Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 02-20-2003 cam` ,
St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
Regular Meeting
Commission Chambers, 3"' Floor Roger Poitras Annex
February 20, 2003
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Announcements
D. Disclosures
AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES -January 16, 2003
Action Recommended: Approval
Exhibit #1: Minutes of January 16, 2003, meeting
AGENDA ITEM 2: ERNEST F. AND EILEEN B. VAUGHAN -FILE NO. RZ-03-003
This is the petition of ERNEST F. AND EILEEN B. VAUGHAN for a Change in Zoning from the RM-5
(Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning
District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #2: Staff Report and Site Location Maps
AGENDA ITEM 3: ROBERT FENDER -FILE NO. PA-02-005
This item was continued from the January 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. This is
the petition of ROBERT FENDER for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from RU (Residential Urban)
and COM (Commercial) to COM (Commercial). Hank Flores will present Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #3: Staff Report and Site Location Maps
AGENDA ITEM 4: ROBERT FENDER -FILE NO. RZ-02-022
This item was continued from the January 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. This is
the petition of ROBERT FENDER for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) and CG
(Commercial, General) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present
Staff comments.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Ex ibit #4: Staff Report and Site Location Maps
Page 1
i
~
~ ®.J
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Members
FROM: Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary
DATE: Tuesday, February 04, 2003
SUBJECT: P&Z Attendance
Mr. Fred Jones will not be attending the P&Z meeting, Thursday, November 1 S, 2001. He will
be out of town. His absence is excused.
~
it ~~%~~g~
St. Lucie County ~ha
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING
January 16, 2003
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Merritt, and Mr.
Trias.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Matthes (Absent -With Notice)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant
Community Development Director; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms.
Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary.
i
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 1
h F~3~~A
CALL TO ORDER c~~'~'~~°~'a,~~~~
Chairman McCurdy called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman McCurdy gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's
meeting.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners on land use matters.
These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information
gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight.
The meeting will progress in the following manner:
• The Chair will call each item.
• Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request.
• The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board.
• Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the
request.
• The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the
request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has
specific questions.
• The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal
reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff.
Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members.
• The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
for their era
i~d vote, usually
witLiin
theme mon
Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board
of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have
the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
No other announcements or comments.
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003 .
Page 2
s
~~~~`~i `5~ ~*~~~l~a
AGENDA ITEM 1: ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN:~1~,~,ye`~a:~`~~"~, a
~ ~ ~ F4 ~3~~1~47~ Pi1..
Agenda Item # 2 was heard farst. Then Agenda Items # 6, 3,4,5, 7 & 8 were heard. Agenda Item
# 1 was heard last. The minutes of that item 'are presented here for consistency with the
published agenda.
Mr. Hearn stated that the present Chairman has done a fantastic job but the Board of County
Commissioners annually change chairmen and he doesn't think that would be a bad idea here.
Mr. Lounds stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn and that the current chairman has done an
outstanding job over the past few years.
Mr. Lounds made a motion to elect Mr. Ed Merritt to serve as the Chairman for the
Planning and Zoning Commission because of his age, time served on the committee, and for
Mr. McCurdy to remain serving as Vice-Chairman.
Motion seconded by Mr. Akins, with discussion.
Mr. Akins stated that he would like to confirm that the nomination was for both the Chairman
and Vice-Chairman positions. Mr. Lounds stated it was a motion that included both, if
permissible. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt it would have been more appropriate for Mr. McCurdy
to move into the position of Chairman because the Board of County Commissioners moves their
Vice-Chairman to serve as Chairman when they make their yearly changes. He also stated that
he would have preferred Mr. Merritt serve as Vice-Chairman instead.
Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to elect Mr. Ed
Merritt to serve as the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and for Mr.
McCurdy to remain serving as Vice-Chairman.
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 3
i
3~"~~~
~~~~c~~3
AGENDA ITEM 2: MEETING MINUTES -November 21, 2002: ¢~9~~^~};~~;~~a~; ~ g a
~iV.~6~~Z~~Ge Wss~'ri~t~~B~ ~'J 7L ~as~~1.
Mr. Hearn made a motion for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande.
Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0).
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 4
~~v.1~
AGENDA ITEM 3: ROBERT FENDER -FILE NO. PA-02-005: t(~.Tya.,~ r ~~°"t t~ ~~~~6~€~~~~'~~~~
ly'~82~ibtio'da~~Je
Mr. Dennis Murphy, stated that Agenda Items # 3 & 4 were the applications of Robert Fender
for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from RU (Residential, Urban) and COM
(Commercial) to COM (Commercial) and also for a Change in Zoning from the CN
(Commercial, Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning Districts to the CG
(Commercial, General) Zoning District. He advised that staff was requesting this item, with the
applicant's consent, be continued until the February 20, 2003, meeting. He continued that the
reason for the request was that back in 1990 the county acquired some right-of-way from this
property for intersection improvements that were being done. He stated that as a part of the
acquisition the county agreed to initiate a rezoning for some additional land to give the parcel
back the original square footage. He advised that the applicant had some concerns that this was
never done, but the county maps show that it was done. He continued that staff would like to do
some further research to re-confirm that it was done, which would satisfy the applicant's needs.
He stated that staff was requesting these two applications be continued until the February 20,
2003, meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
Mr. Bob Fender Jr. stated that he was speaking on behalf of the petitioner, his father. He
continued that they were concerned that the 1990 agreement had not been fulfilled and were
trying to confirm that it had been done by their request. He advised that in further discussions it
looks as if it may have actually been done back in 1990 and would like the continuance to be
sure.
Mr. Merritt stated that he thought he remembered some other rezoning request coming before
them on this particular property. Mr. Fender stated that the last request was in 1990. Mr. Merritt
stated he believed there was another after that year. Mr. Murphy confirmed that the zoning maps
show the last request by this subject property was in 1990, nothing since. He stated that he
believed there were several other rezoning requests by other surrounding property owners, but
nothing on this subject parcel since 1990.
Mr. Lounds made a motion to continue the application of Robert Fender for a Change in
Future Land Use Classification, deferring public comment, until the February 20, 2003,
Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, unless it is found
to be unnecessary and then the application would be withdrawn prior to that meeting.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and continued
until the February 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
possible.
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 5
AGENDA ITEM 4: ROBERT FENDER -FILE NO. RZ-02-022:
Agenda Item # 4 was discussed at the same time as Agenda Item # 3. ~~~~~i~~r~~~~a;~~~ ~ ~ 3$~~s~°~~..
Mr. Murphy stated that an email was received from the White City Improvement Club expressing
their concern with regards to the rezoning request. He continued that copies were provided to
each of the Planning and Zoning Commission Members, as well as a copy in the project file.
Mr. Lounds made a motion to continue the application of Robert Fender for a Change in
Zoning, deferring public comment, until the February 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning
Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, unless it is found to be unnecessary and
then the application would be withdrawn prior to that meeting.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and continued
until the February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
possible.
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 6
~i~~~~~~
5~~~'
AGENDA ITEM 5: ATLANTIC TRUSS COMPANY. LTD. -FILE NO. RZ-~"'00~1~"'~`~`'`"~ ~'°r
Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of
Atlantic Truss Company, LTD., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1
du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District for property located on the
East side of North Kings Highway, approximately '/a mile south of St. Lucie Boulevard. He
continued that the purpose of the request was to allow the property to be developed for a truss
manufacturing 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
recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
Mr. Merritt asked what the timeframe for widening Kings Highway was. Mr. Murphy explained
that the widening would not be occurring anytime soon because they have not even conducted
their PD&E study yet.
Mr. Lounds questioned if this particular property had been rezoned before. Mr. Flores stated that
the subject property had not been previously rezoned, but there was some property to the south
that had been.
Chairman McCurdy questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Richard Sneed stated he was
the attorney representing the petitioner, Atlantic Truss Company, Ltd. He continued that the
applicants were present and wanted to establish their truss operations in the subject location. Mr.
Merritt questioned if the applicant had prepared a site plan yet for their proposed project. Mr.
Sneed stated that they did not have one at this time and were currently in the stage of
interviewing engineers for that purpose.
Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would be required to bring their site plan back before the
Planning and Zoning Commission for their proposed project. Mr. Murphy explained that it
would not come back before them.
Mr. Jones 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 Commiss•
nl~ CrS grant
approval to the application of Atlantic Truss Company, Ltd., for a Change in Zoning from
-the AG=1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning
District because I believe it would be an appropriate use of the property."
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
January 16,2003
Page 7
s~~~~~
AGENDA ITEM 6: ANGELHEART ACRES -FILE NO. CU-02-009: (~~~a~"~'~~~~4~P~~&~~;j~~ ~y~~S~g~~~~~f~,
Iw~~~a~o~lf P'4C f Y~SA tl~
Mr. Dennis Murphy stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application of Angelheart Acres, for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a community residential home in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-
Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District. He explained that on November 5, 2002, the petitioner filed
for a Conditional Use Permit in order to expand Angelheart Acres, her family residential (foster)
home, which has been in operation for about five years at 171 Caprona Avenue, in River Park.
He advised that a Conditional Use Permit is only required if another family residential home is
located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The petition was to originally be heard at the
December 2002, meeting. He continued that during the review of the application, staff checked
county records (both Community Development and Occupational Licenses) and also the records
of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). He stated that in those reviews no other
family residential home was identified within the 1,000-foot radius, so staff informed the
applicant that no Conditional Use Permit would be required and cancelled the hearing.
Mr. Murphy stated that subsequent to these actions neighbors of the petitioner identified an
apparently unlicensed group home at 111 Caprona Avenue, within the 1,000-foot radius. He
advised that DCF had stated that state law prohibits the county from regulating the location of
foster homes and provided an Advisory Legal Opinion, which appears to support this position.
He continued that the county believes that it can and should regulate these uses. He stated that
attorneys for both agencies were still researching these issues at the present time. He stated that
staff was recommending this petition be continued until the March 20, 2003, Planning and
Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m., instead of the original request of February 20, 2003, to allow time to
resolve all questions.
Mr. Merritt made a motion to continue this petition, deferring public comment, until the
March 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
Motion seconded by Mr. Jones.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and continued
until the March 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
possible.
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 8
~,r~~ta~~~t~~#
Eli 6 i~ s~ ~ ~ ~i`~~:~
AGENDA ITEM 7: ORDINANCE 03-005 - PUD REO /OPEN SPACE ST`ADi~
Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was to consider
Draft Ordinance 03-005 amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by amending
the Open Space Standards for Planned Unit Developments, to provide for Clarification of
Standards applicable to areas of the unincorporated county with a future land use designation of
Agricultural, Residential and Mixed Use and by creating new Paragraph K, Clustering of
Development for Planned Unit Developments. He continued that these proposed revisions were
intended to address certain unintentional conflicts that exist between the County's Land
Development Code Regulations and the County's Comprehensive Plan Development Policies
effecting non-agricultural activities in the western areas of the County. He also stated that
Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2.2 and 1.1.2.3 were originally placed into the Plan as a part of
a settlement agreement in 1991 between the State of Florida and St. Lucie County to have the
Plan now be considered "in compliance". He advised that when the County Commission first
adopted a Unified Land Development Code for the County in 1990, they developed minimum
open space standards that were applicable to all Planned Unit Developments. He stated that
when these standards were first created, the term common open space was not specifically
defined in the Land Development Code. Instead, the term "open space" was defined and the
application of the word "common" was left to an individual, and sometimes subjective,
understanding of the term. He also stated that there were recently some concerns expressed to
the County Commission over how the term "common open space" was being interpreted by the
County in regard to Planned Unit Developments in the agricultural areas of the community.
Mr. Murphy stated that Draft Ordinance 03-005 would maintain the current open space standards
and ratios for development in areas of the county with a residential, conservation, special district,
and mixed-use future land use areas. He also stated that those areas of the community an
agricultural future land use designation, new subparagraph I (2) would establish a minimum open
space ratio of 80% of the development site, but it would also permit that the required open space,
at the option of the developer, be held either in a common interest or individual interest, subject
to deed or easement restrictions that would ensure that it remained as open space in perpetuity.
He continued that this is a significant change from the open space standards applied to more
urban areas of the community, but it would be consistent with the requirements of Policy 1.1.2.3
of the County's Comprehensive Plan. He advised that in addressing Policy 1.1.2.2 of the
Comprehensive Plan, new paragraph K addresses Clustering of Development areas in a Planned
Unit Development. Review of several general planning and project design documents indicates a
variety of definitions for the term "clustering". He also stated that all of them have the same
general theme, that being, clustering is considered to be the concentrating of development units
or activities in a manner that provides for the highest utilization of the land area under
development but with a minimum of new infrastructure development resulting in lower land
development costs. There are no specific density standards for the term clustering since this is
tyT.icalLyalocal_polc_y_decison_that~vi-l-Mary-between-communities.
Mr. Murphy stated that in order to address this ambiguity in the description of the terms cluster,
staff has proposed that in the Residential, Conservation Special District, and Mixed-Use Future
Land Use designations no specific minimum standards be set in order to provide for maximum
flexibility of product and project design. He also stated that in the agricultural areas, clustering
of development is required when any non-agricultural development is proposed that would
exceed 4 units/lots. He continued that noting the general description of the term clustering is
focused towards a concentration of units for development, it would appear to be somewhat
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 9
L'~~E$&dd~ b~e~3~0 ~r~~~~~fs~l.
contradictory not to create some locally established maximum parcel sizes in the Agricultural
Future Land Use designations that encourage the clustering of development. He also stated that
they have proposed that in the AG-2.5 Zoning District, the maximum lot size in any clustered
development be no more than 1.25 acres and in the AG-5 Zoning District the maximum lot size
be no more than 2.5 acres. He advised that lot sizes could be smaller, but the overall project
density would not exceed that of the Future Land Use designation for the parcel as a whole.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency forward
Draft Ordinance 03-005 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval.
Chairman McCurdy questioned that a conservation easement could be considered as part of the
common open space. Mr. Murphy explained that a conservation easement is a broadly defined
term that's an easement that would be placed over the land that would prevent it from being
developed in any other manner, urban related. Chairman McCurdy stated he was questioning if
there would be a tax break given because of the lack of potential development on that easement.
Mr. Murphy stated that the property appraiser would make that decision, but he believed there
would be some type of valuation adjustment.
Mr. Lounds questioned if the parcels included in this would be someone's private acreage or is it
public land that is being considered as part of the common open space. Mr. Murphy explained
that it could include someone's private property and could include public land as well. Chairman
McCurdy stated that the way he understands this change all of the benefits and rights of the
agricultural use currently would be in force. He continued that the only restrictions would be on
future residential development of the area. Mr. Murphy stated that would be correct, with a few
exceptions for wetlands and situations like that.
Mr. Grande stated that the way he is reading the open space requirements, they could be met with
productive lands and individual residents of the cluster could own those lands. He questioned
what the actual intent of the change was and where the requested change was coming from. He
stated that if they approved the change as requested he felt they would still be out of compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that if the changes were approved as they are
currently written they would not take us out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Grande stated that he felt it would. Mr. Murphy stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not
define "common" open space, only the word open space and the word "common" open space is
defined within the Land Development Code. He continued that development interests from the
west are what originated this request to resolve the conflicts between the Comprehensive Plan
and the Land Development Code.
Mr. Hearn questioned if the easements were in perpetuity. Mr. Murphy stated that usually they
=.vr~.
1~Ir. Hearn-gaest~oned-ice
that
1and~uould-ne-vex
be-able-to-be-developed. M~Mnr~hy
explained that would be the case, unless. it .was released,. usually_by the consent_of the _c_ounty
- - _ - _ _
commission. Mr. Merritt stated that his understanding was that the county commission would be
re-addressing this situation within the year and that this would, in his opinion, just be a patch job.
Mr. Murphy stated he would not consider it a patch job and that the intent of the ordinance is to
address the clarification needed within the existing codes and policies. He continued that after
this review a re-evaluation were needed then the Board would direct that.
Mr. Trias questioned what the fundamental difference between having private open space
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 10
,~''~i~®
counting towards open space and regulating the overall density. Mr. Mur~h~'~~P~i~i"~~~ th~t~th~~°C°
ordinance would allow for individual ownership of the lands to count and not getting into a large
tract owned by a common interest group. Mr. Trias stated that he felt it was a design issue and if
there were common open space with some kind of greenbelt along some clearly defined area, this
would still be the same number of units and same type of development, as well as sprawl. Mr.
Murphy stated that the ordinance does deal with the physical land development, but he doesn't
feel this would promote sprawl. He continued that Paragraph K attempts to address the portion
of the language found in policy 1.1.2.2 that discusses requiring clustering of the developments.
He also stated that the term clustering essentially means concentration and development for the
purpose of reducing infrastructure and development costs. He advised that the definition of
clustering is not defined by specific lot sizes and that Paragraph K is a draft to try and address
the rural development issues to concentrate their development activities to certain portions of the
parcel. He stated that by concentrating the development activity they have attempted to cap the
maximum lot sizes permitted in those areas. He continued that this is the most simplistic way to
start to correct the discrepancies and that it is open for suggestions, but until the policy itself is
adjusted, it won't be very simple to correct.
Mr. Jones stated that there is land in the rural community that is an agricultural ranchette type of
development and people who live in those areas don't want to be clustered. He continued that
the land is zoned that way so they don't have to be clustered and he doesn't feel it would be right
to take away the rights of those owners to make them develop their land in this fashion. He also
stated that requiring a PUD is a tremendous expense that he doesn't feel is right and couldn't
support this. Mr. Murphy stated that this is why they have brought it to them to discuss all of the
issues and options and work out any problems that may be brought up. He continued that the
problem really is the discrepancies between the root policies of the Comprehensive Plan and this
was just the first step to try to rectify that problem. Mr. Jones stated that he cannot see any
layout with this proposed concept of clustering looking like anything other than a pie shape and
doesn't make any sense from a management or maintenance standpoint. Mr. Grande stated that
he agreed with Mr. Jones' thoughts because he doesn't feel that these clusters should be out in
this type of region.
Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to hear from members of the public with regards to this
ordinance because he is confused about this issue. He questioned what the basic land use
densities were out in the agricultural areas. Mr. Murphy explained that the land use categories in
the agricultural environment are 1 per 2.5 acres and 1 per 5 acres. Mr. Hearn stated that he
would really like to hear what the public thinks about the proposed changes and what would
happen if the Commission chose not to act on this ordinance tonight. Chairman McCurdy stated
he felt it would be better to get most of their discussion with staff out of the way first and then
hear from the public.
Tyr. Merritt~tated-that
in-his-discussionsv~izh~taffthe-answer-would-be-to~end-this~irafz
ordinance to the County Commission with a request that they change the land use to allow for
this or to cure the open space problems. He continued that the County Commission could then
forward the information to DCA and that staff has done as much as they can do to rectify the
inconsistencies until something else is on the books.
Mr. Hear questioned if someone had a hundred acre parcel, would they only be allowed to place
one home on it, based on the new draft ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that under AG-5 land use,
a hundred acre parcel would have a residential allocation of twenty units. He continued that how
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 11
~{w~~.~ ~ t~
Y Ai~tFYs A(B ~ End"d~~Fi
Y~ 4
~~hxy g t ~y yT
that property can be developed is limited by the Comprehensive Plan policies. He also stated
that if the owner wants to divide the property into twenty equal pieces, he could not do that for
residential purposes because of the restriction of more than four pieces for residential would
require a PUD, which would then have the clustering and open space requirements. He advised
that in order to get his twenty pieces he would need to concentrate them on one particular portion
of the property and somehow satisfy the term clustering. Mr. Hearn questioned if it was the term
clustering that was causing so many of the problems. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct, but
that open space is also an issue that would have to be dealt with. He also stated that open space
in a rural environment as opposed to open space in an urban environment does have a distinction.
Mr. Trias questioned about how much of the county is zoned with AG - 2.5 and AG - 5 land uses.
Mr. Murphy stated that it was over half of the unincorporated county. Mr. Trias stated that he
feels like that there would be a large potential for development and sprawl there.
Mr. Merritt stated that he too would like to hear from the public regarding this ordinance because
he feels it would raise a lot more questions from the Commission members of staff.
Mr. Akins questioned if the example of the hundred-acre parcel was based on the way the current
standards are written or based on what the draft ordinance was proposing. Mr. Murphy stated
that the example was based on the way the standards are currently written.
Mr. Lounds wanted an explanation of the differences between suburban development, urban
sprawl, and rural development. Mr. Murphy stated that the differences between suburban and
rural development isn't really a defined term. He continued that he would categorize rural
development as being typically found in areas that are some distance from anything resembling
an urban environment, large or small. He also stated that suburban development would be that
which perimeters an urban environment, large or small, like Lakewood Park or Port St. Lucie.
