Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 04-17-2003I gecretary St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency 'I Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor Roger Poitras Annex April 17, 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 — March 20, 2003 and March 27, 2003 Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of March 20, 2003 Exhibit #2: Minutes of March 27, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NO. RZ-03-009 Petition of Dickerson Realty of Florida, for a Change in Zoning form the IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District. Staff comments by Cyndi Snay. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 3: DISCUSSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Staff discussion on various potential modifications to the Land Development Code for direction and future processing. OTHER BUSINESS• A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion. B. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on May 15, 2003, in Commission Chambers at the Roger Poitras Annex Building. ADJOURN NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appear is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (561) 462-1777 or T.D.D. (561) 462-1428. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at (561) 462-1586. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS April 18, 2003 Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 JL�C COG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR lOR�O RE: Agricultural Planned Unit Development — Land Development Code Modifications Dear Commissioners: During the April 17, 2003 Local Planning Agency (LPA) public hearing, the LPA Members discussed a number of issues that have been proposed during the past year. One of the issues of interest to the LPA Members was a discussion that took place during the Board of County Commissioners' (BOCC) March 18, 2003 public hearing. Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager, informed the LPA Members that the Commission, prior to any action on the proposed agricultural subdivision text amendments, recommended that a voluntary Ad Hoc Committee be formed to provide input and possible alternatives to the BOCC prior to any action on the proposed language. On January 16, 2003, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) reviewed the proposed Land Development Text Amendment prepared by Community Development Staff. At the public hearing on this matter, after much discussion, the LPA forwarded by a vote of 7-1 the text amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. The intent of the LPA, as strongly emphasized in the minutes of the January 16, 2003 Local Planning Agency meeting, was that the BOCC direct County Staff to revise the proposed language and that the revisions be brought back to the LPA for further review and comment. It is the LPA's understanding that, at the March 18, 2003 BOCC public hearing, the Board recommended that the voluntary Ad Hoc Committee provide the BOCC with alternatives or potential solutions for the issues regarding development in the western agricultural areas of St. Lucie County. During the April 17, 2003 LPA public hearing, the Local Planning Agency requested that I prepare this letter on their behalf requesting that, prior to the BOCC taking any action on any new language proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee, that the language be remanded back to the Local Planning Agency for its review and comment. Please consider this letter a formal request from LPA review. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ed Merritt Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission EM/dvg JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 • DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 • PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. a • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 • CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590 • Planning: (772) 462-2822 GI5/Technical Services: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fax: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 • Fax: (772) 462-2132 ° IL t S S 3 p S St. Lucie Countyg�a is aid-' Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING March 20, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Lounds, and Mr. Akins MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones and Mr. Matthes OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Carol Hinson, SLC School Board; Mr. David P. Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner Ill; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Carol Moler, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 1 ^i 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 March 20, 2003 Page 2 i AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — FEBRUARY 20, 2003: ` s: Ira Mr. Grande stated that on Page 3, the last paragraph, Mr. Matthes name is misspelled. Mr. McCurdy made a motion for approval with the modification. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Silvia Mendoza, Walk -In Clinic on Prima- Vista Boulevard, stated that she is requesting direction to staff from this Board to assist her with a sign problem in her area. She is experiencing a major vandalism problem within the area of her walk-in clinic. Her current sign meets the existing sign code for the CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District. Her existing ground sign has a spotlight, which shines the light up from the ground onto her sign. The problem she is having is that every time she replaces the spotlight it either is stolen or broken by vandals in her neighborhood. Ms. Mendoza stated she is requesting that the Board direct staff to change the sign code to allow internally lit signs within the CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District. Mr. Kelly stated that he had spoken with Ms. Mendoza approximately six weeks ago with Ms. Mendoza requesting permission for an internally illuminated sign. Ms. Mendoza was inquiring about a cabinet sign with internal lighting. At that time, I informed Ms. Mendoza that this type of lighting was not permitted within the CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District and that a variance was not permitted due to the nature of the request. At that time, Ms. Mendoza asked for my input on what could be done. I stated she could address the Local Planning Agency and request your input and guidance. Mr. Merritt asked if there were any questions on this issue. