lakes for twenty years and that when they bought the property they were happy to find the Church. She also stated that they have the memorial gardens, which are in front of the church and is meant for prayer and meditation and needs to remain a quite atmosphere. She advised that she does not want to see a car wash next to the church. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 15 Mr. Sam Brown stated he was the spouse of Ms. Adelaide Brown and wanted to go over the Staff report. He questioned if there would be public facilities at the car wash since the Staff report states it would not create any significant additional demands. Ms. Snay stated that all facilities would be found on the site until such time that water and sewer is brought forth and available. Mr. Brown asked what would happen if their on -site septic tank were to overflow. Chairman Matthes stated that he believed they would handle it the same way anyone with a standard septic system would by meeting the Health Department codes. Mr. Brown stated that in the third paragraph, under number 1, on page 5, it shows that incompatible visual effects may be expected on the residential properties located to the north-northeast of the facility. He questioned why this didn't include the Church's property. He also questioned what the economic impacts on the area would be if this business weren't successful and just ends up being abandoned. Chairman Matthes stated that he could not find a sign plan and wanted to know what the maximum height restriction would be for the sign. Mr. Kelly stated that the sign would be a maximum of ten feet to the top of the sign. Chairman Matthes confirmed that the sign would be allowed to be two feet higher than the top of the eight -foot wall as per code. Ms. Lil Collier advised that she lives at 7171 Brookline Avenue in Lakewood Park and is also an active member of the Church. She stated that she has had experiences with noise and how loud it can be when you are in proximity of it. She explained that when she was in a pizza parlor, in a strip mall, someone had continuous loud music playing in their car and she could hear the thumping and vibrations from the vehicle in the parlor. She advised that their Church is located along a road that is a feeder road, but the noise passes quickly as the cars and trucks go by. She questioned the 3.5553 acres that is shown on the property owners listing for Lakewood Park Methodist Church. Chairman Matthes explained that is how much of the Church's property is located within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Ms. Collier stated that the Church sits on five acres and wondered why the difference. Chairman Matthes pointed out that the second column does show that the property's total area is 5.63524 acres and that the other number is only the amount of acres that falls within the 500 feet. She stated that she just wanted to make the point that most of the Church's property is located within 500 feet, which most likely includes the sanctuary and the memorial gardens. She also stated that she uses the garden and memorializes her loved ones there and is concerned about the noise for extended periods of time affecting that area. She submitted a copy to the secretary for the record of 385 signatures that were also against the proposed car wash facility. Chairman Matthes stated that the reason that it shows the area within the five hundred feet on the property owner's listing was because that is required by the code and that it has nothing to do with the noise study and where they tested the levels. Ms. Collier stated that she understands that and simply wanted to point out the distance measurement. She also stated that she did not believe the Church ever received the notification letter and response form with regards to this petition. Ms. Snay advised that they were sent out the letter and maps originally back in August and that there would be additional letters, maps and conditional use response forms sent to everyone on that list prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting. She also stated that since the August meeting was continued to a date certain, no additional letters were sent. She continued that any correspondence that has been received, at any time, in the Planning Department, by anyone with regards to this petition it would be included in the packets to the Board of County Commissioners for their review. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 16 Mr. Hearn questioned if their packets included any correspondence that was received from the public. Mr. Kelly stated that the response forms that are sent out prior to the County Commission meeting, but after the Planning and Zoning meeting, so the copies of the response forms would not be included in their packets. He also stated that the code states that if written protest (on the Conditional Response Forms) by owners of fifty (50) percent or more of the area within five hundred (500) feet of the property affected if received the conditional use permit can not be approved except by the favorable vote of four -fifths (4/5) of all of the Board of County Commissioners. He advised that any written correspondence that is received prior to their packets being mailed is included. He also stated that usually if it is received after their packets are mailed, but in enough time prior to the actual meeting, copies are made and given to the Planning and Zoning Commission the night of the meeting. Mr. Hearn questioned if that is done on a per acre basis or just strictly on property owners. Mr. Kelly advised it is done on a per acre basis. Ms. Dorothy Davis stated that she was a resident of Spanish Lakes Country Club Village and has a petition signed by 107 of their residents against this petition. She submitted the petitions to the secretary for the record. She also questioned what dates the noise study was done. Chairman Matthes stated the dates of the study were 7/20/02 through 7/23/02. Ms. Davis stated that they feel that they reside in the country and would like to keep it that way and don't need another car wash when there is already one just down the road. Ms. Lori Lepere stated that she resides at 6500 Eden Road and that her property is within five hundred feet and directly behind the proposed facility. She advised that she has a ten -year -old daughter who rides her bicycle on their street, which is behind this site and is also worried about the lights shining into their home in the evening. She also stated that she is worried about it being open until 10:00 at night and just wanted to make sure they were aware that she was not for this car wash. Ms. Judy Kloid stated that her husband is the pastor of Lakewood Park Methodist Church and they reside directly behind the Church. She continued that they are in the process of designing a small prayer chapel that will face the memorial gardens and is afraid that will no longer be a quiet, serene place, if the car wash is approved. She also stated that they have a country type neighborhood that they would like to keep that way. Mr. Cliff Norris stated that he was the managing partner of a three -partner ownership of property that was within 500 feet of the proposed facility on the southwest side and his office was located at 4731 A-1-A in Vero Beach. He questioned if the wall is completely u-shaped and the only opening from Turnpike Feeder Road. Mr. Randy Mosby advised that the wall was open to the commercial side to the southwest and also on Feeder Road. He continued that the all areas that border residential areas and the church are entirely closed by the wall. Mr. Norris confirmed that the wall would not be on the side of the property that faces their property. Mr. Mosby stated that there would not be any wall between the two pieces of commercial land. Mr. Norris questioned if the wall would be exposed block or stucco. Mr. Mosby explained it would be an articulated stucco wall with landscaping on both sides. Mr. Norris asked if the landscaping would be irrigated. Mr. Mosby stated that it would be irrigated. Mr. Norris stated that they don't have any major objections except that they would ask that the wall be completely constructed with the only opening on the Turnpike Feeder Road. He also stated that they would like to see the irrigation mandated to be continually irrigated so that it is fresh and new and has an attractive appearance. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 17 Mr. Bob Bangert stated that he has lived in Holiday Pines in St. Lucie County since 1979 and there have been several eyesores over the years along the roads that lead to his home. He explained that he is concerned about what would happen to this property if they go out of business. He also stated that it would be another ugly eyesore if that happened and should be considered. Mr. Gordon Case stated he lives at 5411 Eagle Drive in Holiday Pines and that the wall they have all been discussing does not go between the proposed property and Holiday Pines. He also stated that he does believe that the wall will help deflect some of the noise from the car wash but is really concerned with the hours of operation. He continued that having the car wash open until 10:30 p.m. would attract a lot of teenagers with loud music because they don't have anyplace else to go. He stated that he was also concerned because there will not be any staff on -site to police this type of activity and will be bad news for the neighborhood. He also stated that he feels having a car wash next to a church is not appropriate. Ms. Patricia Bodey stated she lives at 7101 Cabana Lane in Lakewood Park and is very against this car wash. She advised that there are much better locations along Kings Highway from lndrio Road to Orange Avenue and further south. Mr. John Ferrick advised that he is not a resident within the area but understands the neighbors concerns about the level of noise that may be generated from the car wash and its customers. He stated that he lives a '/a mile from any paved road and on many nights he can hear the thumping and vibrating from car radios. He continued that if he were a member of this church and had to deal with hearing those noises from the car wash, he too would be upset. He stated that he feels that this is a poor location since it is next to a church. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Randy Mosby stated that when this site plan was presented previously it was incomplete because they did not have a noise study or all the details needed and after it was denied they reviewed all of the information with Staff. He continued that they redesigned and readdressed all of the concerns prior to resubmittal to fulfill all of the issues and ordinances of St. Lucie County. He explained that they were before them before and were denied by the County Commission but that was for a previous application that truly wasn't complete. He also stated that they have worked hard with Staff to address all of the concerns and feel that the new information they submitted with the site plan and noise study should have addressed all of those previous concerns. Mr. Trias questioned if the only physical change to the site plan from the previous request was making the wall 8-feet tall. Mr. Mosby stated that the major change was the landscaping and the wall for buffering around this facility. Ms. Snay explained that the primary changes from the original site plan were modifications to the landscaping, retaining walls around the preserve areas, sighting the light fixtures to ensure the on -site saturation, with no off -site saturation allowed, bringing the wall up to eight feet and landscaping going on both sides of the wall. She continued that the building layout and footprint did not change. Mr. Bruce Barkette stated that he wanted to point out that most of the opposing testimony is based on fears of the unknown and a fear of boom boxes. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 18 Mr. Bernard Kinney stated that the questions regarding boom boxes were good but that reflection is different depending on the type, construction, and age of the buildings. He continued that if the Church is a concrete block constructed facility, he finds it hard to believe that with a distance of over 400 feet that they would be able to hear the boom boxes in an adverse manner. He stated that he did not find a lot of adverse noise impacts from boom boxes at the Cartoons Car Wash. He continued that he did not feel that the wall would cause a deflection of the sound back across the highway. Chairman Matthes questioned if the wall was considered when the noise study was conducted on the site. Mr. Kinney stated that he was not aware of the wall at the time the study was done and that a wall being there would only help the results by buffering and that will make the noise levels less. He also stated that it would be virtually impossible to cause any deflective problems with noise across the Turnpike Feeder Road. Mr. Grande questioned if the level of noise generated by this facility would be acceptable to the residences behind it, even before considering the wall that is proposed. Mr. Kinney confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that he felt Mr. Kinney was saying since there is already a lot of noise in the area because of the Turnpike Feeder Road, it was okay to add a whole bunch more noise. Mr. Kinney stated that is not what he was saying. He explained that the noise levels that would be generated by the car wash are lower than the noise levels already experienced along the Turnpike Feeder Road. He continued that the louder noise would almost drown out the noise from the lower levels. Mr. Grande stated that he felt by adding that noise to the already existing noise, it would be louder. Mr. Kinney stated that is not the case. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Case had questioned if the facility would me manned or unmanned and that the facility would not be attended. Mr. Jones questioned what time of day the noise study was conducted. Mr. Kinney stated that they conducted tests throughout the day, usually from midday to late afternoon. Mr. Jones questioned if there were any readings done at night. Mr. Kinney stated that some of their latest readings were at around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. He also stated that the noise ordinance considers 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. daytime and this study was done to meet the daytime ordinance requirements. Mr. Jones questioned if the applicant would have to be before them if they had chosen to build a pizza parlor on the site. Ms. Snay stated they would not have seen this application if that were the case because that is a permitted use within the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. Mr. Merritt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Timothy Rose, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District because it has a direct adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed with a vote of 5-1 (Mr. Jones voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 19 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be October 17, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Approved by: Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting September 19, 2002 Page 20