He continued that those explanations would probably vary depending on where within the
Country you were reviewing. Mr. Lounds stated that the feeling of those who move out to a
more rural atmosphere is that they want to be away from the suburban areas and not have all of
those amenities. He continued that the question really is how to accommodate the people who
want to move out of suburbia and into a rural area and won't be solved with ease.
Mr. Trias stated that in his work he has had an opportunity to try and define sprawl. He
continued that the only useful way to define it was that sprawl was any type of development that
did not amount to clearly defined neighborhoods or districts that eventually made up towns. He
also stated that anything that was not clearly defined was sprawl. He advised that the problem is
once zoning is in place there is no practical way to apply his definition of sprawl. Chairman
McCurdy stated that different people desire different things and those who have homes on an
acre or more with wells and dirt roads are very happy with that. He continued that not everyone
~x~ants-to~ive-in-aP-lanned-Unit
De-velepment
with~ll-ofthe-ur~an~menities~nd-the-ta~ce~
associated with them.
Mr. Grande stated that what this comes down to is when a PUD is done in the Agricultural area,
because it is required, we are considering the possibility of allowing that portion of the PUD that
isn't allocated to the homes, to not be part of the common ownership or area that is dedicated to
the function of the entire development. He also stated that what they are saying is that now with
this change, we can take the land that was set aside and let it be owned by a single owner, who
could be either the person who owned the land to start with or the developer who bought the land
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 12
~
n~'~~
~P~~r't ~~s ~
to develop, or one of the residents of the cluster. He continued that what is ended up with is a
great change in the PUD concept that says now the common land can be a separate productive
area that doesn't relate to the cluster of homes and isn't really part of this overall land plan as a
residential cluster. He advised that he doesn't think this change is a step forward and he would
like to see those open spaces be common rather than individually owned.
Mr. Jones stated that he is all for clustering homes to make the provision of services easier in
certain locations. He also stated that those who want to live in that type of environment should
have that ability, but the way the county should encourage this would be to allow for an increase
in the number of units per acre. He continued that if that happened those types of developments
would occur closer to town and the people who wanted to live there would want to have the
services. He advised that the way the draft ordinance is currently written makes it seem like
farmers are bad people for wanting to live outside of the suburban areas.
Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Jerry James stated that he has lived in the county for many years and has lived on
Brocksmith Road since the early 70's. He continued that he is a horseman and likes to see
horses, chickens, and ducks outside of his windows, rather than neighbors. He advised that he
isn't interested in obtaining services or a paved road and that is why he bought out there. He also
stated that he has developed ranchettes in the past few years, likes that lifestyle and is concerned
that the direction of this new ordinance would try to regulate rural life. He stated that what is
proposed in this draft ordinance is inappropriate and unnecessary. He continued that PUD
zoning does not belong in rural areas of development, only in urban areas. He advised that he
feels clustering is a good tool, but again does not apply to rural areas. He suggested that staff
review the affidavit of exemption that is available in Indian River County with regards to the best
interest for rural development in agricultural areas that are in financial need. He continued that
this is what happens when rules and regulations for urban development are over regulated and
misapplied. He stated that the affidavit of exemption allows for 5-acre tracts with no more than
twenty units, don't have to have paved roads and also have provisions available for property or
homeowner's associates and common areas. He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan policies
are broad policy statements that aren't the Land Development Code and according to law the
policies are secondary to the code. He questioned why we don't just exempt the conflicting
policies, remove them from rural land developments, and adopt an affidavit of exemption.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. James how the Planning and Zoning Department were supposed to get by
the requirements of DCA that were agreed to under the 1992 settlement agreement for the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that in this case, the Comprehensive Plan is adopted
into the Code of Ordinances and the policies therein do carry the force of the code and the law.
So Mr. James' comment that the policies of the plan were secondary to the code under the eyes
f-the-la~v-would-net
be-the-case
hers-bec-ause-the-y-are~oth-par-t o~
th~same-thin~Mr:
James
stated that his bottom line is that he is asking- the Commission to .look at rural- development, not _ _ _
- _ _ _
with urban tools. Mr. Murphy stated that he doesn't believe correcting these issues will be a
simple, short-term task and that this draft ordinance is the first step.
Mr. Grande questioned Mr. James' if his suggestion was not to expand the PUD language to
encompass the rural, agricultural area, deny this draft ordinance, and try to find a smaller, logical
way to cure this problem. Mr. James confirmed that is what he was suggesting because PUD
regulations really should not apply to rural development issues. Mr. Trias stated that he agreed
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 13
a,?c%o~J,~9 ,~.+9 it
G 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~N1~`V.~~'a~
with Mr. James that the PUD regulations and other urban tools are being misuseclNin the rural
areas. He continued that the root of the problem is how to keep rural areas rural and the urban
tools are clearly not appropriate for this type of development.
Mr. Hearn stated that he would have a problem with the clustering idea because of the possibility
of agricultural exemptions and the fact that the Comprehensive Plan encourages ensuring that
new development pays for itself. Mr. Murphy stated that the restrictions in Policy 1.1.2.2. would
need to be amended to not require a compulsory PUD in the agricultural environment. Mr. Hearn
stated that the term PUD is not really what he has issue with. He continued that he doesn't feel
clustering is the answer because he doesn't think the people who want to move to a rural setting
want to be clustered with their neighbors. He also stated that having an agricultural exemption
on most of that land would not be appropriate either.
Mr. Lounds stated that by having a density of 1 unit to 2.5 acres and 1 unit to 5 acres, the density
issue is already being controlled in the rural areas. He also stated that, in his understanding, a
PUD would be used more inside the urban service area than outside. He continued that the
purpose of greenbelt was to protect the agricultural production people from excessive taxes. He
advised that he has a problem with the term clustering because he thinks it takes away from the
rural spirit, the rural feeling, and makes it an urban type environment. He stated he felt they
needed to send a message to the Board of County Commissioners since they are an advisory
board to them.
Mr. Merritt questioned if Mr. James would favor removing PUD totally from the agricultural
zoning. Mr. James stated that in Indian River County they cap the affidavit of exemption at a
maximum nineteen five-acre tracts. Mr. Akins stated that he would like to hear more details
about the affidavit of exemption since it seems to be working for the same types of situations in
Indian River County. Mr. Jones stated that worst instances of sprawl happen when a community
isn't prepared for the growth that is coming and opportunities for settlement aren't available. He
continued that he didn't feel that St. Lucie County was prepared for the growth that he sees
coming and these issues must be addressed in a broader, thought out forum than they could
accomplish tonight. Mr. Trias stated that the county needs to have an edge to the development
and it must be dealt with now or else everything from here to the Gulf Coast will become
developed without any breaks.
Mr. Paul Frishkorn stated that he is in complete agreement with Mr. James and that common
sense in government doesn't seem to work anymore. He also stated that he doesn't want to live
close to his neighbors and wants to keep that rural setting. He continued that some things do
need to be changed and that Mr. James was making suggestions in the right direction.
Mr. Jeff Furst stated that he came to St. Lucie County in 1970 and spent twelve years
representingthe~'r--ust
fe~P~hl-ic-L-and.
He-also-stated~Jia~-the big~ictur-e i~-that i€-seme~#'
isn't done about development issues, St. Lucie County will end up just like southern Florida_ He
continued that there are opportunities to have a great mix of PUD's and rural development right
now. He advised that he lives in St. Lucie West now and was also on it when it was the Peacock
Ranch and in his opinion the Peacock Ranch was better. He stated that there are too many
people in too little space out there in St. Lucie West. He continued that there needs to be answer
for those people who want to go out and live on ten, twenty, or more acres in a rural setting. He
also stated that the agricultural people were here long before the developments and they need to
have answers. He advised that he has read the draft ordinance and doesn't feel that it is going to
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 14
+N tu~:c-tl ili
nr y~1a~sli i7~'. ~d pp:°l o1aA~
~:..r "d'yiY`i.t~y4:~ k:,'.W 3~~1J~CV
i~.n1Jy y~ .{{~~.~1T 4 '9 `9 X11
patY~l~3ua49e)G435~ ~33~'91e.3~~'SB.
work with the way that it is currently written. He stated that there is nothing wrong with a large
development with people owning large tracts because that is what people want to own today. He
also stated that it works in the surrounding counties, so it should be able to work in our county.
He continued that there would not be any buyers of property if the proposed draft ordinance were
adopted because they will just go to other counties. He advised that he agrees with the
exemption that is offered in Indian River County and feels that would work in our county too.
He also stated that the public doesn't want to have to deal with the expenses involved in PUD's
and he feels it would be better to not include the agricultural areas in that like Indian River
County does.
Mr. Hearn stated that he could not see a property owner willing to decrease their density
availability. Mr. Furst stated that Indian River County has several different options available.
Mr. Hearn advised that he would be interested in reviewing their options in detail. Mr. Merritt
questioned if Indian River County's urban service line goes out to I-95. Mr. Furst stated that it
did not, other than right along the corridor on State Road 60. Mr. Merritt stated that it is very
difficult for developers to find large tracts of land in Indian River County now and that they have
to buy several sets of 40 or 50 acre tracts in order to have a development. He also stated that
neither Indian River nor Martin County preserved any of their beaches.
Mr. Bill Phares stated that he is the State Director of the Cattleman's Association of St. Lucie
County and is concerned about clustering and the effects it will have on the agricultural lands.
He also stated that the small grove owners are not making it anymore and we need to have
something to pay for the services. He continued that his son had gotten into a situation where he
purchased some land on Matthews Road to split it up into smaller home sites, but cannot split up
the lot more than 1 time without having to do a PUD. He suggested that St. Lucie County really
should review some of the items suggested tonight for fixing these issues.
Mr. Brad Phares stated that he is Co-Chairman of the Environmental and Private Lands Property
Rights Committee for the Florida Cattleman's Associate and that the smartest thing to do would
be to review how other counties within Florida have handled these types of problems and work
from their solutions. He also stated that this issue has come up in Alachua and Volusia County
and should consider reviewing how they dealt with the same situations. He continued that
clustering did not work in Volusia County and that Alachua County is still debating the issue and
is in litigation. He advised that there are a lot of legal issues that could arise out of the draft
ordinance that is currently being proposed. He stated that the concerns about protecting the rural
atmosphere are already being addressed by the recently passed Rural Lands Protection Act and
also through Preservation 2000. He continued that the State has provided funding for property
owners to preserve their property as they have it now. He also stated that there are monetary
incentives available to them for that preservation. He advised that people, who feel the land is
sacred, live off the land, love it, and will not submit to development pressures, own a majority of
*~e-wester~~ount .
- - -
Mr. Hearn stated that they are examining the existing policies now and they see a need for a
change, but want to make sure that the change that is made everyone can live with. He also
stated that he didn't want to look to other counties as an example of what will definitely work in
St. Lucie County because he feels our county is unique compared to theirs. He advised that he
wants to make sure that we preserve and protect our unique county and don't make mistakes that
we will regret later on. He stated that if more people from the public were to come out to these
meetings and help them make the right decisions they will have an even better county tomorrow.
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 15
E ;.3 ' a.j
Mr. John Ferrick stated that he was concerned about how this draft ordinance would affect the
residential and mixed-use areas because all of the previous discussion has been around the
agricultural areas only. Mr. Murphy stated that the first section of paragraph K on page 7 is the
only section that could affect the individual residential areas because the rest of the ordinance
does not change any policies or codes regarding residential areas, it only focuses on the
agricultural areas. He also stated that the real focus of the changes and discussion is with regards
to the area of the county that lies west of the Turnpike / I-95 corridor.
Mr. Merritt questioned if they could propose a motion that changed the wording of the ordinance
and added the possibilities involved with the affidavit of exemption. Ms. Young explained that
would change the overall intent of the ordinance and how it was advertised and therefore could
not be done. She stated they would have to recommend approval or denial of the ordinance as it
is currently written with their suggestions to the Board of County Commissioners regarding
considering the affidavit and their other comments. Mr. Merritt questioned if denying the
ordinance would cause a problem with the settlement agreement they have regarding the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that in order to adopt the affidavit of exemption that is
used in Indian River County they would need to remove policy 1.1.2.2. from the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Jones questioned that if they modified those policies, would that bring the county out
of compliance with the agreement of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that the
county would need to provide a valid explanation to DCA as to why those policies would need to
be amended, but yet would still keep us in compliance.
Mr. Hearn stated that if the two referenced Comprehensive Plan policies were reworded so as not
to trigger clustering and PUD processes. Mr. Jones stated that he feels the concept of clustering
is a good idea and could have positive effects, but should be something that someone chooses to
do with his land, rather than being required to do. Mr. Hearn stated that he would want to make
sure that the developer does have that choice rather than make it a requirement. Mr. Jones stated
that he would not be able to support anything that is like what is currently included in this
proposed draft ordinance.
Mr. Grande stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Jones and would support a motion that passes
this change along to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial and
then ask them to have staff investigate the solution to this problem that has been implemented in
Indian River County, as well as other solutions that exist within the state today. He continued
that then staff could bring back a new ordinance with a coordinated set of changes, which would
include both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code.
Mr. Merritt stated that he feels the zoning is already in place and that they only need to worry
about fixing the language of the zoning to correct the inconsistencies. He also stated that Mr.
James' suggestions would take care of that and the only issue would be how to enact it. Mr.
T^n~stated~hat
it~vould-mak~~e~se~e-con~ider~reposing-a-bound~~in~he-c~mmunit3~~~a`
begins to limit where urban activity can be_develop_ed. He continued that it_wou_ld provide a
- - -
good transition between urban, suburban, and completely agricultural areas.
Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Akins questioned what is being exempted when an affidavit of exemption is filed. He
continued that if this exempts the PUD requirements, then that is probably something we should
look at to correct our problems. Mr. Murphy stated that the next ordinance on the agenda goes
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 16
~ 4
~~i~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ i
~r 7 ~ ~E'
into detail and addresses the specifics of the affidavit of exemption that is ~~a~l~abl~°in~Idfli~ri
River County's regulations. Mr. Akins asked if staff could craft an ordinance that encompasses
the same ideas as those approved by Indian River County. Mr. Murphy stated that is absolutely
possible, to a point, as they had proposed in the next agenda item, but it cannot supersede the
provisions in the Comprehensive Plan that have the limitations on the division of property within
the agricultural areas. He continued that the main issue would be amending those previously
discussed policies within the Comprehensive Plan and then implement a Land Development
Code regulation that would provide for some limitations for development within the agricultural
area.
Mr. Hearn stated that he was not sure that they should make a recommendation tonight with
regards to this ordinance without having benefit of a special meeting or more time to review and
discuss at next month's meeting. He continued that he wants to make an informed decision and
isn't prepared to make one tonight that he would be comfortable with.
Mr. Grande stated that he agrees with Mr. Murphy that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be
changed and there is a specific process that must be followed in order to do that. He continued
that the way to get DCA to approve deletion of the two policies in question is to send the changes
to them, with a new proposed ordinance change that will explain some new proposed rural PUD
requirements. He also stated that he didn't feel this should be put off another month and should
be decided on by recommending that the Board of County Commissioners deny the ordinance as
currently written and have staff investigate alternatives. Mr. Hearn questioned why they couldn't
direct staff themselves to rewrite the ordinance and then bring it back to avoid sending it to the
Commissioners to send back down and then to them again. Mr. Grande stated that he didn't
believe it could be done that way because they already have a proposed ordinance before them
for their review and recommendation and they need to make a recommendation one way or the
other as it is currently written. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt recommending a continuance could
shorten the overall process.
Mr. Grande made a motion to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny
Draft Ordinance 03-005 as inconsistent with the best future development prospects for St.
Lucie County. He also recommended that the Board of County Commissioners assign the
staff to look at the solutions that are in the neighboring counties where the same process
has been handled in the past. Then come forward with a Comprehensive Plan change that
eliminates the impediments that exist today and the associated ordinances that will allow us
to do planning in the rural areas.
Motion seconded by Mr. Jones, with discussion.
Mr. Akins stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn that there might be a quicker way to get to the
°^'„~ion~Ir:-He~r~rad~ised~h~he-wanzed~o-knee~c-out~~e step-0f-sendingth~to-the-Boa~o~
County Commissioners,_vho. would-then. send_it to-staff, who would then- bring it_back to them
for their review again. Mr. Jones stated that he didn't believe they had or should have the
authority to direct staff to spend the additional time and manpower needed to come to a solution
and that should be the task of the Board of County Commissioners to direct that. He continued
that he didn't want to just mimic what the other counties have done, but just use their solutions
as a guideline to help resolve our own issues. Chairman McCurdy stated that he agreed. Mr.
Merritt questioned if they could make the motion to exempt the clustering and PUD portions of
the ordinance so they could recommend approval of the rest of the ordinance. Ms. Young
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 17
~~`~,.r~ El ~~.Is'
~;~i~~~3~~E a~~~ 6~4~~~'~~~~~
explained that would change the intent of the ordinance as it was previously written and
advertised to the public and therefore could not be done that way. She explained that they would
have to make a recommendation on the ordinance as it was currently written and advertised. She
also stated that making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners one way or the
other tonight would not change the overall timetable of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
process and the ordinance adoption.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Akins voting against)
and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial.
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 18
~~r.~5v~°~'
~
~~~a~~ ~ ~,u:
AGENDA ITEM 8: ORDINANCE 03-006 -PLATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director stated that Agenda Item # 8 was to
consider Draft Ordinance 03-006 amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by
amending Section 11.03.01, Procedure for Platting, Platting Requirements, by creating New
Paragraph F for the purpose of providing for exemptions to certain minimum subdivision
standards for large lot developments in the Agricultural 2.5 and Agricultural 5 Future Land Use
Categories.
Mr. Murphy stated that absent of taking an action on the previous agenda item and addressing the
Comprehensive Plan issues, this ordinance would not get the desired effect of their previous
discussion as it is currently written. He continued that this would not work in the agricultural
districts until the Comprehensive Plan policy issues are changed. Staff is therefore
recommending denial of Draft Ordinance 03-006.
Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Grande made a motion to deny Draft Ordinance 03-006 for the reasons presented by
staff.
Motion seconded by Mr. Jones.
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.
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 19
bYtW96~:~1;~~.~ 1
OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: ~~bi~~tl='h~~~~~~`~ ~~5'~~%~~~~i~
Next scheduled meeting will be February 20, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: Approved by:
ilmore, Secretary Ed Merritt, Chairman
P & Z Meeting
January 16, 2003
Page 20
~:W:
.
II
Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 02/20/03:
JC\E CpG
i '
y File Number RZ-03-00$ .
I,
,c~ ~P MEMORANDUM
O.R1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO Planning and.Zonng Commission
FROM: Planning Manager l~~L _
DATE: February 14, 2003
SUBJECT: Application of Eileen and Ernest Vaughan; #or a Change in Zoning from
the RM-5 Residential Multi le- famil - 5 d /acr Z '
u e ornn D' t '
( p Y ) g is nct to the
RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning District.
I
LOCATION: 13775 South Indian .River Drive
EXISTING ZONING: RM-S (Residential., Multiple-Family 5 du/acre)
PROPOSED ZONING: - RE-2 (Residential, Estate ^ 2 du/acre)
FUTURE LAND
.USE:
R
U Resi
dential lJr
ban
( )
PARCEL SIZE: 0.64 acre
III
PROPOSED USE: Single-Family Home with a Guest House
PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A" -Section 3,01.03(6) RE-2 (Residential,.
Est t -
~ e 2 du/acre contains. the
d s' n a t
e Ig ed uses, which
are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or
permitted through the conditional use process. Any .use
deli hated as
il' a Conditional -Use is re wired t
g q o undergo.
further review and approvals. Any use not found within the
zoning district regulations are designated as prohibited
uses for t
hat district..
SURROUIVDtNG~ONINE: RM=S~Residen~ial; Multiple-Family - u acre o e Wort
- - - - =and south. RMH-5 (Residential, Mobile Horne 5 du/acre) -
_ - _ -
-
-to-the-west: - - - _
SURROUNDING LAND USES:` The general existing use surrounding the property is
- - - residential: -
~ The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding
area is RU {Residential Urban):
I_
February 14, 2003 Subject: Aileen and Ernest Vaughan
Page 2 File No.: RZ-03-003
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #12 (Walton Road), is located approximately 6
miles to the northwest.
UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is serviced by an on-site well- and
septic system.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for Lndian River Drive is 30 feet.
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS: None.
TYPE OF CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED; Concurrency Deferral Affidav#.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06,03,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
to reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider and make the. following determinations;.
1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions
of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code;
The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from the RM-5 (Residential,
Multiple-.Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE~2 (Residential, Estate.-'2
du/acre) Zoning District.. The area in-which the subject property is located is
designated RU (Residential Urban) on the future land use map of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St.
