Loading...
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