.Lucie County Comprehensive Plan;
Tfle appli~goe~ti~hange in zoning rf
om
t~RM=5 (Resid~iaf, -
Multiple.-Family - 5-du/acre) Zoning-District to the 'RE 2 (Residential, Estate = 2 -
- --du/acre)-Zoning District: The-:area-in-which-the-subject-property-icelocated:-is- -
designated RU (Residential Urban) on the future land use map of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan. The RU (Residential Urban) Future Land Use
February 14, 2003 Subject: Eileen and Ernest Vaughan
Page 3 File No.: RZ-03-003
classification allows lands within it to be designated with RE-2 (Residential,
Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning.
3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with
the existing and proposed land uses;
The proposed RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre) Zoning is consistent with
the existing and proposed residential 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. The applicant is
proposing to construct a guest home as an accessory to an existing single-family
residence.
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 public facilities in this area. Any development will need to
demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities in the area to support any
development.
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
The proposed amendment is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the
natural environment. Any development will be required to comply with all state
and local environmental regulations. The subject property does not contain any
known unique or threatened habitat.
7. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any
negative affects of such patterns;
- The proposed- amendment would result- in-an orderly and iogical development- -
pattern.
Febr
u r 14
2003
ay ,
Sub'ect Eileen rr
Pa e 4 1 a d Ernest Vaughan
9 File No.: RZ-03-003
8.
Whether the
proposed amendment, would be m conflict with the public ,
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code;
The proposed amendment is not in-conflict with the ,public interest and is in
harmony with` he u~pose-and intent bf the St. Lucie Coun Land Develo me t
p n
tY_ p
Code.....
-
COMMENTS
II
The petitioners; Eileen and Ernest Vaughan, have requested this'change in zoning from
the RM:5; Resid nti I M 1 i"' I- -
_ ( e ~ , u t p e Family 5 du/acre) .Zoning. District to the RE 2 (Residential,
Estate 2 du/acre) Zoning, District on ,property located at 13775 South Indian River Drive in
~I
i
order to allow for the construction of a "uesfi home `on the roe The a `ea i
g. p p _ rty. r n which the
subject property: s located isdesignated RU (Residential Urban) on the.-future land use map of
the-Com rehensive ,Plan. The int nded u'
p, a se for this rezoning.: is not expected to create
Iii significant additional demands on public facilities in this area. Any development will need to-
I demonstrate that there are adequate pablic facilities in the :area to support development. The
i
subject property ;does not contain any known unique or threatened habitat.
Attached'is a copy of Section 3.0103(G) - RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 du/acre), of the
St. Lucie 'Count Land Develo ment Code <which I'
y p de meate the permitted, accesso ;and
ry
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 Accessory Uses ection would be allowed -only if one or more of
t
he 'ermined uses exist on th
p e subject property, Any use under'the Conditional Uses section
co
u d onl a
i : be Ilowed if it
y 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 Develo ment Code and is
p
not in
conflict with the oats' ob'ectives and olicies of the St: Lucie Coun
I, 9 1 p y _ omprehensve
i ~ t C
Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that this Board forward a recommendation bf approval
I!, to Board of County Commissioners.
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.
Attachment.
hf
ca County Administrator.
Coun Att r
o ne
tY Y
I , - _ E~ile~n end-E~n~st-Vaughan
'I File -
_ -
- _ _ - -
i - -
i
'
~
,
Suggested moXion to recommend:approval/denial of,this requested change in zoning.
MOTION TO APPROVE:
AFT R.
CONSIDER
NG
E I, THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURLNG THE PUBLIC HEARING,
.INCLUDING STAFF :COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
' ~
i
SECTION 11,06.03, ST. LUCIE BOUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY .MOVE
- ,
THAT THE PLANNING AND BONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE '
~
COUNTY BOARD OF .COUNTY COMMISSIbNERS GRANT APPROVAL TO `THE
APPLICATION- OF EILEEN AND ERNEST VAUGHAN, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM
~'i THE RM=5 (RESIDENTIAL,. MULTIPLE-FAMILY - 5 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
I', RE-2 (RESDENTIAL, ESTATE) 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 EILEEN
~ AND ERNEST VAUGHAN, FORA CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE RM-5 (RESIDENTIAL,
' MULTIPLE-FAMILY = 5 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RE-2 (RESDENTIAL,
ESTATE)_ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE...:
- - -
i
[CITE REASON[S] WHY -PLEASE 13E SPECIFIC]-
Section 3.01.03
Zoning District Use Regulations
L• RM-5 RESIDENTIAL MULTIP - ~
LE FAMILY - 5
1. Purpose
The purpose of this. district is to provide .and. protect an envirohment suitable for single-family,
two-family, three-family; and multiple-family dwellings at a maximum density of five (5}dwelling units
-Per gross acre, together with such other-uses as may be necessary for and compatible With low and
medium density residential surroundings. The Number in "O" following, each identified use
corresponds: to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01:02(6). The number 999 applies to
a use hot defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code.
2. Permitted Uses
a. Community residential homes subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.07. tssst
b. Family day care homes. tsss
c. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of
one thousand (1000) feet of anothecexisting 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. s9s~
d. Multiple-family dwellings (3 or more units) test
e. Single-family detached dwellings ~sss>
f• Two-family dwellings i9ss~
3• Lot Size Requirements
ff
F'
Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00.
4. Dimensional Regulations.
Dimensional requirements shall be ih accordance with Section 7.04.00.
5. Off-street Parking Requirements
Off-street parking requirements shall be,in accordance with Section 7.06.00.
6. Landscaping Requirements '
Landscaping requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.09.00.
7• Conditional Uses ,
a. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another such
family residential home. tsss>
~
b. -
Tele
o
munication~ ers -subject to the standards of Section 7.1023 ts~t ,
8. Accessory Uses
Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00..:
Adopted August 1, 1990 109 Revised Through 08/01/00
Section 3.0
1.03
t.
. .
Zonrng~Distnct Use Regulations
(
t ~
G. RE-2 RESIDENTIAL, ESTATE - 2
1.
tar
P ose
p
The purpose of this district is to rovide and rotect an environme t <s ' a I
n i b e f r sin
p p u t o gle-family
dwellings at a maximum gross dens of two 2 dwellin units er aore .to ether with:§uch oth
uses as may be necessary for and compatible with low density residential su~rountlings. The number
in "Q" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code deference described,in Section
3.01.02(6). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further
defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code.
2. Permitted Uses
a. Family day care homes, tses~
b. Family residential homes provided that such homes shalt not be located within a radius of
one hous n
a d 1000 feet of anotheraxistin such famil residential home and rovide
~ ) 9 Y _ p d that
I
the sponsoring agency or Qepartment of Health and.Rehabilitative Services (HRS) .notifies
the Board of County Commissionersatthe time of home occupancy that the home islicensed
b' HRS. sse
Y t ~
c. -
Sin le fa 'I
mi d to
g y e ched dwellings. tsss~
3. Lot Size Requirements
L
of s'z
i ere 're
ui ments hall
s be in accordanc wi
e th Sectio
q n 7.04.0
0.
t. .
I
4. Dimensional Regulations
Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with .Section 7.04.00.
5. Off-street. Parking .Requirements
Off-street arkin ` re uirements shalt b
p g q e in accordance with. Section 7.06.00.
6. Conditional Uses
II
a. Bed & Breakfast Residences - Subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.20. tsss~
b. Family residential homes,located within a radius ofone thousand (1,000 feetof another such
family residential home. t~s>
c. - Telecommunication towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 ~ses~
7. Accessory Uses
r - -
Accessoryuses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and including the following;
k - =
a. - Gum-house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. t~~
b. Horses, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.03; ~sse~
~I
f
I~ Adopted August 1, 1990 104 Revised Through 08/01/00
-
-
-
~ -
~
~ ~
~
i
O ~ ` X31 ;
L ~ v ~
~ c\
O ` ~ P `o _J ' S
~ V Ln•Lr t ~
F N a+iP wi3~ a
6 ~ ~ ~o s
~t
i
W ~ ~ y -
O .~j r
~ ~i' (6'' On ss4
p ~
~ C
f N • < y/
Q C
~19 f
d' . nj > 10 ~ /'~'B MWYQ~
~ x.~~. r j w,
15
d `
f _-~INY17iCti55' ~ f i i
~ ~ i
` _
~~Q...
crce iu+a'"5ouv't'° ~ mi"sYifiiYi f ~i.,
nt sxrn ! j ,*o ~ - -
m 3
W
W "Y?i9Kii _iiOSN'317.. _ ~ I~\
tF78N"rtl~l5i~a~"'~ ~f - ~ p~
~ ~ ~ M1
C78Y'T"di5~3P v!a {i~e~ ~
} ¢ a, ~ ?
-Ur'!iN-akw~neor' O1
F- ~
0 I z
0110tl /NIS O
i t
U
~ ~ oou rh x~.u
~ ~m_
~
j j~~ ~ wou ~ irMn ~~o.a~ !
` U ~ E~ W z
j
W W ~ Otl yp1p11 T30i ! <
n wot~x+J
I - - "-spy ~ _ lF M ~
OMx 037K ; ~
~ _ '
Z " -
Q K-7 7niY~ II
Z 1If
i
Y ,
W ~
~ / ap?fl M
n J/ ~
¢ ~ ~FU,O
N/ '
~ JJJ
~ /J
S 6£ L S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 ~
.l1Nf100 3380H033~10 ''t
a,
A Petition of Eileen and Ernest Vaughan fora Change iri Zoning from the RM-5 (Residential,
Multiple-Family-5 duiacre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential, Estate-2 du~acre) Zoning District.
I--, r-I
~6~ J L',
r-- ~
( I (el [ s
u
I /
o I
. o -
100 _
o
o sl
N~ 0 7
I o
e ~ 7
Op 6 O
N ~
a Eden meek ~-°~e ~
~ ~
I
. N N
Y
I tP Q
4 IS L
` ~ -
I ~
1 _ _ -
~ ~ -
J o•
I -
O
o -
O
~Q
I ~ ~
~
\ ~
O ~ d C3
f~ ~ . ~
. o
II I ~ ~ ~
~ ~d~~~
~ Q
I',
I 6 ~ 1- ~
I ` ~ - -
i--- - I ~
- _ ~ \_1
I
I
Count Lie Rood
RZ 03-003 ~~~,y, ~
This pattern indicates Map prepared January 9.2003
I~ subject parcel TNS map bac been carpiiea targer~erWpianneg and rerererice puppses auy
NTde every ettal bas been male r0 provide Ine mesl cvrrrnr and accvraw ~
inlormatm pos5~bb.e rs na .~tcrged ~a use as a kgalry bMing dowrreM `I
I_
zon;n Eileen and Ernest Vaughan
r ~
L61 J ~-h(
U
I ~
T
/ I
od
O
~ O~
O _
J I P
ONE ~ °
Gp ~O
I s ~ s - 4 7
i
9 mod.
O 6 ~
NJ Ae 7
~ Eden Creek L° J
~ ~
~ r N
N Z
a q b r ~L
J N
I--_- -A
l L~~ I ~O^
~0 -
PUm ~ ~ ~ 0
`r
I ~ d~Q
~
~ ~4 b0~
~~~~~J
~ _
_ ~ ~-J~
Count Ltne ood
R Z 0 3 0 0 3 J~~~crGCr Goacsa~i-~~~
GIS d
This pattern indicates Map prepared January 9, 2003
subject parcel ~ m~ ~a a~ ~te<~ ~ N
VJhila ea.y enon hBa Deer made to pmdtle are most Curtern en0 accurate
xnoematan Ooss,Oie. a is rot mlerged br use as a iapalry b+b~aq Wcumem
sand ~Se Eileen and Ernest Vaughan
~ ~
r-
\p
u u
I /
o,~ I
oa
O _
~ o
0 J I 2
o
°'o
' s ~ ~
- _ G 9 B O
NJ g ~
r' ° Eden Creek L°~
CPUB ~ ~
< ~ w t
\I a
a es ~
- ~ ~
7---- ~
~ \
t - - - - - - -
`-J ~ ~°i
o _ _ _
I 6 i1i~
i ~P/
H ~ \
~ ~ ~
~-J~
Count Lme Rood
RZ 03-003 s~-~-~4,~~~ ~~~F9~.
This pattern indicates Map prepared January 9, 2003
subject parcel TM= ~ ~s ~ ~ ,a 9a~,a~~a~~ ~aiera~ca a,>o=a= o~iy
NTib CVery a11ai has baen matle to pwi0~ IM SI cwran and cWraic ' \ I
nlpmatun possiWa.a ~S rol nientletl la use as a legany buW~,g tltNVrnen~ 1 v
Eileen and Ernest Vaughan
-~a
a
=a?
_ - I y ~ x_'_~ r ~ it
t ~ l -v
_ may, . '1 -
i+
~
a0 ?rs Kyp ~S i i 11 r '~C1.
r b@YL1
y,..
i ~ r +
•~i ~ ~ 5'~~ F ti
~ , ~ i
rs..
x,'
. 4 `
tryry
y ~ k', O V ~
.
w
'.t
C
. .
y ±
rt
i
'a=;
{aE
F ;
l
Y
G~ ~
,y
y
1
~r .g.
s.
~S1~1 ? R4 `LA•
S
a
.s
Y
'
i
h
t M p
~ r~ ~
a ~ '
' ~ f , i
i • riY `
r.
x
S
'r
7,
i
t.., dr'
?
I
'
- t .
'2-•
a ~
~ X.~'h Wit,
~ i 9
I~iI I
r
w
E ~
r .:2
,r
~tN, ~ ter
'i
~i~
a,° t. I y .,~.;1
.
1~ ~ ~ ~
-a„^ • ,gar.
I 1 Y Y.
a
RZ 03-003 ~--~r.~~:L ~o~~~~
This pattern indicates Map prepared January 9, 2003
subject parcel TM, ~ ~as cwnp~ea .w a~ reiwerce ow~~
.n~arnalan posywe n s roi +neroec ~w n kgaM aro~ng ooc~meni
~ AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
• THURSDAY, February 20, 2003
7:00 P.M.
ERNEST F. AND EILEEN B. VAUGHAN, have petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change
in Zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - S du/acre) Zoning District to the RE - 2
(Residential, Estate - 2 dulacre) Zoning District for the following described property:
Location: 13775 South Indian River Drive.
Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically
recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the
proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing
will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any
individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the
public hearing will also be considered.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners
February S, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general
circulation in St. Lucie County, on February S, 2003.
File No. RZ -03-003
y.
. ~.t
`
[30ARD OF COUNTY ~ COMMUNITY- F~
COMMISSIONERS ~ ~ ~ -,v ~ ~ ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT ~
' ~ D I RECTO R
~OR1~P r
lebruary 5, `2003
In accordance with.::-the St: Lucie County-.Land lh:velolment C6de> you are hereby advised Ghat ERNEST F:
AND EILEEN B; VAUGHAN; have :petitioned St.' Lucie County for a Change in Zo><tiing from he"
RM-S (Residential, Multiple-Family -`5 dulacre) Zonit~gDistrict to the~RE-2-(Rcsidential,Estate;- 2~
du/acre) Zoning District for the following described property:
Location: 13775 South Indian Rivcr Drivc.
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
The fn t public hearing on the;petition ?v~ll be held at 7;00 P.M; or as soon thereafter as .possible,. on
Thrcrsday, February 20, 2003, ;County Gortimissioner's Chanabers, St. ,Lrccie County •4d~inistration
Buihling Anrtex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an
o ` rtunif Eo be heard at~thatt me. Written comments received m advance of the: ublic hearin ~will`also be
I' pl?o -Y t p g
considered, Written,comments to the planning and Zoning Commission should be rc:cciti~c;d by he County
Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing.
Cougty policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County
Commission on an" case out ' e ` f he ' chedul 'ublic e" ' s . You s ealc at a ' blic hearin or
I~' s d o t s ed h ann ma u
provide written coinments'for the record.
~
d
Th r in h n i ar ni rec rded If a rs n ecid' s t
e p oceed gs oft e Planning ~ d Zog rig Commission e electro cally o pe o e o
appeal any,decisiott made by the Planning and Zoning Conunission with respect to "any matter considered at
such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For suchpurpose, he may need: to ensure
that a verbatim ~`ecgrd 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 testi in durin ' a hearin' u' n r uest. If it becomes recess , a ublic heariq
fY g g g 1~ eq P g
may be continued to adate-certain;
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting: should contact the St. Lucie
County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48)` hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462
1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428.
I
If you no longer own property,adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new
owner. Please call_7_Z.2L4G~-15$~i~yo~ha~ce_an_y_questions, and refer-to;-Eil~Numbgr RZ-03-003. -
-
_ , .
Sincerel"y, _ _ - -
~T~UCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
I Ed Merc-itt, Chairman
JOHN D, pRUHN. District No ? DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No. 4 CLIFF BARNES, Disrricr No. S
County Adminisrroror - Douglos M. Anderson
200 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
.Administration: (772)462-1590 Planning: (772j 462-2822 GIS/Technical Services: (772) 462-155
Economic Development. (772)'462-1550.. Fox: (772) 462-1581
Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 Fax: (772) 462-2132
www.co.st-lucie. fl: us
M py O N ....N 00 N .r N N N ~^'Nd'_ ~ •--i ~ O~0 f~A ~.fN'- M n M+YT ~ N O, X00.
C~ O (V N mot' 00 N N N N N N N o~ N N N~ N V '~t N N O~ v1 N N O O
N N N N O V1 N cV N N N N N d' N N M 00 N M M 'cr N N N O N N O
lv ~ ~ ~ D\ O ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M M l~ t~ ~ 00 N N ~ v'~
~/1 ~ N M !'!1 ~A ~ Ul ~ ~ N v1 ~ v1 00 N V1 N vy Vl ~D Q Vl V') 00
. ri. ~ O\ ~ ~ O ~ OY Q\ Q\ Q\ O~ 0~: D\ O~ O\ O. ~ ~ tT O~ .•i )O O~ ~ Q~ O~ O
~t rY' 'cr O fh 'V' 'SY ti' '~t 'd' d' 'ct' tl' ~ d' ~ mot' V' ~ M M N o0 ~t ~h N
M M M N M M M M M M M: M M M M N M M M M r+ ~ O M. M" M.
~ 1 _ -
~ I
aaaa a a.~aaa~-iaaa~avaaa aaa ?~a.-~a
~ w w w w~ w~ w w w w w w w w wow z_ w w1w1~ w w w ~ Z w w w
- - - -i-, - - I -
i (
i , ;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U. ~ o U U U ~ U U ~ U ~ ~ U ~ +r v o v
~~~~~b~~~~~~~~~~~.U~
v a~ a~ a~ o ro v a~ a~ ~ a~ a~ v , a~ a~ a~ o a~ o ~ ~ a~ ~ a~ a~
Gq W 0.l GU ~q ~ W Pa W Lq W ~ f-Q CQ W W a Gq cv ca 0.1 a ~ Al
G. b s~ s~ v b i~ ~ ~ ~ q q o G~ ~ ~ A R: ~i , ~ ' CI ~ N f-7 C7 W
a> a> v a~ a> a> a~ a> -a~ a> a> a~ a~ a~ a~ ~ ~ a> a> ~ a> a~ ~
a~ a~ ~ a~ a~ as a~ a~ a~ a~, a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ ~ a~ a~
U .-,tititixxtititi.-.titititi~..-,watiwm~atiti~~a3ti~.,v~
~ ~
` ~
L~
~ O ~ O~ ~I i ~ ~ I I M N
4y H i-a H H 'H i:i 1-i H' it H H H H H H 1-w H
AAA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
f-i H 4+ Fa it ' i-i 1-i 4H i.d iti is H it F-i i-i H M H
N N 41 N U U N N N N N N N U + N N to - U ~yN .
b 7 D > > > ~ > ~ > 7 ~ ~ X ~ ~ Fri
~~a~ A~a~~aaaa~~ ~~.a~A
it
v ~ ~ H Q
a
~ ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd ~ ~ ~ to ~ O a> o0
~y ~-1
M ~ d' U N
'U "C "C3 a+
b 'l7 'b TJ TJ b .b b
i ~ b Q1
U o
r
~ ~c~t~v~ x~~~v~rnvav~~n~vava~'•~~33~~nv~3'O`" ~v~~ k
b N N N N N N fV N N N N N N' N N ~O O N a\ O W N N W
Iii
'b O o0 00 00 D\ 00 Q0 bo 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o N ~h o0 N 'O N oo ~ rt N c!i o0 00
C M O M M M M 'NMM M MMM 00 M ~'W. MNM D\ h M M O
.M-i ~ •--i P.+ N w '..r .-y a-" .-a V' .lam .-r M ~ •-i pp. N M .-a .-y a
M
- Vl ~ FJ O. ,
A _
y y v ~ ~s
dT
a> c~
a~ q
III .nVi fii N. ~ U. N O N
~ ~ v
a~ Z ~n~Ar~co a~>a~~ AwUw a~ :
a
O M a> F.
I
..r U y
ti
G L~ b
N
a.
bA O
~ t~ TJ a3 O O O ~
~ ~ ~g o, ~
o
~o- Z G4P4WCQA - _ _ _U_AAAAA AAA
~ tt
i -
s~ ~
b~o , ~
I~ ~ ~
~
a,~ ~ ,~wU ~,•vU~ a „ C7 y, ~ ~ w ~ „ ~a ~w~ -
D ~ > > ~ ggpp
p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .v ~ a~i ~ o as ~ o. ~ a'"i ,O o ~ "
~ a~i a0i a~ o ~ O ~
a~ Z UOxda7~OtiC7aa;~~wA~x~a: x3C7Zxa~v~tia>
~w 1 - - ~
f~
~ i _ _ I I i -
_ -
~ -
-I -j~- ~
_ ;,w ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _
M
,O O pt, bA O Tf Py
MC ~ 'd b U~~ U t7 b b p ~ p~ ~ p p p ccU~d ,~~Wi
T'i rn a 'd .b U a~ 'b 'C ° ~ ~ v ~ ~ 3 ~ v`~i ~ 3 3 3 p.' ~ p ' ~i p a,"i ~ v' U
rl Y H
a
yr'y ~ .-Ui .~"-i c~ cC td cV U O O Fri N ~ O O ~ ~ cV ~ cV N N N N ~ O 7, 'Lj ,
~ W.
o ~ Z d QW~_Waa.A.a1~0.lCQPGWUUUUI_AAA AAAAaA_A_AAwww
4-i O O 'V' O N ~D O N ~D I N ~D ~1 ~ DO v'~ 00 Vl ~ ~ M -
O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIO O O O O O D OIO O~OIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. O O O
0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r"~ rip ! 0 0 0 "O O. O Q O O~O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O
..b n- O O V' ~ ~ Q\ M v'f O O~ ~O U M v'~ 'd' M M ~O '~t d' ~O N N ~
~a ~ooooo00000000000000000000000000
bD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ b IA OOOOOOOOIooooOOOOlo000o,o000OOOOON
RS ~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 I o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ o0 00 ; 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O, ~ ' DE rno~oirnrn~rna~~rno,rnrno~rnrnrnio~rnrno,o~~rnrnrn~rno,rnrna\
y ~ o0000000~0000000000ooolocaooooo000
LA-~- H-~ ~lv ~ v. ~1~,.~J~ ~ _ r ~ v ~"v_ vIv v ~i~i r ~ v ~ v v ~ ~ ~ v ~
. - .-y 00 l~ O M h N N M .r N N ~ D\ N ~ t` .:ti ~p~ N .--i N .-r .-r 00
C ~ V' ~p N Ir p M O ei' ~t 'cY oo ~O 'ct v~ ~
~l P ~ ~ YV N N !n N M N N N N N
N Q\ O N 00 M N iV N N V" D1 N ~Y N N N N N 4~ N O N N N N N ;
N t` v) h N N ~ r+ c~ 4~ l~ iT M oo, ~ M ~ N t` ~ l~ l~ V' t~ t~ l~ t~ l~ ~
4Q O t~ M O~ V 00 V7 Vl V'1 .N V'~ ~ N v~ ~O v~ v1 ~ Vl !!1 ~n vi ~v1 +n v'> V~ ~vt
O\ h 'd' O\ d' 01 O [~ej O\ D\ Q\ N Q\ O~ O~ Q\ O~ O~ O O\ Q\ O\ ~ d\ O~
c}' 00 M l~ N .d' M ~Y ~h Ct' ~ M M~ ~ M M M M~ M~ M M M M M
M O M o0 O M tt O N M 'M M
C~
a ti a ~ a x ti¢ a a a a¢ a a,a ~ a a aw a~ a¢ a a a a a
v~ w z w w O z 9 w w w w_ a lw w ~ w_' w w _~w w a w w w w w
- ~ - - - -
~ ~ i i i"
i ; ,
~ ~ ( O
~ sl .C ~ O' i .a i ~ , ~ ~ ~ .a .a ..a .a i~ ..a
tti N ~ ~ ° N f~ fV U cat U ~ ct3 cV cV ' M cd cd cV cd cV (V
w~~ ~
p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~~~a ~ ~wa~w~~~asaaaaaa as aaaacaaaas
a s a~ a~, a a~ a a a a a~ a a a a a
a> ° ° O a~ O a~ O a~ O a> y a~ a~ a> 'C7 v ~ a~ a~ a~ a> a>
U ~-,W~--;Wzw3z'~tititiC~,3tiP..-~~titi~-,r-,w~-,E-~tir--,~-;~,tiz
- - - T. - - - ~ _ -
~ i
~ ~ ~ '
~ ~ i
M h OBI IO~.. i ~ O ~ N ~ M 00 00
O O O O OII ~ O O O O O O
a a~a ba ai ~a a aaa~~
Yr F.~ H H ~ }y H i-~ -i-~ N Fy H 1-w 1-i
A Q AAA „Q A ~ Q A A Q ~ A~ A Q
a~!~ ~ ~ °a7~r~Ab'r~~r~ ~aaa~a a~a~a~
a va ~ ~ k ~ o ~to~~~w"cnW ~ ~ o~~~ x~~~~~ o
i., ~ o~ o Z ~ ~~~W,nt`~~ o~r~~'~~ o~r~~~U
b N 'ct P~ ~ M~ p" ~ N N N~ cn N N O W N N N ~D N~ N N CV N N 00
'j~. 00 N O Q~ O O 00 GO 00 O~ O\ 00 M OO 00 00 00 d' Po 00 00 00 00 00 ~
M N M O M fV O O ~O M M M N O M M M r--~ M M M 'ffl. M O M M M M M V')
.-r t-i Ml~h 00 .r .--i W t/'1.--~ .--i N M .-i N.,y (]y .-r .-+e-y r-1
w N
- Q - - - -
s~ on
~q a~
0 0 'cv o o
Z ~v~iAA~~ wC7~ tiA~ ~AwwU~' AU w
a
a
.~e _ a
a~
as o a~ a~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~
~ a a~ o a~ ~ ro ~ ~ s~ ~ o
w Z -t7~C7C7xx __x~~.. ~Aaa~~~a ~a
~ ~ - -i - -
aA
~ ~
~ ~ ~ oq ~'6n~ aD~A a~'i y ~ ° a'° a~iWa~i
z w~~~3c~x~r~tiQ~aH~3~ ~QZw¢a,3xxa°~w~
t7 W~ ~ ~ I }
a ~ i
~ ~ Q 4
- -s- W - ~
_ O ~ - z M_-~ - - - _
_ -A - - b - - i
~ c ~ I
~ ~~~.1I ~ ~~~yy °a ~ p ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a Y ~ ~ ego, ~~1
-FI O h~l ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~y~~y ~ a dj ~ ~ti ~ ° ~ ~y N ~ ~ ~U~,yy Y y ° ~ V
CC N .O ~ ~ ~ ~ cct ~ O ~ G) O ~ ~ ~ ~ O 5 ~ a> a~ O 7, ~ v ~ O
v ~ z wwwwC7 ~C7xxxx_~_~~a~~a~_ ~aaaaaa~~~Z
-
4~ ~ ~ ~O d' a\ V oo 'V' M I oo N !n vl U ~ I ~t i I ~O O M ~ N d' N M '~t f~ O O~
O O O O O O O O O O O O O~ O O JI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
yr O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OHO O O O 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
M O\ 00 M O\ Q~ M ~ ~ U _ O_ ~ O 00 O ~ N N 00 ~O M 00 00 ~O
~ a i O O O ~ O h N M~ v'~ ~ O N' M M~~~ O~ N M ~t
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 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'l V~ V'> ~ l~ V'~ V~ h ~ ~ V'1 ~ ~ V), l~ V') ~ V7 V~ ~ ~ V7 ~ Vl V7 V~ ~ Vl V'1
if A D O O O O g 0 0 O Q O O O O O O O i O i O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O.
I. ~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~
p„ ~ 1yC rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrno~rno~rn~rno~rnlrn(rn~a\rnrna~rno,rnrnrnrnrno~rnrn
~n ~n v-, v-, vi v-, ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n ~ ~n v~ v, ~n ~n ~ ~n ~n ~n v~ v-~ v~ vi vi v-, v~ ~n ~n v~ ~n
A ~~i c~ 0 0 0 0 0~ v~_~r v_:v_~.~ ~r.J_~.~'1v:1~ri_v_~~~v_ ~d' .~I_rr__~t_a' rr ^v' d' ~ ~
mil-H ~ ~ -
M_ _Q,, ~ ~1_ - -N- ~O- ~O o- P- -Pl -M-7'~...~ 40_ . _M- ~ _L s! ~O_ -O- -N- -P - - - r-
.r l~ 'd' h h d' 'V' ~ 00 N M h ~D ~ ~ r~h ~ M d' N 00 et d' h O~ 00 ~ N h
O N t~ o0 0o N N N M O~ ~O N l~+ N O N O N O~ D\ N N E O~ N er ~
N o0 N N N N N M N 'ch ~ N O~ I N M N N N 'ci' '~t N N O~ N ~Y N ~v
N ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i y~ ~ ~ ~ M M t i .d. i M ~ ~ M
0\O d' ~ O\ ~A Vl v1 Vl v1 M ~!1 v'1 V1 ~fl V1 v) h v1 O h 00
~--1 O~ 01 Q\ O~ O~ O~ •r O~ O~ O~ ~ O~ ~ O\ O~ O~ M O~ O\
'd' 'V' ~F ~ 'd' ~O ~ ~n 'ci' ~O 'd' ' ~ M ~ d' ~1' '~F o0 d' 'ch
M M M M M M M N M M~ i M M M) M M M M
i ~
i~~('
s i I
,
c~
~laaaaaaa¢aa~a~¢af'-'a~awjaiaaaar~¢aaaa
Ivy wwwwwwwaww www;3~w~__lwwwww awwww
c> cv c~ cv ~ cd c~ cv ~ ca ~ I cv cv ~ cv v cv cv a~ cv v a>
v a~ a> a> H a~ a> ~ a~ ' a~ ~ a> ~ ~ a~ a~ a a~ ~ cv v a> ~ v
~~v~atr~oa „aaca c~ 51~~~v°,r~a~aa~,aaata~ ;aa~.~
~ a, a a~ w a w a , a o a a a~ a s on ~ a, a v~ a
a> a~ a~ ~ a~ a~ v a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ ~ a~
~U O'wwa.,?-~ti~E-~titi~~,zn~,~z•-.x?~tia~-,ticnr~w~-,aw
~ ~ ,
~ Qa H HQl ~ ~~'i ~ H ( H~A(a ~ H ~ H ~ H H
~ ~ ~A~SA ~A A A a~A AAA AA A A
H ~ H H H ~ H H 'C H U H 3 H H H H H H
~~AApti~'r~'r~p~n~E"'r~ >'w7 ~~H~•o"r~a¢'~i~ 3 ?A~'r~ ~c~
c~ x cv oo ao v a ~ ~ a\ O .
~~~b~~~b~~ o'~ ~,b~~...'v~ obi H~ c'a
a~ 33v~v~v~v~ a ~wv~v~ v~v~ o•.•vi v~
~zv~v~~~~Ma~c~~~>~3~~~~~~~o~at~~~~
'LS cr O O N N N oo ~O v~ N N vl N ~n N M N N N N ~O O N N
O ~ ~O ~O 00 00 00 O ~ M 00 h W ~ 00 N o0 ct 00 00 .-r 00 00 ~ O 00 O 00
O O M M M 'd' M O~ M N M M M M O~ M M O M M ~O O M~ M
et a ~ ¢ ti `a
U fy y ~
z A a a Z a w x o~ i~ ~
aU ~w~E-~z~°Uw a
b ~ o
M
it t~ • ~ _ N O id U U U ~ r+ ~ ~ H cd ca
.s~ e~ N ~ A w A U ~ w ¢
~ ~ z .a Ati3wc~?,wx3a~xx~~c~A~c~www~~a~
~ W i ~+E+ ~ V~ i i!
a~ aaa '
i j
Aw~;~~~~ 'I1i41
M i ~ a ! ~ ~ ~ r~ a
i teS ~ cv 1 .a a ~ ~ O a~ ~ a>
~ cv «s 1 at ~ ,A, 'a ,'a~ a> o c~ v v ~ v v ` ~ H as
o ;;z ~Z O O O a a a dew w w ~ ~I~ F E-+ 3 3 3 3
_ -~------1 - - - _ - - . ~ l.- _ ~ - - -
w O II~tI~n v1 N ~ O~ ~O~I~,M~N O~ l~10~010~'O~v~~O~I~0~o0 00 00 M MIO~ ~O M O
O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.O,O,O O O;O O:O~O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O M 0 0 0 0 Oj0 O O O Oi0 O.O'O Oj0 OHO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O ~ ~ OIO O O O O Oj0~0~0 O 010 O~O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OJI O O O O
O O~ N M N V'1 00 j 00 I v~ I ~t I v~ N ~ l~ (h ~O ~ v~ N N O~ ~O I ~t ~i' O O~
~ F~ i, O O O ~ M h ~ O I ~ N ~ O ~ O N M ~O M N O ~O ~h
f. ~~k 010 O O O O O O O O O Oi0!O~O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
;.Ai,o;o 0 0 0 0 01010 0 0(00!0;010 oio o;0 0 0 0 oloio 0 0 0
ii c~ ~ ~ t~ vi ~n ~n I n v~ ~n v, v~ v~ , ~n ; ~n v~ ~n ~ ~ ~n v~ I ~ v~ ~n ~n ` ~ ~n v, v~
I~ ,,..~I~ojo 0 0 0 0 0 010 0~0~o;o~oio~o;o~o;o(o!0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0
o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ oo ~ o0 00 00 ~ o0 00 0o i o0 0o I o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
~I t~. y~+~o~ o~ rn rn o~ rn v~~rn!a~lrn+o, c~!o~ o~+rn~rnlrn~rn ~,rn rn rn rn rn rn~rn rn rn rn
~(olo oIo 0 0 0!00,010 0~0~0 0;0;070(01010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I_A-'~y--_ 'F''_I~_v~v v~~ ~ ~ ~~v!~~_viv!~~~-a~~ r; r'v~~~v'_vvty v r~v~vv v v.
~I
-
,
,
.
dT. LUCIE COUNTY
_ PLANNING'ANO
ZONINO COMfJ115SION
PUBLIC HEARING .
J AGENDA
~ februaryr20, 2003
TO WHOM IT MAY
CONCERN:
f
s NOTICE is hereby given in
accordance- wish 'Section
~ ' 11.00:03 of'the St:'lucie
i {oun Land-D veto mant
9
b P
i Coda and the provisions of _
• iha ST. lude'County.Cgm-
prehenslve Plan, the follow-
~ ' ing applicant has,reque3led
that The: $1•. lucle' County • ,
Planning qnd Zoning Com-
'.mlaslon consider itleld fol~''
~i ~ iowln r uash
9 eq
ERNEST F AND EIIEEN B.
' VAUGHAN, foi q'Change
- _ in Yoning from lhe; Rti1-5
(Residential, 'Multiple•~ -
Famlly - 5 du/aae) Zoning
DlstrlcT to'fhe RE-2' (Resler
, '
' dential, Estelle - 2 ~du/dae) I
Zohtng:.0lsh)ct for'fhe foi-
i _ ,
lowing defalbed propertyc
RE.S/D OF 9/1037.41 N .
100 FT OfS 1245:09 FT
GOVT L0T 4 LYG E OkLI
I'~ THAT IS 2Q0.3 fT WLY OF
~ W R/WS IND RIY DR-LESS
RD R/W- (10) (OR 350-
t-' 1.657:534-1438:UNREC,
TERMINATION OF ,
1 .CONDO COPY IN FILE)'
Location: 13775 Soyth,` _
' I Indian River Drive. `I - - -
PUBLIC HEARINGS wllf'be'
held In Commission Cham•'
bars, Roger f'oihat Annez, C..`
i 2300 Vlrainiq Ayenue, Fort:
- Pierce, Florida'on February
20, 2003, beginning at.
- 7:00 P.M. ores soonthere'
akar os. pas;ible.
PURSUANT TO Section,
286.0105, Florlda.$tgTutes,
if a person:` deGldei to...
aPPegl dhy dedsiort made:
by. a board, ag~enry, Ar
commisslortwlth raipetfao
any,mattai consldererl'ofa
- - ~ ~ ~ fieetfng or'.hearing, fie will;. - ~ ~ - ~
t need a record of fire pro-
ceedingr, and that, for'toch
- - purposes,:hemaynead?o'
" 1 eniure that a varbaTlm;
' ' .record of The pr«aeding; is.:
I - - - made, which record - - ~ ~ ~ - -
Includes the Testimony and
evldente upon wh(ch the
-QRR~gLislo_bs~as~sl.
- - - -
PLANNING AND
..:.ZONING-COMMISSION
- _ _ _ ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
i - FLORIDA. - -
/S/ Ed Merritt, ~O - - - -
CHAIRMAN
Publish; February b, 2003
2623256 .
' r;.
Local Planning Agency Review: 02/20/03
~G\E CpG
~y y~? File Number PA-02-005
~ . ~ ~
'~OR10a MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO: Local Planning Agency
FROM: Planning Manager
DATE: February 14, 2003
SUBJECT: Application of Robert C. Fender, for a Change in Future Land
Use Designation from RU (Residential Urban) and COM
(Commercial) to COM (Commercial)
LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of South 25tH
Street and Midway Road
CURRENT FUTURE LAND
USE DESIGNATION: RU (Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial)
PROPOSED FUTURE LAND
USE DESIGNATION: COM (Commercial)
EXISTING ZONING: CG (Commercial, General) and CN (Commercial,
Neighborhood)
PROPOSED ZONING: CG (Commercial, General)
PARCEL SIZE: 1.198 acres
PROPOSED USE: Commercial General Uses
SURROUNDING ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning
to the south. AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1
du/acre) to the west. RS-2 (Residential, Single-
Family 2 du/acre) to the southeast CN
(Commercial, Neighborhood) to the west and east
across South 25tH Street. CG (Commercial,
General) to the north and northeast across South
25tH Street.
SURROUNDING LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS: RU (Residential Urban) to the south, east, and
west. RS (Residential Suburban) to the southeast.
COM (Commercial) to the northeast and northwest.
February 14, 2003 Petition: Robert C. Fender
Page 2 File Number: PA-02-005
SURROUNDING EXISTING
LAND USES: Single-family residences are located to the south of
the subject property. To the east across South 25tH
Street is a convenience stores. To the northeast is
a shopping plaza. To the north across Midway
Road is vacant commercial land.
UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is within the Port St. Lucie
Utilities service area.
- TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADEQUACY: The road right-of--way for South 25tH Street is 100
feet in width. The right-of-way width for Midway
Road varies.
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS: None at this time.
TYPE OF CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit.
COMMENTS
This application is for a change in the future land use designation of a 1.198 acre
parcel from RU (Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial) to COM (Commercial). The
subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of South 25tH
Street and Midway Road.
The stated purpose of the requested change in future land use is to develop the
property for commercial general uses. The current future land use designation allows for
commercial general uses at the corner of the subject property and limited commercial
uses on the remainder of the subject property. Approval of this petition is required to
allow the applicant to seek a change in zoning for the subject property from CG
- ~~'~r~mercial; General-}-~ mere hood) ~o~ ommercia ,
General).
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter,
CONSISTENCY WITH THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In reviewing this application for a proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County Future
Land Use Map, staff finds that the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the
February 14,..2003' Petition: Robert C.'Fender
Page 3 File-Number: PA-02-005
County Comprehensive Plan are the primary components applicable to this petition. The
following is an element-by-element evaluation of the proposed amendment:
FUTURE LANDUSEfLEMENT
The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. The
future land use classifications surrounding the subject property are RS (Residential
Suburban) to the southeast and RU (Residential Urban) to the south and.. east. The
northeast and northwest corners of the intersection of South 25~' Street and Midway
.:Road are designated with a future land use classification of COM'(Commercial). The _
:existing future land use classification: bf RU allows residential densities of up to 5 units..
per gross acre and some limited commercial uses and COM ,allows all.. commercial
zoning.districts, including CG (Commercial, General). -
Policy 1.1..8.6.
Eliminate ;future scattered. and highway strip commercial development by
encouraging he development of commercial centers or :nodes consistent
with the future land use map.
The ,:proposed future:.land use classification change to COM (Commercial) is
consistent with this policy by encouraging commercial development. of the
intersection of two majorarterials ~ South 25 Street and Midway Road
Policy 1.1.8.7
Restrict strip commercial development to those traffic corridors where.
such development :patterns now: exist. The.- depth of these commercial
areas should average 600 feet, with the exceptions to be found at points of
arterial intersection..
The subject property is located at~ the .intersection of South 25th Street and
Midway Road, at a point of arterial .intersection. The existing depth of the
Commercial Future Land Use .,portion of the subject property from Midway Road
is approximately: 1.35 feet. The applicant is proposing a depth in '.this urea of
approxirnafely 225 feet. The existing depth of the. Commercial Future Land .Use
portion of the subject property.#rom South 25th Street is approximately 225 feet.
The applicant is proposing a depth `in this area of approximately 260 feet: An
' eig or o0 onrng on
.the property would exist between-_-the -subject- property and the residential- - _ - -
-
_ neighborhood to
the immediate-south.- -
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT
-The proposed amendment has .been determined not to conflict with this.
element:
February 14, 2003 Petition: Robert G Fender
Page 4 ' File Number: PA-02-005
:MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT
The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with-this
element.
PORT AND AVIATION ELEMENT
Thee proposed:..amendment is outside of the land area discussed within.
this: element and the proposed amendment is not expected to result in
any direct impacts to these areas.
HOUSING ELEMENT -
The..proposed amendment has been determined nofi #o conflict with this.
element:
INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
Sanitary Sewer-Sub=Element
l'he proposed amendment has been determined not o conflict with:-this
element. The subject property is within the Port St. Lucie. Utilities.
Department Utility Service area. .Prior to any final development .order
approvals,. the applicant would need to demonstrate that sufficient
capacity is :available to ervice the project.
Solid Waste Sub-Element-
The. proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this
:element.
Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element
The proposed amendment has -been determined not t0 conflict with this
element.
Potable Water Sub-Element
The proposed amendment has been determined dnot to conflict with this.
-
- - element. -The -subject property is- within the Port St. Lucie Utilities`_ _
_ _
- - _ - --Department .Utility--Service "area -Prior to any -final-
de~elopmenf order
approvals, the. applicant would need to demonstrate ,that sufficient
capacity is available to service the project
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
February 14,2003 :Petition: Robert C. Fender
Page 5 File-Number: PA-02-005
Theproposed amendment -has been determined not #o conflict with. this
element.
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict. with this
element. -
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
The ;proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this
element..:.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with .this
elemenf.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT-
The proposed amendment -has been de#ermined not. to conflict .with this
element..
Policy 1T:1.4,3(B)(3)
Section 501.Q1 of the St Lucie County Land Development Code,
adopted pursuant to Policy 11.1;4,3, requires that a Certificate of _
Capacity be obtained. before the .issuance any :final development` orders
fordevelopment of this property.
Any proposed amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan may be
reviewed by several state and regional agencies.- The Department of Community Affairs
is charged with determining whether amendments are consistent with and further the St.
Lucie County Comprehensive. Plan, the .State Comprehensive `Plan, the Strategic
Regional Policy Plan, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, and Rule 9H-5, Florida
Administrative Code. In regard to the state and strategic regional. plan,. staff has the.
following comments:
HE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
- _ -
- -
_
- LAND- USE°-- F.-S: -1-8-7-:201(16) -=--In -recognition of the importance of preserving fhe
natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be
directed to hose .areas which have in place, or have. agreements to provide, the land
and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
.February 14,2003 Petition: Robert C. Fender
Page 6 ~ File Number: PA-02-005
The proposed amendment to the future land use classification with adequate buffering of
the subject property is not .expected to adversely affect the quality of life in the
immediately surrounding area. The stabjeet property is located in an area of residenfial
uses and commercial activities. The construction of commercial general activities on the
object property is not. expected to adversely.-affect the immediately surrounding area
and the quality ofiife.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STRATEGIC:REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
The proposed Future Land Use Amendment is not inconsistent. with the Strategic
Regional Policy Plan (SRRP) because the .approval of the request would encourage the:
location of additional commercial development in an area where there are existing,
vacant commercial properties.
CONCLUSION.
In reviewing this application for a change in the future land use classification, staff
'recognizes that through prior changes in zoning and future land use classifications, he
adjacent neighborhood to the south of the object property has been buffered .from the
full :effects of the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District by a portion of the entire
subject property remaining zoned CiV (Commercial, Neighborhood). The proposed
Future Land:-Use Classification change and concurrent request for a change:In zoning to
CG would allow the continuation of a CN buffer, though the size of the bufferwidth would
be reduced. .
Based upon the information provided, staff has found that the proposed future -land use
change is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies as set forth in the St; Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment to be consistent
with the State. Comprehensive Plan and Regional Policy. Plan.
Staff recommends that this petition. be forwarded #o the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation of approval,
Attachment
hf
cc; County Administrator
County Attorney
Robert C. Fender.
File
Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.-
..MOTION TO APPROVE:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY `PRESENTED DURING THE .PUBLIC
HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY,MOVE THAT THE LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY OF ST LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST: LUCIE
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS- GRANT APPROVAL TO THE
APPLICATION OF ROBERT C. FENDER, FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION .FROM RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) AND COM (COMMERCIAL) TO
COM (COMMERCIAL), BECAUSE
.[CITE-REASON(S) WHY -PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]
MOTION TO DENY;
-AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE .PUBLIC
HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I "HEREBY MOVE 'THAT THE. LOCAL
PLANNING AGENCY OF ST. tUCIE COUNTY'<RECOMMENI~ THAT THE ST. tUCIE
COUNTY -BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF
ROBERT C. FENDER, FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND-FUSE DESCGNATION
FROM RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) AND COM (COMMERCIAL) TQ COM
(COMMERCIAL), BECAUSE : , : .
~
TABLE 1~3 LAND USE DESIGNATION20NiNG COMPATIBILITY MATRIX
.Zoning. LAND USE DISTRICTS
AG-5 AG-2.5 RE RS RU RM RH R/C Cpub COM tN0 P/F MXD SD H
AG-S _ X X X X X - X X
AG-2:5 X ' x X X X
AG-b X X X X_ - X
we x_ x x' x x x ' X
AR1 X X X. X X
RE-1 X X X X X
RE-2 X X X X X
R$-2 X X X X X^
RS-3 X X X- _ X
RS-4' X X X x
RM-5 X X X X
RMH•5 X X X X
RM•7 X X X
RM-9 X X _ X
RM-11 X X
RM-15 X X
_
CN' X X X X X X° X X X
CO X X X X X_ X X X X
CG ~ _ X:, X X
IL X" X
IH x X
Ix x x e e c- c c c c x x x x x
u x x x x` x': x x x x:"X x`.X x "x x
I x x x x x. x: x x x X x x~ X :x x
RP X X X X X X X X X X X X
PU0 X X X X X X X X X X X X
PNRD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
PMUD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
HIRD X X X X X X X> X X X- X
RVP X X
X -indicates compatible land use/zoning combination
C -Indicates requirement for Conditional Use to insure compah'bility
Underline is for add'Rion
st~ikke~tfxee~ 'rf for delefion
~ St. Lucie County Future Land Use
Comprehensive Plan 1-2t3 Adoption: March 5,-2002
The RE designation is ,intended for large lot, single-family detached residential dwellings,. at a _
~ density of -one -unit .per gross acre. These areas are not required to be served with central
utilities, however when at all .practical, service connections should be provided.
The RE designation is acknowledged as potentially suitable for limited residential development
under the following criteria:
o All residential development must be in accordance. with applicable Standards and
restrictions as-.set forth in the Land Development Regulations;
o AIf residential development proposals in excess of 10 units must be approved through.
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process as provided for in the Land Development.
Regulations;
o Any residential .development in excess of 200 acres should: be in conjunction .with he
establishment of a Community Development District, pursuant to .Chapter 190, Florida
Statutes, for the purpose of providing the necessary infrastructure facilities to support
that development; and,
o Residential densities are set at a maximum of one (1) unit per one. (1) gross acre.
RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN {RS)
_ _
The Residential Suburban (RS) land use category is intended to act as a transitional area ,
between the agricultural .areas and the more intense residential areas in the eastern portion of
the County. This category is found predominantly along he western edge of the urban form; but
is also appropriate for areas of special environmental concern: such as along the`North f=ork of
-;the St: Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon.
.The RS designation is intended for large' lot, single-family detached residential dwellings, at a
density of one to two units per gross acre. These areas are not. required to be sensed with
central utilities, however when at aq practical, service connections should be required.
RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU) _ .
The Residential Urban (RU) classification is the predominant residential land use category in the
County. This residential.land-use category provides fora maximum density of 5 dwelling units
per gross acre. The RU designation is generally found between the identified urban service
areas and the transitional RS areas, These properties need to be serviced with central water
'Ees: 'i'MC provt e y eit er a public utility or through
private on-stte facilities,_as would be permittedn accordance with-all-applicable regulations. -
-New development_in ~e RU areas can-occur using-traditional-single=familyor molts=family zoning
' designations or through the Planned Unit Development process.
Underline is for addition
stea~#t if for delefion
St. Lucie County Future Land Use
Comprehensive Plan. 1-29 Adoption: March 5; 2002
l _
t . ,
Q Residential development shall be regulated by the intensity district in which it is to take
place. In no case should gross residential density exceed 15 du/ac. '
o All uses shall be comnatihle with internal. and external adjacent land uses.
SPECIAL DISTRICT (SD)
The intent of the Special District (SD) designation is to identify those areas where specific uses
or combinations of uses are anticipated. These include .previously approved Community
Development Districts, areas for which a site specific development: plan. or concept has been
granted, or areas which by their location have specific issues and. concerns for their
development..
Residential densities within an area designated as a Special District, are limited to what the
current land use designation authorizes.: Any increase over the present: designation may be
,considered only.-through. the -Plan Amendment process.
COMMERCIAL (COM)
The Commercial. (COM) land use designation is applicable to .areas of future commercial
development, in addition to ?hose existing developed commer~cial_areas, Future commercials
areas should be _ ocated at points of high ransportation access, with specific action aken to
prevent the°development of new linearcommercial strips.
Although this plan supports the'-location of higher ntensty commercial uses at the intersection of -
arterial • roadways, it should not be interpreted to mean that every intersection should be
designated for commercial activities. Unless- otherwise designated on the future:-land usemaps -
applications for commercial use should be.done in conjunction with a detailed review of .the
impacts of such'developmenC on adjacent property, specifically noting what, if any, negative
.neighborhood impacts could result.
The Commercial (COM) designation is intended to accommodate ail commercial .zoning districts
as identified under St. Lucie County's Land Development.Regulations- Office and general retail
uses are considered the principal uses within the`COM designated areas. -
INDUSTRIAL (IND)
This land -use designation is applied. to specific areas of the County identified as suitable for
industrial"use This land_~,SP_(1PC~y nde roug o t e heavy
andlight industrial zoning districts, with the specific.criteria-for_zoning application as provided-for
underthe policies of the Future Land_Use Element. ~ -
Underline is for addition
att~e-tt~ret~f~'rf for deletion
St. Lucie County- Future Land Use
Comprehensive Plan 1-31 Adopfion: March 5, 2b02
- - - -
~.1w-~ Z
~ f ~ €
~ ~
~ .a~,~
~ Q
o t
K pevfA • s
R ~ a3AW x33a0
~ ~ LS 1£ ~x
t
~ ~ s
Mkt V
ui Oa- OM/NN3 ~ .f.. ~
g S~° ~ ~ _ Jr '~''~o~ *P : ~ t~
N
4o a
( ~ ~ W
t0 P o i~ a p ~ ~ I ~f~i13
W ' - 1
~ c ~ a ~ _ ( v~~.. 1 ° sweet _ ~ Q
-a
~
t
~ ~
a t ~ < - ~
~ t9 _ ~ 9
~ ~COfC" . ~ i 35 ~ Q ~
[ ~ a ~~S at9~ Ry. ~ ~
.T~~t71/1Y1 P Mai 3 S~^ ,fS'`~ _ '.1
p _ ~1 ~
y
~ Oi~~~OY'"ICONO°Cft1S(vl ~ ~I r ~ ~1~'Q ~ ,G10"YNOArs
W _'_35YiL1~....PtiSN>I33_.. #
""""""""Oi"0'b'"i~3iliT6i' ~ ~ O ~ / ~ W
~
• ~
M ~ I ~ M
i N
I / 0tlp11`a1~151170aB..._.... ~ Z
O
U
I € ~
I moa N.1s I I O
I Or0a ]00kNaGtl1
I
j i I OtlW `.7PM~7 83001
~ I ~ ~ !
y~ ` i ~ S Oa OnOIOx 7~3p1~ W ~
n rI [ Q
I OrOtl 03315 ; ¢
I '
~ I
Q ri•~ 'SntY7 .I
I
£ - gNV
Y ~
W y 1 W
ti a0~. e1
- M
K
OC fY~-,_, f,r`,
I
r"
1~
I
S 6£ 1 S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 .v
~ILN(1O~ ~38OHO33~1O '~t
0
Robert C . Fender
Zonin
I CO
II I
--------I----=---
r (I C~
I I ~a N
I ~ C~ AR-~
I N
I f~9
II -
S.R. No. 712 Midwoy Rood
AR-1 C CO ~R-1
CO
12 B p 7 6 5 1 J Y f
u Gro Twig Lone
rs ~ n a g za Yr 2Y YJ Yr ~
M
N 2 J 6 ~ p
E r
d
~ n°. a, d r
Rainbow - N ' . ~
Drive ~ m 5 ~3 8 ' a3
u ~ 3
O ~
~ River Bronch Drive
~ ~ ~ ~ '~T Y. 2J
AR-1
f 2 J . 5 6 7
f2 fJ f. River Hammock Lone
i
Lucy Lone
f Y J . 5 6 7
7 6 5 . J Y
PA 02-005 ~~Lfi
This pattern indicates
Map prepared December 31, 2002
subject parcel This map has comp;lpo lorgeneraipianning antl ralerence ~r~ses a„Y N
While every ellon has Doen mane to erotitle Ine mo5~ cunem 8nr1 accura~c
inlormafion possible. n rs rqi mlenoed la use a ~ogalp~ ano~ny uau~.k~,-
. _
A Petition of Robert C. Fender fora Change in Future Land Use Classification from
RU .(Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial) to COM (Commercial).
I
I
II I
II
--------1-------
II N
~a "
I
J
I N
I
II
S.R. No. 712 Midway Road
C~2
l2 p p 9 B 7 6 5 ~ J P ~
u Gro Twig Lone
N 4 ,g p AB 9 ~ P! 22 PJ PI ~
y 2 J 6 ~ p
~ E m
~L ~
d ~ ~ ~
Rainbow . ~
3
Drive ~ d 5 ~3 e ' 03
t ~ 3
p U r
~ River Branch Drive
~ ~ ~ Zl ~ 25 21 2J
1
, 2 J 1 5 6 7
e s p M ,P ,J River Hammock Lone
- - -
Lucy Lone
! 2 J ~ 5 6 7
7 6 5 I J P~,
This pattern indicates
Map prepared December 31, 2002
subject parcel mrs map has Seen compiled lo, general piannmg ana reference purposes glry
NTJC ¢very ¢Ilpd has bCCn metlC 10 gpvitlC Ih¢ n~051 Cvr,¢nl antl a ,Iraln
,m mdllOn ppssi018. n ~s n I mlentletl Ip ~a¢ as a ~eyelry q,vln~y ; ~r,.v~ ¢
Robert C. Fender
Land Use
I ~a
I
II i
II
II L RU
I COM
II ~a r COM
i
I - ~9
IC
S.R. No. 712 Midway Rood
RU
~p N p 9 7 6 5 1 ~ P ~
u Gro Twig Lane
a ~s ~ u a za m za za r1 Ps
M
~ 2 J 6 7 p
E ,c
d
~ a°~ d r
Rainbow ~.3 ~
Drive ~ i s ~3 e ' o;
O v 3
River Branch Drive
w:
N
Jo
~ ~ ~ ~ ~F 1 25 N 2J
2 J 1 5 6 7
e p ~ ~ fiver ammock Lane
' Lucy Lane
! 2 J . 5 6 7
7 6 5 1 .7 2 ~
G 1 S
This pattern indicates
Map prepared December 31, 2002
subject parcel This maP has Oeen CO(npilee io, enerai
9 Wenning am reference prrposes wiry T
1MUle every coon nas Deco rnaoe ~o oWViee Inc ~nusl wnem eno a . rt N
inlOnnaliOn po5~io~ei ~ nUW Ib ~a~ as a ~eyally Ix~Winy ;I<x.n~~r.~..
.
Robert C. Fender
~
f~ d ~r t s~ ~ s ,~1~ ra ~f S ~ r~ ~ I r ~I ~ : y ~ ~i
~r ~ ~ ~r~r~ s r Iy~~ it ` . '~~~2~ ; ~ I~'~ >r~ 1 ~ r.
,5~, 1! r.~~;Fy~~x. t4.'f~f~ ~ ~ry ~ E~ trj;'~ yr~.l- ~
sr'4f ~ ;~:*t4 ~ ; rl'ir d ~ ~~N7,~', e
fr,j ~ i : f ~ ~ ~v t ~1 ~~J"71~f ~ ~ ~~'~'~i r +t s~ y~
X a r } ~ ! r, if ~ ~ ~ +w ~ ~
~R r yr*.-wr.~ ti~~1T I y s r
r!+r _
~.~Ci.?i{ n,L~~ (y~~lt ~~~fli a ~ 1' ~f ~c~f r Cr.~, _~~1 v ~ +
{ t~r'~+~t I''~'~'ft~r q~t~l : # ~yJJJ~~~s .~~1~ ~"~'.~I ~ t j; f r ~T ~ .
a }ur .~-,V~,r ~ ~~t'~y''1rj+ ~Y1~19E ~ ~..i
+7f:~
~ r GG~Sri y, w 1
Y.'.~`.Ff, ~'i.- ~ rr.v': ~e f~, ~ I: br r8r :i~r~'f~~.+I~~+'q Vie' r r i.
.
~ _
~ .A;'
-r s
J~
~'r~
~ ~ r .r ~
~ ~ ~ r ib rA t
? ~ ~ ~ r
~i~f
I ~'t r 1: +I~ 1
Ir ~ ~ ~ + ' ~
~ i4 f r
t
„
_ .
.
4 - ~
R
. r ~ r
£ ~ >kk
~ ~S
t ~ r,"
z C, _ :gar
r~'
~i~ ~ ,
,
E r
`r x
` y
x
' ~ • ~
i _ r_ ~ r .
i
M •
« 4 R
~ ~.1 f
t° ~ ,
This pattern indicates `
Map prepared December 31, 2002
subject parcel Thia map ~ baen to generelplarnirg and ralarenca ~,r~~s «,y N.
Whila every effort has been matle to provitle Ina most current arW accurate
Intomtation possible, it is not inlefltletl la use as a kgaly bintlirg document.
AGENDA - PLANNING 8r ZONING COMMISSION
\~G~E CpG
ti~ THURSDAY, .January 16, .2003
' 7: OD P.M
'c~ OR14~'
ROBERT FENDER, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Future Land' Use
Classification from RU (Residential .Urban) and COM (Commercial) to COM (Commercial). for the
following described property: _
Location: Southwest corner of .the intersection of South 2Srh Street and
Midway 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 hat a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, .which record :includes the testimony and evidence upon which the. appeal is
to be based. Upon the request of
any
party to the proceeding, individuals testing during a hearing
will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to crosse:ramine any
individual testing 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
-.circulation in St. Lucie County, on January 2, 2003,
File No. PA-02-OOS
JL~~ CMG
aoARD OF COUNTY ~ .,y COMMU N tTY
a~uxk,
COMMISSIONERS v DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
January 2, 2003.. ~OR,OP
In :accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, .you are hereby advised that ROBERT
FENDER, has petitioned. St. Lucie County fora Change in Future Land Use Classification .from RU
(Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial) to COM (Commercial) for the following described property:
.Location: Southwest corner of the intersection of South 25`h Street and Midway Road..
TFIE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
The firstpublic hearing off the petition will be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on
Thursday, .January 16, 2003, County Commissioner's Chambers, S~ Lucie County Administration
BuildiKg Annex, 2300 Vrginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an
opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of thepublic 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 electronicahy 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-
examne. any individual testifying during shearing -upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing,
maybe continued to adate-certain:
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie
County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-
1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428..
)f you no .longer own properly adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this. notice to the new
owner. Please call 772/462-IS82 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number PA-02-005.
Sincerely,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION _ _
_
~C~~~~
Stefan tthes, Chairman
JOHN D. f3RUHN. District No. 1 DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 PAULA A. LEWIS, DisrriU No. 3 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 CLIFF DARNES, District No. 5
County Administrator -Douglas M: Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue. Farr Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administration: (772) 462-1590 • Plonningt (772) 462-2822 GIS/1-echnical Services: (772) 462-1553
Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fox: (772) 462-1581
Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 Fax: (772) 462-2132
www.co st-lucie.fl . us
N _ ~ ~ ~ M V'~ ~ I O ~D M N d\ ~ M ~ DO ~ M rM I M ~ ~ M ~O ~O M h ~d'
O O o0 O f 00 W 00 ~ O N h 00 N O 001 V7 00. O N 001 00 00 00 00
o N OrnrnrnrnlINO,o,o~n~nrnt`vrnrn~rnlv~o,~rnrnrnrn'o,rnrn o~o,rnrnrnrn
N ~ viv`~Io v~~~ T ~o~~ ~ M ~rl~ ~ N ~r vI~ v'v v ~t N ~r v~~t' `I' `7
M ~ w ~ M ~ i N O N M V M (I ~ ^ N- ~ M_ M. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~
N o0 DO DO ~ 00 O 00. 00 DD \O DD I! DD DD 00100 V o0 ct o0 I o0 00 00 00 ~O W o0 00 00 a0 a0
rno~rn! rnlIornlo.i°,rna~ !IIrn o~rno,rnrnrnrn rnrn o~rnvrna`rno,o~rn
- ~ M M M` ~M41~ M~M~M M M~ 4M M M~M M M. M M ~MIM~ M M M M M M M M M
t III I 1 ; ` I !
Y a~'..a,a'alXaalaaa~..~aa`aaaaa aa'aaa'a~aaaa•a as
v~ www_Ew~w.F"www~ww_(_wlwwwwwww~w ~wwwwwwwwwawww
` - -
i~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~_~~~~~
~ a ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~i Y ~ ~ ~ ~ a'"i ~ ~i a ~i ~ ~ ui a'"i y ~ `a'i a~i ~i a`i a'"i
v~aari~a ;aa.a, aavi ~,aaaa.i~a,a~naaaaa ~aaaaaa
_ o -o 0 0 0° 0 0 0 o o -o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
U a w w a w pC w w w> w w a 3 w w w w w w w a w w w w w H w w w w w w
- i- { -
I~
I
! _
aaa ~a aaeaMp; > o ~aax Y °a~ ~~a a~aaa~
04 0 ~ ~Y ~a ~a ~ ~ ~ _
~ 0 3 v~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
~E-+'ti F•+~nFH_yH ui ~ orE-HH o v,p o ~WE"'.a.°aE~~~~~FFE-~~
~ r~U~3ZU~ oC~F~rwr~v~ ~~~~'Oc~v~v~ZC~J~~C~JV~'O~~~C~~~
M N N h M~ Y1_ h ST G N ¢ V'1 N~ O O 'ct O O C Q 1~ 00 Ga C ee~~ O O
.d ~O O 00 M p p d' O M O O. N 0 0 rr '~t O M N Y1 l~ O °i ~ O O O M- C p' O
N O O w va l~ M Od C ~D. Vl t~ O O v~ t'^= vi ~ h O ~O v'i b vl
Q w N N try N Pr N h (V M M o0 N N N N h M N M h V') cV N N N N fSi N N N N N N
~ i I ! y
Z A
t.
h ~
N
Z ~ N
O
~
° ° a ~ w
o' I
U
H
y F
~ ~ ~ o ~ b ° v'~ ~ 3wb ~ ~ ° a o~~
co o w .c :c ~ ~ ~
Z aaU U UA vii w w°~x ti., ~Aa~aa z °
~ ~
~ ~z is ~ } ~ ~ i ~ ~
` ~ z•- ~-~'-"-~~~--+-u;a~~pgw~A Aix UC7 A~a~r~w °r ~ ° °AA
' ! ~ !
I
v y ! ~ y` o
~ ~ , ; V A
oU I ~ O
y
~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ t~
U
O .ti O w .C .s~ cd ~ ~ u, O p ~ x ~ ti ~ .'~i~ ~ :a ~--1 ~ ~ P~, ~ P~~r
c'v Z M a1_~
U U~ U ~i A w w w w w~ w
° ¢ M N l~ t/) M ~ ~ O Vl Vl t~ N DD 00 w M O N N V
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o 0 0 0 0 0~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o~ o 0 0 0
U O O p O O O N O O d C O p 0 C O fV O O O w p O O O O O O O O
w o.~ o O o~ o _o o_ o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 o c O o _0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- p 'V h 'd' V1 t` O ~ n Yl ~D l~ D\ f!'1 CV ~O 00 M N h. 00 N M 00 v'> M
~ O, O N d' N O O~ ~ O ~f' O O' p O Oa O~ O O C O N O O O O O N O
Q O C O O O .;O C O O O d O O O O O pp 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O C C O O O_ O O O_ O_ O
~ a O O. N~ O N O O O_ O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w., N_ _M ~
0 0 0 0 p O O O O w O 0 0 0 0 0 0- O O O O 0 0 O O O O
~ h 00 h 00 00 h 00 W er V1 00 V'i 00 DD OQ V '~F' h V1 OQ 00 V 00 00 M -00 rt 00 00 00 er
M V) ~M rh h M V1 - V1 vl M M ~ vl - ~ h ~ ~-V~
aoo o-• ©o- ~-~-0 6~ o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V' '~t V d' d' V' v 'tfi c1 v v v '~t d~ b' V' 'd' tl' ~Y ~ ~t ~I' d' d^ ~t V'
~ A- H M M` M M M M M M M Q M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M. M M ~ ~
N ~ O ~p ~ h ~ `~T I M I mot' V vi ~ mot-](
O N M M ~ 00 t I~ 1 i ! 01 00 li
o N o~rno~rnvrntrnrnornrn~rn
O\ 00I 00 00 00 00 00 00 Vl 00 00 00 00
M~M M M M, M, MI M.M M M M M I
t T~ --i-- s -E ~ ~
i-E
1
1 1 1. i
v~ tw ~w~w(w~w~w~w wow w 'w~ 'w ~ 1
t ~ -
1 ! ~ V
U) U! yUy.. ~ U' U U ~ U U yU. U
N N N N Y~ G^
a,aa ~aa~av~aaaa
_
_
U vsZwww'w°ww°awwww° _
iii
3 3~ z a a a o a a~ a
~•O.YE3.~E3GQFE~•OE~+
M 33a~c~c~c~~5c~a
oo~nC ~o.oM~c~nvo~-•
Q A Z N~ N~ N N N~ N N N N
~C I
N.
h' ~ -
id
Z W
O
N
x N
' w Q
~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Z A ~A~ wz
M ~ ~ k ~
z ~ ~H33
~ ~ ,
o , xw' 'tip,
N ~ 1 1 I Q cv ~ ~
y ~ ~ I.ti .d ~ cv m ,cv N
~i,~ ~ O
z wA~Aoa3ti3~_
- -
o ~j
[ ~ ~
~ ~ r
w ~ x O f
~v ww
a t ~ ~
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
U O
~o zxxaaxxx~~~~333
Q h H~ M n ~D O~ M t~ eh- 00 et O 1~
o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U M o O o 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0
ot° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o c o 0
~D NN M ~O V ~O Q\ b M O .~r O
O~ 0 0 0 0 O~ O O O N S O N -
rn O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ O O O O 0 0 0 0 O. O O O
~ ~ ~ 00 00 00 ~ ~ 09 -00 00 OO 00 00 ~ 00
~ ~vavvvv ovv°vovov°v
- A~ F'F M M M M M M M M M M M M -
SL LUCIE COUNTY •
PCANNING AND ~ -
-Ot~FIP1G-C-OMMISSI9 '
• " " - PUBLIC HEARING - 05 36 40 IiEG AT A PT 60
• AGENDA ' fT„ S AND 70S FT W OF •
- January lb; 2003 NE COR OF SEl/4 OF SO •
' SEG 5, SD PT BEING- INT .
• ~ Tb ' WHOM' IT MAY OF R/W OF S 25 ST AND
CONCERN: S R/W'OE' MIDWAY RD; -
_ THE WLY AlG SU S'R/W
NOTICE is hereby given in 218 FT, TH SLY 222 FT; TH
accordance with Section ELY 250 FT i0 W R/W.LI
11.00.03 of the St. Lucie. OF S 25 ST, TH NLY ALG'
Cauny'tand Development SD W R/W 224 FT TO
Code and the provisions of POB (1.198 ACRES)
the St. Lucie Count' Com-
- ~ prehensive Plan, the follow- i Location: Southwest corner -
iqg applicants have of the intersection of South. . I
- requested thot the St. Lucie 25th Sheet -and Midway
• ~ - Count' 'Planning and: Zon- ~ Road.
ing Commission consider
their following requests: 4. ANGELHEART ACRES,
for- a Conditional Use f er-
i 1. ATLANTIC TRUSS COM- mat to allow a communiy -
PANY; tTD., for a Change residential home'in the RS•4
ih. Zoning -from the" AG-1 (Residential, Single-Family -
(Agricultural - 1 du/acre) 4 du/aae). Zoning Dis-
Zoning District to the IL (In- tract' for the following
dustrial; Light) Zoning: Dis- ,described property: "
tract for the following ~
described property: RIVER-PARK - UNIj 4 BLK
. ~ 40.•LOT •9 (MAP- •3?4/215)
.36 34 39N 452; 50 FT OF ~ (OR 1088-608)
SW 1 J4 OF NW 1/4 -
LESS W 74 FT' FOR R0 ~ Locatioh: 171 1~E Caprona
AND CANALS•(13.05 AC) Avenue; Port St Lucie
Location: • - East ~ side of PUBLIC HEARINGS will be -
North -'Kings , .Highway,- held d~ "Commission Cham- ~ .
approximately. 1/4 mile bens, Roger~Pdtras Aone~c,`
- s o u thy. o.f &t.. l u c ie 2300. Virginia.Avenue, Fort ! -
Boulevard ' Pierce; Florida on ~lpnuiry "
1 b, 2003, begtnning at
" ~ 2 'ROBERT FENDER, for a:. 7t0U P:M,°or'as soon there-
Ghbnge;in.FUhire Land U$e after as possible:: ° ~ .
Classificatron'f~om RU.(Res- ~ n ~ _ - _
idential:. Urbgo) and CONI ~ PURSUANT TQ Section •
(Comtfiercial): ~Io COM. -i ~ ~ ~ 286:O1f15,~Ffoi~lo-Statutes, - "
(Commerdan ~ "for.- the fo1- if" a person d~ddes .to - -
. - iowfng:decribed property; .appepl. any decision made • ~ •
• " ~ by. a -board dgenry, or
05 36 40 BEGAT A PT 60 commission with;cespect to
FT S -AND 70.5_ FT W .OF any matter, considered at a
NE'COR OPSE 1/4 OF;SD meeting. or ;hearing, he will .
SECrS;-SD RT BEING INT . ~ ~ - need q .record: of the.:pro=
OF R/W OF S 2S ST AND'. 1 ceedings, ahd tla_t, for such
S;R/W~~O~ MIUWAY~RD; ~ purposes, he~may need to '
. THE WIY~ALG SD S' R/W' ensure that 'a verbatim
218 FT,"~TH SLY-222 FT, TH ~ record'of the proceedings is - .
ELY 250; FT TO W R/W LI ~ made, which. reeord .
OF S 25.'ST; TH NLY-ACG, ~ y includes theaestimony and -
" Sd - W~ R/W-~224 FT- TO } evidence upon _wiiich the ~
. POB (1..198 ACRES) appeal is to.be based. .
" ~ Location:: Southwest corner PLANNING AND - •
- ~ of the intersection of South ZONING CCtMIV11SSION -
25th Sheet ~ and Midway SL Lt9C1E'000NTY, -
Rodd. FLORIDA,.
$fefan Motthes, i
HA .
Change in Zoning from the • - - • ~ - •
•-CN (Commercial; Neigh- _ Publish;lanuary2,2003 ~ i
- boyhood) and CG (Com- 2597032 = "
. mercwf ` General) Zoning _ - _ _ _ _
" Distracts to the CG (Com-
mercial;' General) Zoning- - •
District the following _ ,
- described propertyc -
Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 02/20/03
GCE Cp
J G _
File Number RZ 02-022
ti~
,c P MEMORANDUM
~OR10 ~
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:. Planning Manager
DATE: - February 14, 2003
,SUBJECT: Application of Robert C. Fender, for a Change in Zoning from the CN
(Commercial, Neighborhood) and. CG (Commercial, General) Zoning i
Districts to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District.
.LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of South 25`n Street
and Midway Road
CURRENT FUTURE LAND
USE DESIGNATION: RU (Residential Urban)
PROPOSED FUTURE LAND
USE DESIGNATION: COM (Commercial)
-EXISTING ZONING: CG (Commercial, General) and CN (Commercial,
Neighborhood)
PROPOSED ZONING: CG (Commercial, General)
PARCEL SIZE: 1.198 acres
PROPOSED USE: Commercial General Uses
i SURROUNDING ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/acre) Zoning to the
south. AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) to the
estRS~~(Residential-SingleIIFamily2-du/sere)-to-the-- - - - -
southeast, CN (Commercial,.Neighborhood) to the west
_ _ - _ - _and _east__ across South-.25th. Street. _ _CG_ _(Commercial,_
General) to the north and .:northeast across South 25`n
Street.
February 14, 2003 Subject: "Robert C. Fender
Page 2_ File No: RZ-02-022
SURROUNDING LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS:. RU ::(Residential `Urban) to the south, east, and west. RS
(Residential Suburban) to the southeast. COM
(Commercial)-to'the northeast and northwest.
SURROUNDING EXISTING
LAND USES: Single-family residences are located to -the south of the
subject property. To the east across South 25`h Street is a
convenience store. To the northeast is a shopping plaza.
UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is within the Port St. Lucie Utilities
service-area. _
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADEQUACY:' The road right-of-way for South 25`h Street is 100 feet in
width. The right-of-way width for Midway Road in the area
varies.
.SCHEDULED..
1MPROVEMENTS: None at his time.
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 male 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~tandar_ds-of
11_.06.03.
-
2 -Whether the- ro osed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St.
p p
Lucie County Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all .elements of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Rlan. The request is compatible with the COM
(Commercial) Future Land Use classification, which allows commercial general
zoning. The applicant has applied fora change of the future land use
°
February 14, 2003 Subject; Robert C. Ferider
Page 3 File No.: RZ-Q2-022
designation from RtJ to COM (Commercial) concurrent-with this application-for a
change in zoning..
3. Whether and the extent o which the proposed zoining is inconsistent with
the existing and proposed land uses;
The proposed CG (Commercial,_General) Zoning-District is consistent with the
existing commercial uses in the area.
4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment;
Contlitions have not changed so as to require an amendment..
5~ Whether and_the extent to which the ,proposed amendment would 'result in
demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which..the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public #acilities,
including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water
supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency
medical#acilities
The' intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create. significant .additional
demands on public facilities in this area. -Any development will "rtieed, to
demonstrate that where. are adequate public facilities in the area to support any
proposed development.
6. Whether-and the extent #o which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
The `proposed .amendment is not anticipated to create. adverse .impacts on the
natural. environment. Any 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 patteirns;
The proposed amendment may, result in an orderly and logical .development
pattern. Prior zoning actions at th~~ocation~ave_IeftJa_-CN-~Comrner-cial, - - -
Neighborhood). buffer between the CG .(Commercial, General) and the residential
subdivision to the south: This petition maintains such a buffer although its width _
- - is decreased:- Any development will be required to comply with the County's
residential to non-residential. buffer requirements.
February 14, 2003 Subjecti Robert C: Fender
Page 4 File No,:` RZ-02-022
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 is not expected to 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, Robert C. Fender, has .requested his change in zoning from the• CG
(Commercial, General) and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) :Zoning. Districts to the CG
(Commercial, General) Zoning District on property located on-the southwest corner of the
intersection of South 25~' Street and .Midway Road in order to allow the property to be
developed. for commercial general uses. In order for the change in zoning request to be heard
.and approved, a concurrent request fior• a Future land Use Classification change from RU
(Residential Urban) to COM (Commercial) must also be reviewed and approved by the ~3oard of
County Commissioners.
Attached is a copy of Section 3.01.03(S) - CG (Commercial, General) and Section
` 3.01.03(Q) - CN (Commercial, Neighborhood), of the St. Lucie County Land Development
Code, which delineate 'the permitted, accessory, and conditfona? :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 Accessory. Uses
section would be allowed only if one or more of the permitted uses exist on the ubject 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 thaf-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
- Gounty-Attorrtey - - -
Robert C. Fender
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 l'HE `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 ROBERT C. FENDER, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CN
(COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD) AND CG ..(COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONING
DISTRICTS TO THE CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL). ZONING pISTRICT, BECAUSE..,..
[CITE REASON[S] WHY • PLEASE BF SPECIFICJ.
MOTION TO DENY:
AFTER CONSIpERING 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, 1 HEREBY MOVE..
THAT-THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE
.COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF ROBERT
C. .FENDER, FQR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CN (COMMERCIAL, ,
NEIGHBORHOOD) AND CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE CG _ _
(COMMERCIAL, GENERAL), BECAUSE....
[CITE REASON[S] WHY -PLEASE BE SPECIFIC].
-
l ~ "
Section 3.0:1.03
zoning District Use Regulations
.
~
Q• CN COMMERCIAL. NEIGHBORHOOD
1. 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
livin i s « „
g n urroundin nei
g hborhoods. The nu
9 tuber In O following each identified usa corresponds
to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(8), " Tpe number 999 applies to a use not
~ ` defined under the SIC code but maybe further defined in Section 2:00.00 of this code.
i
2. Permitted Uses
~I
a: Beauty and barbar services. pz~zar
b• Civic, social and fraternal associations esa,i
c. Depository institutions tsor
d• Laundering and drydeaning (self-service). ~z,s~
e. Real estate t~sr
f. Repair services:
(1) Electrical repair. t7sz1
(2) Shoe repairs rns>
(3) Watch, clock, jewelry, and musical.instrument repair. nssi~
~ 9. Retail trade (each building shall be less than 6,000 square. feet gross floor area,' al{ uses
inclusive):-
• (1 Antiques ts~
(2) Apparel and accessories. tss~
(3) books and stationery. tss~uss~si
{ (4) Cameras and photographic supplies. ~seasi
(5) Drugs and proprietary. ts9,z~
(6) Eating places cses?
(7) Florists. ~sssz~
(8) Food stores <ur
(9) Gifts, novelties,:and souvenirs. ts~a>>
(10) Hobby, toy and game shops,ts9sr
(11) Household appliances cs~z) '
(12) Jewelry. ~seui
(13) Newspapers and magazines. tsar
(14) Optical goods. tssss)
(15) Nurseries, lawn and gardenaupplies. ~szs~
(16) Radios, lV's, consumer electronics and music supplies ts~3~
(17) Sporting goods and bicycles. ~ssd,>
(18) Tobacco products. ts~3i
h. Video tape rental year
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
~.:.t @
III
' ;Section 3.01.03 ~ ,
,Zoning District Use Regulations
.\1 .
i _
5. O
ff,
str
e C Par '
p km and Loadin Re u~tements
9 9
q
. ~.•r.
Off-street parking and loading.requirements are subject to Section 7.OG.00.
I
6.
L:andsca
in R
uir
p g eq ements
a
L rids
taping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00.
7. Conditional Uses
a
Car
Washes
S
el
f Se -
N
ce O
n s
( ub`
y) sect to the pfoVistons of Section 7.10.22. cess>
b. Da` -
care
adu
t
I e3zz
Y _c ~
I~, -child ca3s,~
c, Postal services. c,3„~
- d. Retail trade:
ii - (1)` Gasoline services -accessory to retail food stores under SIB-5411. cyst
j (2) Undistilled alcoholic beverages accessory to ~etai( sale of food. (s9z,,Ex~ilrorMqu«)
e. ' Telecommunication towers ~ subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 css9~
-
it 8. Accesso Use
rY s
Accessory uses are subject to the re uirements of S
on 8
q ectf .00.00 and include the following::
I'
a. Drinking places. (undistilled alcoholic beverages) accessory to an eating place, t~~
b.
One
dweliin .unit
g contained within the commercial building; for on-site security purposes. csss~
~I
I
~ -
-
I
_ _ - _
Adopted August 1, 1990 115 Revised Through 08!01/00
'i
~ C
. Section 3.01.03
_
. .
Zoning O~stnct Use Re ulations
9
i/
~ U.
( S. CG COMMERCIAL. GENERAL
1. Pur o
se
P
I
The purpose of this district is o provide and protect an environment suitable for a wide variety of
I
co
~ mmercial uses i
nt
ended to serve a population over a large market area, which do not impose
undesirable noise, vibration, odor, dust, or offensive effects on t es
h urrourtding area, together with
.
such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with; g'enerdl commercial surroundings. The
number in "O" following each :identified use corresponds to .the SIC code reference described in
Section 3..01.02(8). The number 999 applies o a use not defined under the SIC code but maybe
further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code:
2. Permitted Uses
I'
a. Adjustment/collection & credit reporting services n3z~
b. Advertising v3»
c. Amphitheaterscsss~
d. Amusements & recreation services -except stadiums, arenas, race tracks, amusement parks
and bingo parlors ~s~
~'I
e. Apparel & accessory stores ~ssr
f
Automobile
d
tale
rs rs9~ ,
g. Automotive rental, repairs & sere. (except body repairs) ~s,.~ssasa)
h. Beauty-and barber services t7rs~2a~
i.
B
u
Idin
materials
a d
har
9 dware
and
P g en supply cs~~
. j. Cleaning services rsesr
II k. Commercial printing r~r
1. Communications :except towers taei•
II
m. Computer programming, data processing & other computer serv. ~n
n. Contract "
construction serv. (office & interior storage only) t,snsrlrr
o, Cu~fural activities and nature exhibitions t9ss~
p. - Duplicating, trlailing, commercial art/photo. & stenog serv. pair
q. Eatin laces sst'
9P . t ~
r Edtfcationel services ~ except public schools jez~
s. Engineering, accounting, research, management & related services ta7~
t. Equipment rental and leasingservices ~~s>
~u: Executive, egislative, and judicial functions (slr9vsarsags~ssis~r
III v. Farm labor and management services ro~6t.
w: Financial; insurance, and real estate tsorsl~2is~isa~~i
x: Food stores tsar
y. Funeral and crematory services ~2st
z. Gasoline service stations rssa,~
as General rxierehandise-stores~s -
bb. Health services tsoi
cc. Home furniture and_fumishings_tsz~ _
_
dd. Landscape. & horticultural services ro~s~
ee. Laundry, cleaning and garment services ~z,~
ff. Membership organizations -except for religious organizations as provided in Section
8.02:01(H) of this code cast
~ ~ 99• Miscellaneous retail (see SIC Code Major Group 59):
(1) Orug stores tse,~
Adopted August 1, 1990 118 Revised Through 08/01/00
Section 3.01.03
Zoning District Use RegutaGons ,
~ ~
(2) Used merchandise stores tse~~
(3) SPo?ting goods ts9ai~'
(4) Book-& stationary tssavsea3r
{5) Jewelry s~ea~
(6) Hobby, toy and games tssas~'
(7) " Camera & photographic supplies ~s9as~
(8) Gifts, novelty and souvenir tssa>>
(9) ~ Luggage & leather goods rsse?
(10) FabriCand mill products tssas~
(11) Catalog, mail order and direct selling tsss,~ssss~
(12) Liquified petroleum gas (propane) "~seeq~
(13) florists tssszr
(14) Tobacco ts~3r - -
(15) News dealers/newsstands ~s~a~
(16) .Optical goods ~sssst
(17) Misc. retail (See SIC Code forspecific uses) tssse>
hh. Miscellaneous personal services (see SIC Code`Major Group 72):
i
i, (1) Tax refum services crz9,i
(2) Misc. retail (See"SIC Code for specific uses)
I ii. Miscellaneous business services (see SIC Code Major Group 73):
(1) Detective, guard and armored car services ~~s,r .
(2) Security system services truer
(3) News syndicate ~~r
(4) Photofinishing laboratories traeai ~ "
' ~ (5) Business services =misc. t73esr
11• Mobile home dealers tsz» .
kk. Mobile food ventlors (eating places, fruits &vegetables-retail) ts~~
II. Motion pictures pe)
mm. Motor vehide parking -commercial parking & vehicle storage. ~s2r
nn. Museums, galleries and gardens t~•~
oo. Personnel supply services try
PP• Photo finishing services ~~+t
qq. Photographic services a~?r.
rr. ` Postal services ~as~
ss. Recreation facilities t~si
tt: Repair services ~sr
uu. Retail trade-indoor display and sales only, except as provided in Section 7.00.00. ter
vv. Social services:
("1) Individual & family social services ~s3zreas~ '
(2) Child care services tsas~
(3) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services tea~> '
_ ww. Travel agencies-t<~aa -
xx. Veterinary services tour
_ -
- 3• - Lot-Size Requirements - _ -
Lot size requirements shall be in accordance: with Section 7.04.00. '
\
Adopted August 1, 1990 119
_ Revised Through 08/01/00
. ~
Section 3.01,03
Zoning District Use Regulations
4
Dimensional. Regulations
tJimensiorial 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 Adult establishments subject to requirements of Sec. 7,10.10. tea
b. Drinking places'(alcoholic beverages) -free-standing. ~se,si
i c. Disinfecting & pest control services. ~~a2
d. Amusement parks.. v~~
e. Go-cart tacks: ~sss~ ;
f. Hotels & motels, po~~
g. Household goods warehousing and storage-mini-warehouses rsss>
h. Marina -recreational boats only. t~as3)
i. Motor vehide.repairservices -body repair. ~ss~
j. ~ Sporting and recreational camps. nosst •
k. Retail trade:
(1) liquorstores. ~sez~
k, Stadiums, arenas, and race tracks. ~sa>
~ L Telecommunication towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 tsss>
` 8. Accessory' Uses
Accessory. uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the follox~ing:
a. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages as an accessory use o a restaurant and/or civic, social,
and fraternal organizations).
b, One single-family dwelling unit con#ained within the commercial building, or a detached
single-family dwelling or mobile home, (for on-site security purposes).
c. Retail trade:
(1) - Undistilled alcoholic beverages (accessory toretail sale cf food).
Adopted August 1, 1990. 120. Revised Through 08/01/00
---1.
--..~w- Z
i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ N = ~
LPL NO ~ ~ ~ ~
v N ~~P ~ ~ ~
° µ _ ~ ~
L W_
O ~
K i ~a ¢
P ~.N -'--X3A41 N33tl7
~u. ~ S 1$ M Nr
ff
w ~ to
c~
4 . A aaulG~d ~ ~ j[ bQ Yts
0
y
r `
Q Q
WmIY ~ _ ~ ~ € .f 7
~ j._
~ ~tlr~f0"i107XYT' r ~ ~j °Jg ~ `OAlfl"1~Np~K~
A3 f~ ty7j
sM ~ ~
` 0..
.m.....,..~y.~.__... YY _ _ i P
~ ,
~ ~
W ""3tr/3ii1~"~~'HOSg713"" W
u"~"is~.~5r- e_....... ~mi`"rig '~+iA
~
IfPOS'"iplS'J31116 O1
F- ~ '
~
/ aroe xti5y]ow
O I _ z
aroa ~«s p
_ _
I ~ _...,~OM ~kI01i~Otlt 1 ofou 3Nl 37N1R1 U
I ~ ,
I ~ a+ai (i.~n u3or3x
_ ~ j ;
I ~ ;
I I
~ y~ W I ~ ~ ..Otl ..ONOIOx t?301 I I W Z
H
`s I
n ~ 1 ~ E ~ ~ Q
I~~ ~ I € OTOtl 033u5 O~Oe ig111?9
I
Z I
_._._.~...._.F
d .za tniaa
t
__.L -a YN7
~ ?
W ! r W
~
M
~
i
S 6f 1 S 5£ 1 S 9£ 1
~I.LNflOB 3~8OH~~3~iO ''t
o,
A Petition of Robert C. Fender fora Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial,
Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial,
General Zonin District.
I s~~
I
II
II
II
I r
I I spa N
L
I - -
II _
S.R. No. 712 Midway Road
I
~p u q 9 d l 6 5 ~ J P l
a Gro Twig Lane
M a 5 A M B pp PI PP Y.! H ~
y P J 6 7 q
I E v
~ a° v
I Rainbow rn ' ~ 3 • ~
Drive ~ i s ~3 e ' 03
v " ~ 3
r r h rive
Rive Bone D
~ ~ ~ % ~ % 25 21 PJ
, / Y J 1 5 6 7
r a s q p lP /J River Hammock Lone
I - - - -
Luc Lone
/ P J ~ 5 6 7
7 6 5 1 J P I
RZ 02-022 --~~~~~~TM.
ThIS pattern IndlCateS Map prepared December 31, 2002
subject parcel mis map has Oeen oompileo Iq general planning and reference purposes Dory N
While every effort has Oeen matle to provMe the most current antl accurate
information possi0le, ~.s rwl intenoeo for use as a legaly andirg Document
Robert C. Fender
Zoning
I
I
I I I CO
II
--------1-------
-
I I
I CG
I I ~p N
I ~ CG AR-1
. I N
I ~9
I I
S.R. No. 712 Midwoy .Rood
AR-1 C CO ~R-1
'I ~o
a ~ a ~ s s ~ J p '
~s Gro Twig Lone
N a n e 9 ~ m ffi u 2~ g
N 2 J B ~ q
E Y
c u
~ a a, o
Rainbow - N ' ~ 3 . ~
5 ~o g 9 uo
Drive ~ ~ ~ --3
0
r
E v ~ 3
v
River Branch Drive
AR-1
~ E J ~ 5 6 7
e ~ . ~ ~J N River Hommock Lane
- Lucy Lone
I 2 J I 5 6 7
7 6 5 ~ J 2 ~
~ RZ 02-022 ~ar~
This pattern indicates Map prepared December 31, 2002
subject parcel Thrs rnap nas been comw~etl br genera planning antl retereixe purposes wny ' T
NTile every e~bn 11ab Deer matle to prov tle IDs ngsl Curren) and accurate 1\VI
inlormabon possible. a s na mienoeo Ia use as a iaga~N o~ntling tlocumem
,
Robert C. Fender
Land Use
I
I I
II I
II
--------L-------°
II ~ RU
I COM N .
I I COM
I
II
S.R. No. 712 Midway Rood
RU
i2 Y p 9 7 6 3 ~ J P '
s Gra Twig Lone
N a n e ~ ~ Pr PP PJ P~ P5
y P J 6 7 p
E u
~ a° a. ~ a.
Rainbow rn .3 . ~
Drive a~ s .,3 e s o3
L
U ~ 3
River Bronch Drive
II N
I
~ w zs Pe v P5 P+ zJ
II
I Y J 1 5 6 7
e 9 a „ ,P .J H River Hommock Lone
- - -
Lucy Lane
I P J 1 5 6 7
~ 7 6 S 1 J P ~
RZ 02-022 ~--~~~G~ -
GlS
This pattern indicates Ma `
p prepared December 31, 2002
subject parcel Thls map nas been (;pntpiletl lprgeneralplamirp antl relererae purposes pnN N
VJnile every ellon has been matle to provitle Iha most anent antl accurate
_ inlormalion possible. n is not intenaeo I« use as a legally birwing tlocumem
.
Robert C. Fender
y` 3ir+ ~'r t>t ~~r ~ + ".~tat~r~ t ~r~~ ~ 1
ri, ~`I ~ p~." ~ ti S fit; ~t1~ r~ ' ~ ~ i ~Sy,'/ ~ '~.a~ ,r,1 rx~ ,
yy~~
~~T Rl~,~i~ ~aa of ~ ~ f~i>~~~V r r~H ~ ~ _
~.rr ~`'~~i~~ ~ 9,~1~`+ 3 A'i~ 4rj `~~F~t,, ~*~f~~
d ~ ' s' ~ r:
~ r-~"~"`~~~.~~a~ ~t ,Y i1}'. '~,r1 ,y ;.v'1!} fi' {tY~~r ~ ~ r _.r~~ K~:
i
r~
j, 7. 7 w. std } • ~ ;~{I~~,I[}~~~~f f ~ ~ ~j
~ 1 ~ ~ J ~
~ tC +'7'A Jt ~ iii,
r ~ _
r~„" °r , ~ rsr*wj; ~ iu~?u+'~'ri i} r ~ ~ rya.. :?w
r
r '-r1rr-,-...7 t"^r __ry_..Y .tz ~,.~.Y ,:..:gel!:. . _
~ _ _ e
~ } r, ~ S,
~5 ~4:
- fit. Ifs
~ ~ r s
~ r it Y
a
. _
~ x . 3.
r.
.
{may' }F~ ~ ' ~~ys
~ Y'F~ P ~p I ayl~ I III
'r , d
r
! s~, .
b
~ DES -'~r,.1"";. .
.p.
i
t
~,i s
1~
y., F
`t ' .
y~ ~
_ 't tom.!. A!'~ ~ fW '.'yli .APT - li w 1~ w'~~
k.' N
ra
f .L+ ice{ yl* 7 ~ _ ; ~ 1
RZ 02-022
GIS :xL.;.;:_:.
This pattern indicates Map prepared December 31.2002
subject parcel Tbus map nas peen compiletl la general plamirg antl relerenca purposes Dory 777~~~ 7
while every anon has peen mane to prmdtle Ipe moat current antl accurate ~ \ I
information possible. it is rwlintantletl for use as a legely bintl'ug tlocument 1 ~1
~G~E CO AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
~ y~ THURSDAY, January 16, 2003
7: 00 P.M.
'c~ 0RI0~'
ROBERT FENDER, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the CN
(Commercial, Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning Districts to the CG
(Commercial, General) Zoning District for the following described property: -
Location: Southwest corner of the intersection of South 25"` Street and
Midway RoaaG
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 testing during a hearing
will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any
individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the
public hearing will also be considered.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners
~ January 6, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, news a ers o eneral
P P --.f~
circulation in St. Lucie County, on January 2, 2003.
_
File No. RZ-02-022
(30ARD OF COUNTY „J~ y~? COMMUNITY
COMMISSIONERS ijr', ~ DEVELOPMENT
- ~ DIRECTOR
.January 2, 2003 ~OR`~
In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that ROBERT
FENDER, has petitioned St. Lucie County :for. a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial,
Neighborhood)-and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning'Districts to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning
District for the following described property:
Location: Southwest corner of the intersection of South 25~h Street and Midway Road.
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAII.ABLE 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, January 18, 2003, County Commissioner's Chambers, Saz 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. Wrttencomments 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 estimony 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
maybe continued to adate-certain:
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie
County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (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
own L____._
Ll
77~/Q~s~~
ssa:~yeu-ltzrve_any gt~estio~; arrd-refe um er -
Sincerely,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Stefan atthes, Chairman
JOHN D. DRUHN, District No. 1 DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. ~ FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 ~ CLIFF 6ARNES, District No. 5
County Adminisrroror - 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. • -Fox: (772) 462-1581
Tourist/Convention: (772)-462-1529 Fax: (772) 462-2132
www.co.st-lucie.fl.us
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSI iv '
~ PUBLIC HEARING 05 36 40`BEG AT A PT 60
• AGENbA FT S AND 70.5 FT W OF
January ib, 2003 NE,COR OF SEl/4 OF SD "
' SEC 5, SD i T BEING INT
' ~ TO WHOM• IT MAY OF R/W OF S 25 Si AN0 '
I'I CONCERN: S R/W'OF'MIOWAY RD, "
i THE WlY ALG SD S R/W
NOTICE is hereby given in 218 FT, TH SLY 222 FT; TH . ,
t ~ accordance with Section ELY 250 FT TO W R/VV LI
11.00.03 of the St. Lucie OF S 25 ST, TH NLY ALG
" County Land Development I SD W R/W 224 FT TO , .
Code and the provisions of POB (1.198 ACRES) "
the St. Lucie County Com
ti w
the follow- Loin on: South est corner
prehensive Plan, #
ve of the intersection of S t 1~
i licants ha ou h
n a
9 PP .I
• requested Hat the St. Lucie 25th Street and Midway
• County Planning and Zon- Road.
ing Commission consider
their following requests: 4. ANGELHEART ACRES,
' for a Conditional Use Per-
1. ATLANTIC TRUSS COM- mat to allow a community
PANY, LTD„ for a Change residential home in the RS-4
- in Zoning fromthe~AG-1 (Residential, Single-Family "
(Agricultural - 1 du/acre) - d du/acre) Zoning Dis-
Zoning District-to the IL (In- irict• fo7 the following
duitrial, Light) Zoning. Dis- described property:
- tract for the following -
described property: RIVER PARK -UNIT 4 BLK
40. LOT 9 (MAR •31/21 S)
36 34 39N 452; 50 FT OF (OR 1088-608)- .
SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 -
LESS W 74 FT fOR RO Location: 171-NE Caprona
AND CANALS•(13.05 AC) Avenue, Port St. Lvcie
location: East side of Pl18LIC HEARINGS will be
North "Kings Highway, held in 'Commission Chain-_
approximately 1/4 mile hers, Roger Poitrq; Annex,
soufh of St. Lucie 2300 Virginia. Avenue, Fort 1 •
Boulevard: ~ Pierce; Florida on 7anuary
" 16, 2003, beginning at
2:.~ROBERT FENDER, for• a. . 7:00 P.N4 or cs soon there-
~hange:ie.Futdre Land Use after as possible..
Classificatan~Gom RU• (Res- - ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .
" idential Urbda)' and COM ~ PURSUANT TO Section ~ "
(Com'mgrdal): to. COM 286:0105,'.Flor(da Statutes, t
(CommerdaQ `for: the fo1- if • a person decides .to " j
lowing descrbed property: ,appeal any dedsion made '
• b a board en or . .
Y a9 cY.
A P 0 commission wi
OS 36 40 BEGAT T 6 th,res ect to' •
P
•
F D"• 0.5 fT W 'OF an matter consider
T S` AN 7 ed at ~a •
Y
N F" E ] 4 OF SD meetin or hears w
E OR O S he ill '
'C.. / 9 ng,
`SECTS; SD PT BEING INT . ~ need a record of the.pro=
Op R/W OFS 25 STAND' ~ ceedings; and that for such
6;R/W OF. MIDWAY R0; ! purposes, he may need fo "
THE WLY~AIG SD S' R/W ~ erasure that a verbatim
- 218 FT; ~TH 5CY 222 FT, TH record of the proceedings is
' : ~ ELY 250, FT TO iM R/W LI made, which record
f., • OF S 25.'ST; TH NLY•ALG.. includes the.. testimony-and " "
Sb: W R/W. '~"224 fT• TO ~ evidence upon which the
POB (1.:}98 ACRES) - - appeal is to.;be based. "
`Loc6tion:l Southwest corner PLANNING AND
of the intersectiion of South• ZONING CQMMISSION
25th Street' and Midway ST. LUCtE COUNTY,
Road. FLORIDA '
• /S/ Stefan Matthes, !
3:~ ROBERT .FENDER, fora CHAIRMAN
hange Zoning fro~he ~ - -
CN (Commercial, Neigh- Publish: Januaryt2, 2003. .l ~Y
bothoodj and CG (Coin- 2597032
mercial, Geheral) Zoning
Districts to the CG (Coin-
mercial, General) Zoning ' '
District the folloviing
described property: .
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING
February 20, 2003
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: . -
Mr. Matthes, Mr. Grande, Mrt Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Merritt, and
Mr. Trias.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Akins (Absent -With Notice)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. David P. Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms.
Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Carol Moler, Administrative Secretary.
P & Z Meeting
rebruary 20, 2003
Page 1
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Merritt called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Merritt gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's
meeting.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners on land use matters.
These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information
gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight.
The meeting will progress in the following manner:
• The Chair will call each item.
• Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request.
• The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board.
• Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the
request.
• The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the
request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has
specific questions.
• The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal
reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff.
Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members.
• The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month.
Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an-advisory capacity for the Board
of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have
the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
No other announcements or comments.
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES - .TANUARY 16, 2003:
Mr. Grande made a motion for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds.
Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of S-0).
AGENDA ITEM 2: ERNEST F. AND EILEEN B. VAUGHN -FILE. NO. RZ-03-003:
Mr. Hank Flores, stated that Agenda item 2 is an application of Ernest and Eileen Vaughan for a
Change in Zoning from RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District to the
RE-2 (Residential, Estate - 2 dulacre) Zoning District for property located at 13775 South Indian
River Drive. He advised the stated purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the construction of a
guest home on the subject property. He stated staff has reviewed the petition and determined that
it conforms to the standards of review set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff recommends you forward the petition to
the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
Ms. Eileen Vaughn stated she lives at 13775 South Indian River Drive, Jensen Beach. She stated
she wants to put in a garage and a little apartment above for our family. She stated when she
bought the property it was RM-10 and now the zoning is RM-5. She stated all she wants to do is
go to RE-2.
Chairman Merritt opened the Public Hearing.
Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Grande stated looking at the map, is the lot behind this property land locked or inaccessible.
Mr. Flores stated he believes those lots are part of the mobile home park.
Mr. Grande stated this is going from RM-5 to RE-2. He asked if there is a problem with building
a garage or the garage with the guest quarters-or a guesthouse in RM-5.
Mr. Flores stated according to the Land Development Code, this would be perceived to be two
separate families and each house would have to meet lot size dimensional requirements for the
RS-4 Zoning for Multiple Family Zoning, and this would not meet those standards.
Mr. Grande stated then the change is necessary.
Mr. Flores replied yes it is.
Mr. David Kelly stated in order to follow up on the question about the other lots behind, he _
stated if you notice the lot lines are dash lines that connect the mobile home park to the lots
behind it. He stated that would indicate that they are common ownerships.
Mr. Mattes 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
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 3
approval to the application of Eileen and Ernest Vaughn, for a change in Zoning from the
RM-5 (Residential, Multi-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District to the RE-2 (Residential,
Estate) Zoning District, because the down zoning aldng Indian River Drive is better for that
community.
Motion seconded by Mr. Grande.
Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0).
Chairman Merritt advised Ms. Vaughn that her petition would be forwarded to the Board of
County Commission with a recommendation of approval.
AGENDA ITEM 3: ROBERT FENDER -FILE NO. PA-02-005:
Mr. Hank Flores stated it doesn't appear that the applicant or representative is present and he
asked if the hearing would still continue.
Chairman Merritt asked if there was anyone present to represent the petitioner. No one
answered. He asked the pleasure of the Board.
Mr. Lounds stated he has questions for the petitioner about his request and with him not being
here, it would be hard to do that. He stated he would rather not take action on this without the
petitioner to be here to at least offer or defend his views or share his feelings.
Mr. Grande stated he agreed with that, but he had one question for staff. He stated the last time
this petition came forward there was a question as to whether an arrangement had been made
between the owner and the County. He asked was this researched and what was the answer.
Mr. David Kelly stated this was researched. He stated that Mr. Fender's contention was that he
had an acre of commercial zoning and that through takings and other things he lost some of that
area. Mr. Kelly stated Mr. Fender did lose some area and the County through a rezoning
replaced it. He stated Mr. Fender did get back to the original amount, but he never had an acre.
Mr. Kelly stated there is a drawing available that shows the sequence of events.
Mr. Flores stated that every member of the Board received a copy of that drawing showing the
acreages. He stated Mr. Fender had .50 or .56 acres before the original taking and there was
.3637 acres after the taking. He stated with the rezoning it increased the Commercial General to
.5369 acres. He explained that Mr. Fender is now requesting to increase that to 1.2 acres of
Commercial General.
Mr. Grande thanked staff. He stated he would concur with Mr. Lounds that he would be hesitant
to go ahead without the presence of the petitioner.
Mr. Hearn asked staff if the subject rezoning has restored the amount of acreage the petitioner
had originally and now they are asking for more. He asked did he understand that correctly.
Mr. Kelly replied, "Yes sir."
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Pagc 4
Mr. Hearn asked was there any promise when there land was used for the roads that this would
be done. He asked was there any agreement.
Mr. Kelly replied he was not aware of an agreement, but he wasn't present at the time. He stated
when the land was used for a road there clearly was a subsequent rezoning that did replace that
land. He stated this is over and above that. He stated whether that was an agreement at the time
of the taking or something that happened subsequently - it did happen. He stated staff has this
documentation and he doesn't know if there was an agreement. He stated there was never an
agreement to go above and beyond.
Mr. Hearn stated he thinks there are some people in the audience who have come here for this
petition. He stated if it was the pleasure of the Board to allow them to speak tonight, if they
can't come back next month.
Chairman Merritt asked Ms. Young, what could we do in terms of the audience.
Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney, stated if you would like to continue the public
hearing you still need to open it. She stated what is normally done is you advise the people who
are here that this may be continued to perhaps next month and that they are certainly welcome to
speak tonight if they like, but it might be better if they come back next month in order to hear
comments from the petitioner and the dialogue with the Board. She stated they are allowed to
speak if they wish if you continue it. She stated you do have to open the public hearing and then
continue it to a date certain.
Mr. Kelly stated there are actually two petitions for this. He stated there is a Plan Amendment
and Rezoning and each would have to be opened and continued.
Mr. Kelly advised the Chairman that before you open the Plan Amendment Hearing, if that is
your choice, you would have to announce that you are sitting as the local planning agency rather
than the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing for the Local Planning Agency.
Ms. Patricia Ferrick spoke to the Board on behalf of the North Fork Property Owners. She had
one request since this would be the second postponement if you would do a renotification to the
property owners instead of just saying so this evening. She stated there are some people here
tonight who may be back next time, but there are some who were here last time who couldn't
make it due to illness in the family and may not be here this evening. She asked if they could do
another renotification instead of just saying that this is continued. She stated if the petitioner
should decide not to go forward because he already has what he stated at the last meeting that he
_ was intere~d in rPr~nping~whicl~is ~vlla~he-had-lost~lu-oughfihe-takin~oftire~p~rty or
James or South 25"' Street.
Ms. Ferrick explained that Ms. Jackson, who is out of town and will be back for the next
meeting.
Mr. Kelly stated the obligation for the Board is to continue this and the assumption is that those
who were interested were here and would hear it. He stated staff would be happy to resend the
notices, but staff doesn't wish to do the newspaper ad again.
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 5
Ms. Ferrick replied she agreed that you wouldn't have to do a newspaper ad. She asked for
notification of those people within 500 feet that you notified the first time.
Mr. Kelly stated staff would do that.
Mr. Alan Griffith, who lives at Grey Twig Lane, stated he has a petition signed by 18 of our 23
householders. He stated we are opposed to certain zoning changes we're not opposed to zoning.
He stated we are in an area that is heavily traveled and if you have every been there in the
morning or evening hours it is almost impossible to get in and out of there that are there on the
corner. He asked if he could present this to someone.
Mr. Griffith stated we are not opposed to the zoning. He stated we are just opposed to certain
businesses going in there. He stated you should know what's going in there before you O.K. the
zoning. He stated we don't need another gas station. He thanked the Board.
Mr. Kelly read the petition: "We the undersigned homeowners on Grey Twig Lane wish to
express our objection to the proposed zoning change for the southwest corner of the intersection
of 25`x' Street and Midway Road. This change from Commercial Neighborhood to Commercial
General would cause greater traffic congestion at what is already a very busy intersection.
Entering and exiting into any new facility would be extremely difficult and we believe that any
additional commercial construction at this intersection would have a negative effect on our
property values. "
Mr. Kelly stated he didn't count them but it says there are 18 out of 23 signatures. He stated
staff would put that in the record.
Mr. Matthes made a motion to continue the petition. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion.
Ms. Young stated you need to continue it to a date certain.
Mr. Kelly stated the date should be March 20, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
Mr. Hearn asked staff for clarification. He asked are we obligated to continue this when the
petitioner is not here.
Mr. Kelly stated he was not aware of an obligation. He stated this has been the past practice of
the Board.
Mr. Hearn stated he has heard discussion from some of the County Commission Board members
that they really feel like the petitioner has an obligation to be present if they want to be present.
He stated he wanted~o kn~if~hi~ Board-was-0bliged-tt~-continue-i .
Mr. Kelly stated he was not aware of an obligation to continue.
Mr. Lounds stated that the comments .that were placed tonight at the public hearing would be part
of the minutes for next month's meeting and become official.
Chairman Merritt replied yes they will.
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 6
Chairman Merritt stated he didn't have a problem continuing the petition. He stated there could
be any number of reasons for the applicant not to show up. He stated he would not want to
continue granting continuances. He stated if he doesn't show up the next time then he would say
end it.
Upon the roll call, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0).
Chairman Merritt closed the Planning Agency and reconvened the Planning & Zoning
Board.
AGENDA ITEM 4: ROBERT FENDER -FILE NO. RZ-02-022
Chairman Merritt stated this is a petition for Robert Fender_for a Change in Zoning from the CN
(Commercial, Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning Districts to the CG
(Commercial, General) Zoning District.
Chairman Merritt .stated we have just heard all of the comments. He asked is there anything we
need to do further.
Mr. Kelly stated you need to open the public hearing so you can continue the petition. He stated
you could asked the public, but I don't think you will get anything new.
Chairman Merritt opened the Public Hearing as the Planning and Zoning Commission.
1VIr. Grande stated before we make a motion, he wanted to ask a question of staff. He stated
since we have discovered that the applicant has been made whole as far as the amount of
commercial property, would it be a good idea to check with the applicant to see if they have just.
assumed that this was going to be dropped and that they don't want to go forward.
Mr. Flores stated he spoke with the petitioner and they are aware of the fact that they didn't have
an acre to begin with. He stated the petitioner wanted to continue with the applied for Land Use
and Zoning Change.
Mr. Lounds asked would it be wrong to ask staff to bring back, assuming that this is coming back
next month, to ask for some more information that would probably alleviate some of the
questions I would have concerning the expansion of Midway and 25`'' impact on this whole
intersection. He asked if this is possible for staff to bring.
Mr. Kelly replied it certainly is. He asked if there were specific questions.
Mr Lounds stated-this-is~;~ing~^
~~-a-.~~ajer-inter~ee~ien:-~ie~tated-there-is-goin
roadway developments at that intersection in all directions. He stated he would like to know if
the County has an idea of what this is going to do to the land use on those corners so we can
further, in his mind; determine whether the petitioner is going to have to ask for more land later
on after that happens again. He stated you come to the well once you don't go back twice.
Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Lounds was asking if there would be left turn motions into this parcel.
Mr. Lounds replied left and right.
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 7
Mr. Kelly stated there are always right turns. He stated that left turns coming into the parcel
from Midway westbound and 25~' northbound are very, very unlikely. He stated there will be
medians in place. He stated staff will confirm all of that, but if that is the question, we can have
a diagram and show you all of that next time.
Mr. Lounds stated this would help him in his. decisions and to question further ask the petitioners
for what he is going to do with the property. He stated he .hoped that didn't create a problem for
anyone else.
Chairman Merritt stated he wouldn't mind seeing an intersection layout either.
Mr. Lounds made a motion to continue this petition until March 20, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. or as
soon thereafter as possible.
Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion.
Upon the roll call, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0).
OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION
Mr. Hearn stated several months ago I raised the issue of an agenda item that would give us an
opportunity to discuss if we wanted to provide an option other than a straight rezoning for
projects and requests that come before the Planning Commission. He asked for this to be on the
agenda as soon as we could in the future and possibly at a meeting when there is not a heavy
schedule.
Mr. Hearn stated he would like to have this Board have an in depth discussion about whether to
have an option that would give this Board and the Board of County Commissioners an
opportunity to provide some relief for a person who wanted to do something on their property
rather than a straight rezoning, where we had no control over what went in once the rezoning was
done. He stated he wanted to officially make this a request.
Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Hearn anticipate staff preparing anything for such a discussion or is this
purely discussion by the Board.
Mr. Hearn replied if staff were so inclined to prepare something, he would welcome that. He
indicated he was sure this is not a unique idea that has never happened in any other community.
He stated he thinks this has_a-place-in-eur-san~munizy. He-stated-rezonings-comma r us or
people who want to do something on their property and the neighborhood is really concerned
about what else could possible go in there. He stated he would like to have a method to provide, _
similar to a PUD that we use for other larger parcels of land to give us some control over what
happens in our community without taking the drastic step of a rezoning that we have no control
over.
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 8
Mr. Kelly stated this leaves him not fully understanding where you are going and he did not want
to get into the debate tonight, but clearly a PNRD does that for commercial and PUD does that
residential.
Mr. Hearn asked aren't we subjected to a minimum acreage size on those parcels.
Mr. Kelly replied yes, but in the several cases and he was thinking of two, which were both
PUDs, where someone wanted to do a PUD on a smaller parcel. He stated they went to the
Board of Adjustment first to get a variance and then brought a PUD to the Planning and Zoning
Commission on a smaller parcel. He stated this has occurred in the past.
Mr. Kelly stated we do have a mechanism that would get a smaller parcel in here as a PUD or
PNRD. _
Mr. Hearn asked if they have to pay two separate fees to do this.
Mr. Kelly replied yes they do. He stated this has happened twice. He stated one of them was on
North Beach and he didn't remember where the other one was, but there were two.
Mr. Hearn stated he would still prefer to have a special discussion on this subject to see how this
process works in our county and then we can make a decision if we want to move forward.
Mr. Kelly stated staff would get this on an agenda for the Board.
Mr. McCurdy stated he was curious as to what happened at the Board of County Commission
meeting. He stated he spoke briefly to Mr. Flores about the suggestions or recommendations we
had last month for the PUD and the clustering west of Ft. Pierce in the agricultural areas. He
asked did the Board of County Commission acted on our advice to reject that.
Mr. Kelly stated this item was continued to March 4, 2003. -
Mr. McCurdy asked if they directed staff to explore any alternatives to that particular amendment
that was presented to us.
Mr. Kelly replied that he is not aware of such a directive.
Mr. Grande asked to speak of the prior topic. He stated frequently in the past when we have
suggested a PUD as an alternative, applicants and staff members have rightfully pointed out that
the PUD process in addition to being difficult is also more expensive. He stated he would hope
that we would look at an alternative as has been suggested that would not burden a single family
or tma11-I~~awner-with-additional-expo
Mr. Kelly replied yes that makes sense. He stated he didn't know how asingle-family lot owner
would get into this field, but this is will be part of the discussion we will have to have. He stated,
maybe we need to have a discussion to determine where we need to go next.
Chairman Merritt asked staff if they would explain to the Board the difference between goals and
objectives and the designated zoning categories according to the Comp Plan. He stated he was
still confused over why we have a zoning and the goals and objectives override the zoning issues.
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 9
Mr. Kelly stated the Comprehensive Plan is mandated by the state and consists of two sections,
the data and analysis, and the policy. The data and analysis are all the facts you use to get to the
policy of the county. He stated the policy of the county is in two pieces, the map package,
primarily the Future Land Use Map, and the goals, objectives and policies. He stated he thinks
you are comparing the Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map and asking why are they
different. He asked is this your concern.
Chairman Merritt stated in the discussion with you where he was asking dealing with the issue
west of town of why the goals and objectives would take precedent over the zoning that was
allowed on the particular properties there.
Mr. Kelly stated he understands the question better now. He stated in the specific case in 1990
when the County was going through the Comprehensive Plan, the Department of Community
Affairs found us not to be in compliance. He stated one of the issues was that DCA didn't believe
that we were doing enough to protect the western portion of the County from sprawl. He stated
through the process of getting the Comprehensive Plan in compliance, DCA suggested a couple
of policies that went into the Plan and are those that you are now commenting on seem to be in
conflict with the zoning. He stated the policies for subdivisions greater than 4 units require a
PUD, 80% open space, and clustering. He asked if those are the ones you are referring to.
Chairman Merritt replied yes sir. He stated this leads to the next question, which is can the
County legally do this. He asked can they legally designate one unit per 5 acres and then tell
someone they can't build one unit per 5 acres on a 100-acre subdivision that the goals and
objectives take precedent.
Mr. Kelly stated by state law the Comprehensive Plan does take precedent. He stated we are
obligated to make sure our Zoning Code is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. He stated to
the extent that there are inconsistencies, the Comprehensive Plan probably is the ruling
document.
Mr. Kelly stated there are other instances in which case a parcel may be zoned for a particular
thing that is not possible to achieve. He stated if -may be all wetlands or it may have other
problems.
Chairman Merritt stated this is making it clearer, but what he is seeing now is that our zoning
laws are in conflict and they need to be updated to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Is that
correct.
Mr. Kelly replied yes. He stated the intent of what came before you that you rejected very
_ soundly was an eff~r _to-try put-th~zening in-place eonsistent~.vittrth re ensive lan.
He stated the other option is to try to_ change the Comprehensive Plan, but knowing the history of
it and knowing that it was imposed by DCA, we don't think there is a real good chance of going
back to have the DCA just take that language out. He-stated what we could do at the County
level would be to make the zoning consistent. He stated if there is a need to do something with
the Comprehensive Plan, it is a bigger process and a longer process and we anticipate some
resistance in Tallahassee.
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 10
Chairman Merritt stated what we have now doesn't work, so we are going to have to do
something.
Mr. Kelly agreed.
Chairman Merritt stated there is an item from Mr. Hearn regarding Roadway Capacity Expansion
Studies.
Mr. Hearn stated he didn't initiate this.
Chairman Merritt stated it was addressed -to Mr. Hearn.
Mr. Flores stated you are referring to letters_from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
and he didn't realize until Mr. Lounds pointed out that the letters are person specific. He stated
each member was to get one of these from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
Mr. Kelly stated there is one more announcement.
Mr. Flores stated that Mr. Murphy would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider
having a special meeting on March 27, 2003 to consider the rezoning for -the Wal-Mart Regional
Distribution Center.
Chairman Merritt stated he thought if this was only one matter that the P&Z could accommodate
that.
Mr. Flores stated the regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting is March 20 and this
would be a week later.
Mr. Grande asked if he understood that the regular meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2003 and
you are suggesting a special meeting on March 27, 2003.
Mr. Flores replied that's correct.
Mr. Grande asked is this because the applicant won't be ready by March 20, 2003.
Mr. Flores stated that actually the County is the applicant and there is a mandated 30-day period
of notice requirement before any County initiated changes in zoning. He stated in order to meet
that 30-day time requirement, March 27, 2003 was the earliest time.
Mr. Kelly suggested that since this is not probably a long item that this might be a time for Mr.
Hearn's dis~~ssion~fter-wards.
Mr. Hearn was going to suggest postponing the March 20, 2003 meeting for a week and having it
all at the same time. -
Chairman Merritt stated it has already been advertised.
Mr. Kelly stated we haven't advertised, but we have just continued a number of hearings to that
meeting. -
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 11
Chairman Merritt asked what exactly are we going to do with the Wal-Mart issue.
Mr. Kelly replied he believes all we are going to do is change the zoning on the parcel.
Mr. Flores stated this will be for a change in zoning from AG-1 to Industrial Heavy.
Chairman Merritt asked what is the pleasure of the Board.
Mr. Grande stated the only question he would have left is does Mr. Hearn's suggestion work if
those hearings that were just continued are readvertized.
Mr. Matthes asked what kind of agenda are we looking at for March 20, 2003.
Chairman Merritt stated he has a problem with the fact we told the people it would be continued
to March 20, 2003 and now they are gone.
Mr. Hearn stated it was suggested tonight that the property owners within 500 feet be renotified
so this may be do-able with that scenario.
Mr. Kelly stated we have everyone's name and could contact everybody who was in the room
and it would be appropriate to reopen both hearings.
Ms. Young added yes, you would have to reopen both hearings and then continue each of them
until March 27, 2003 if that is your prerogative.
Chairman Merritt asked staff if Mr. Fender notified you that he would not be here to night.
Mr. Flores replied no, he hadn't talked to him.
Mr. Grande stated that the only thing left is the sense of staff as to if we were to do this, would
our regular load be too heavy on March 27, 2003, if we take what's scheduled, plus the Wal-
Mart, plus the scheduled discussion requested by Mr. Hearn. He asked do we have a sense of
what's coming up next month.
Mr. Kelly stated there are three new ones, the two Fenders would make five, Wal-Mart would
make six and the discussion would be seven items.
Mr. Flores added that Ms. Snay has a couple of items.
Mr Kelly stated i w~i ld~e-ponsible~o-put~t~ll
together~far that-nigh~and
may a
ib-"t woul not
be a good idea for Mr. Hearn's discussion that night.
Mr. Hearn stated he didn't have to have the discussion next month.
Mr. Jones asked how can we open a meeting we have already closed and continue to do it at
another time certain.
Ms. Young asked did you adjourn yet. She stated she didn't think you did.
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 12
Mr. Jones replied no, we closed those hearings. He asked how could we reopen something we
publicly closed.
Ms. Young stated obviously this is not the preferable way to handle this, but you probably could.
She stated what Mr. Kelly is saying, she was wondering if you should just go ahead and have the
meeting on March 20, 2003 and then the other one on March 27, 2003.
Chairman Merritt stated this has been a contentious issue with the City of Ft. Pierce and Port St.
Lucie and there are liable to be 100 people with that hearing. He stated we might want to
continue that hearing at one time.
Mr. Kelly stated you mean for the Wal-Mart property. He stated he thinks the Board has all the
facts now, so he asked what is your pleasure. -
Mr. Matthes stated his pleasure is separate meetings.
There was consensus among the member to have separate meetings.
Mr. Kelly stated then there will be a regular meeting on March 20, 2003 and the meeting on
March 27, 2003 will be for Wal-Mart and if it doesn't stretch on into the evening, we can have
Mr. Hearn's discussion that night.
Mr. Hearn asked if staff would be prepared for that night if there is time.
Mr. Kelly responded absolutely.
Mr. Lounds asked a question on the invitation to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
He asked what is the purpose of this. invitation on March 26, 2003 the night before the other
meeting.
Mr. Flores stated he believes this is going to be a presentation by the Renaissance Planning
Group of the Regional Land Use Study.
Mr. Trias stated this is an educational meeting.
Next scheduled meeting will be March 20, 2003. A special meeting will be held on March 27,
2003.
P & Z Meeting
February 20,2003
Page 13
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: Approved by:
Carol Moler, Secretary Ed Merritt, Chairman
P & Z Meeting
February 20, 2003
Page 14