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly the reason for the existing written code requirements for a box lit sign and the sign limitations in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) zoning districts. Mr. Kelly stated that there was a sign committee who researched and rewrote the sign code a number of years ago. At that time, due to the nature of the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) uses being in close proximity to residential neighborhoods the committee determined that low light that does not encroach into the residential areas was more acceptable. Mr. Lounds asked what was being asked of this Board. Mr. Kelly stated that the Board should make a determination on whether or not Ms. Mendoza's information would merit a review of the sign code and then the Board would be directing staff to begin researching and preparing a Land Development Code text change to allow for alternative lighting within the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) Zoning Districts. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 3 Mr. McCurdy asked Ms. Mendoza if her clinic was open after dark. Ms. Mendoza responded that it was not open after dark. She went on to explain that the problem is that the spotlights are located on the ground and accessible by the vandals and therefore can be easily broken or stolen. She further stated that her entire site is not lit at night. There is an existing light in the back of the property. Mr. Hearn recommended that Staff research the issue and bring it back to the Commission or have the Comprehensive Planning Study Group discuss the issue and make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Lounds asked who the Comprehensive Plan Study Group is. Mr. Hearn responded that it is a group of volunteers that meet once a month to review the Comprehensive Plan and make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anyone can be part of the Study Group. Mr. Grande stated that the problem is not restricted to this Board, there appears to be a law enforcement problem, with the property damage that has been occurring the County Sheriff should be involved. This is a public safety and protection of personal property issue with repeated vandalism. Is there a recommended change that the petitioner is requesting or that staff wants the Board to consider? Mr. Kelly stated that staff is looking for direction from the Board on the issue. The current policy is that the type of sign the petitioner is requesting is not permitted within the neighborhood. The area is unique. But is it right to change every sign in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) or CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District? Mr. Grande stated that he is hesitant to rewrite the entire sign code based upon this issue. He further stated that in his opinion this is a matter for the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Hearn stated that it may not have to be a change across the Board. This type of change should be looked at on a case -by -case basis rather than by the zoning district. Mr. Akins asked if the sign is not internally lit, how is it being lit, from the ground by spotlights? Ms. Mendoza responded that the sign was lit by spotlights on the ground. The vandals are hitting the spotlights in a manner which breaks off the bulb at the neck and leaves the metal piece in the light socket. Mr. Akins asked if there was not another type of light or container that could be used to protect the spot light, such as Plexiglas, etc. Ms. Mendoza stated that she currently is using the best that she could find on the market. Mr. Merritt asked if Florida Power & Light (FP&L) had been approached regarding floodlights on the sign. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 4 Ms. Mendoza stated that she currently has one floodlight on the sign. FP & L wilt be installing a floodlight on a light pole but it is not in the area in which the existing sign is located. Mr. McCurdy asked if additional poles or pole lights being installed or a regular light pole being installed would be a problem. Mr. Kelly stated that he didn't see it as a problem. Mr. McCurdy stated that even though he sympathized with Ms. Mendoza a change to the sign code is not the method to correct the situation. He feels that there is an engineering and policing problem that is occurring. Mr. Lounds stated that this is an issue that needs to be reviewed on a night where there is a light load. He further stated that he would encourage Ms. Mendoza to talk with the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly if he knew the logic behind the sign ordinance not allowing box lighting. Mr. Kelly stated that it was due to the zoning districts being interior to neighborhoods and they were attempting to protect the residential areas from the encroachment of excess lighting in the area. Mr. Grande asked if there was any study on whether or not the vandalism would be less with the internally lit box lighting or is it an engineering and policing problem. Ms. Mendoza stated that according to the sign expert she was dealing with there is only one type of sign that could not be broken. The lights would have to be higher so that they were not accessible. Ms. Mendoza submitted a copy of her existing sign and the proposed sign. The cost would be in excess of $10,000.00. Mr. Akins stated that he felt that a Plexiglas cover that goes over the spotlight would be a lot less than what you are looking at for an out of pocket expense. He felt that this is much more appropriate than amending the Land Development Code to add extra lighting in a lot of neighborhoods. People will not want the extra lighting affecting their neighborhood. Mr. Akins asked Mr. Kelly where exactly the property being discussed was located. Mr. Kelly stated that is the next property behind the Bank at the SW corner of US 1 and Prima Vista. Along US 1 in the CG (Commercial General) zoning district the type of lighting requested is permitted. It is not a Comprehensive Plan amendment it would be a Land Development Code issue on sign criteria. It is not the intent of staff to open up to permitted uses in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) zoning districts. Mr. Hearn stated that upon listening to the public and the Board's discussion the issue requires a closer look and determine if a relief to the code would be able to be obtained without changing the Land Development Code — Variance procedure or Conditional Use (case by case basis). Changing the zoning designation for a sign is ludicrous. Chairman Merritt ended the discussion P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 5 1 Mr. Hearn made a motion to bring the issue back for further discussion., r1V�c+�urdy' seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed (6-0). Mr. Kelly was directed to notify Ms. Mendoza when the discussion would occur. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 2: ANGELHEART ACRES: FILE NO: CU-02-009 Mr. David Kelly, stated that Agenda Item 2 is the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a community residential home in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-family 4 du/acre) Zoning District for the project to be known as Angelheart Acres. This item was continued prior meeting. For your information, this petition is an existing foster home that came in for a Conditional Use Permit to expand beyond what the already had. The county did not know about the facility prior to their petition being filed. Upon research and information from the neighborhood it has been determined that there is another such facility, also not permitted through the county, located within 1,000 feet of this facility. Since filing that petition, the applicant's have withdrawn the petition for a Conditional Use Permit. As this petition was continued staff is requesting that this Board accept the applicant's withdraw and further direct staff to turn the petition over to the Code Enforcement Division for further action. Code Enforcement will be required to determine which facility was located on Caprona first. Mr. Grande made the motion to accept the applicant's withdrawal and direct staff to notify the Code Enforcement Division with regards to this facility. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously (6-0 vote). At this time the Planning and Zoning Commission convened the public hearing and reconvened as the Local Planning Agency. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 3: ROBERT C. FENDER — PA-02-005 Mr. Hank Flores, stated that Agenda Items 3 and 4 are the applications of Robert C. Fender for a Change in Future Land Use from the RU (Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial) Future Land Use Designation to the COM (Commercial) Future Land Use Designation and a change in zoning from the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial General) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District for property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 25th Street and Midway Road, a 1.2 acre property located on the Southwest corner of the intersection of South 25 h Street and Midway Road Approval of this petition is required to allow the applicant to seek a change in zoning for the subject property from the CG (Commercial, General) and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. 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 In reviewing this application for a proposed amendment staff has found the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 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, the adjacent neighborhood, to the south of the subject property has been buffered from the full effects of the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District by a portion of the entire subject property being zoned CN (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 buffer width 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 Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, specifically the following specifically the following: 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 of 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). Staff is recommending that these petitions be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Dave Fender came forward. Mr. Dave Fender — 4206 Sunrise — stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation. He further stated that his mother owns the property. In his opinion the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District will give a better opportunity for development on this site. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Hearn stated that he is confused with the area of the Commercial General before the road widening. Mr. Fender stated he lost a portion of the property due to the widening of 251' Street and to easements. Mr. Hearn stated that it appears based upon the Staff's comments contained in the Staff Memorandum that the property owner reacquired the land. Mr. Fender stated that the subject property is located at a major 4-lane intersection that is a dead intersection. The medians constructed at 25"' Street and Midway Road killed the intersection and made the site hard to market and develop. Mr. Hearn stated that there is residentially zoned property to the east that he is worried about. If the commercial general is allowed at this site what is the impact on the homes in the area. He further stated that it appears that the size of the land buffers may not be sufficient for the residential area, absent specifics about the project, what is proposed, hours of operation, etc. Mr. Fender stated that the buffer area is 30 foot in width and contains a number of trees. He further stated that this a major intersection with commercial uses on all four corners. The medians caused the necessity for the widened developed property. Mr. McCurdy asked if the existing buffer area would shield the existing residential area. Mr. Fender stated that you couldn't see the houses due to the buffer area. Mr. Merritt asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being none, the Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Pat Ferrick handed out a letter in response to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to the Rezoning petitions. Ms. Ferrick stated that she is representing the North Fork Property Owners Association. She stated that the North Fork Property Owners finds that rezoning 02-022 and PA- 02-005 is in conflict with Section 1.02.00, Purpose and Intent: In order to preserve, protect and improve public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, and general welfare; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources; preserve and enhance the value of land and the character and stability of residential areas, etc. Ms. Ferrick further stated that the proposed rezoning would be creating a negative impact on the property values of the abutting properties to the south namely Twelve Oaks. It will deteriorate the quality of life for the residents, and seriously deteriorate the tax based in this area. The proposed zoning change and plan amendment would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The purpose of the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for limited retail trade and service activities covering a relatively small area and that is intended to serve the population living in surrounding neighborhoods. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 9 The CG (Commercial General) zoning district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for a wide variety of commercial uses intended to serve a population over a large market area. The size of this property and the ingress and egress is not compatible with the above zoning district. The proposed amendment to COM land uses is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. The footage of this property on Midway Road is approximately 410.11 and 281.44 feet on South 25'h Street. The proposed request is "spot General Commercial' zoning and land use. It is incompatible with the residential nature of abutting properties. The roadway 25"' Street and Midway Road, has enough General Commercial zoning. Both the zoning change and the land use amendment will adversely impact the quality of life in the immediate surrounding area. Due to noise pollution, light pollution, etc., the quality of life for the adjoining residents will be severely and adversely impacted. If you look at the General Commercial uses you will note gas stations and next to gas stations you will note the sic code 5541 gasoline stations combined with all other activities, such as grocery stores, convenience stores or carwashes, are classified according to the primary activity. There is not a plan that necessitates this change the application states that the reason for the rezoning is to recapture land that was lost due to the expansion of St. James. The property owner was amply compensated for the small portion of the property that was taken. If you look at the aerial that is provided in your packet you can see how the encroachment of Commercial General will adversely impact the property owners to the south. You will note that the SE corner is Commercial Neighborhood. The large tract of land on the NW corner is commercial providing more than enough commercial usage in this corridor. This indeed would be a spot commercial and we all know the deleterious effect that spot commercial zoning has all over the county. Here today gone tomorrow and a drain on the economy and the tax base. The petition is also inconsistent with Florida Statue 187.201(16) enhance the quality of life, etc. Ms. Ferrick further stated that there is a problem with ingress and egress for this site. A property can only have a right -in / right —out movement if there is not 600 feet from the intersection. Ms. Clair Jackson, Rainbow Drive, stated that she is opposed to the proposed request for change in land use and change in zoning as there are no plans available and she has no idea what the petitioners are hoping to develop on this corner. The CG (Commercial, General) zoning designation is objectionable to the neighborhood. The CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The property to the north has been vacant since all of the trees were removed by Paul Rhodes. The gas station located on the southeast corner is unoccupied. None of the other commercial general sites back up to neighborhoods. The existing pattern is for these small stations to open and close and leave an eyesore that eventually impacts the property values. Please deny both of these petitions. Mr. John Ferrick, located on South 25`h Street stated that he is representing the White City Improvement District and they are opposed to the requested petition, as it abuts the Twelve Oaks residential subdivision. In the opinion of the White City Improvement District the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District is more compatible with the surrounding area. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 10 x J �'QG4A �4 nnF Mr. Tom Kine, Residing on Twig Lane stated that he is not opposed to the Fenders recapturing the land taken from the widening of 25"' Street and Midway Road, but he is opposed to the proposed change in land use and rezoning of the property. If you take a better look at the surrounding area you will find an existing gas station that stands empty and a lot of businesses that are not open. There is not a need for additional CG (Commercial General) zoning in this area. Mr. Fender stated that what is hearing tonight is a worry about a gas station being constructed on this site. He stated that even under the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning District a gas station/convenience store could be constructed on the site under the Conditional Use Permit process. He further stated that the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District would be more marketable and allow for a wider variety of uses. Mr. Akins asked for clarification on the proposed use for this property. Mr. Fender stated that he was unsure of what would be built on the site; he is looking at this options and currently paying taxes on the site. Mr. Fender further stated that he has been granted a full access cut from FDOT for his site. Mr. Fender stated that he felt that the medians should be taken out at this location as they have hurt the development potential of the corners. At this time, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande made the following motion: 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 Robert C. Fender, for a change in land use from the RU (Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial) to COM (Commercial) because the change reduces the buffer more than 50% and will cause a negative impact the existing residential areas. Mr. Hearn seconded the motion and stated that he seconded due to the compatibility chart indicating that CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CO (Commercial Office) uses are compatible with the existing land use designation but the uses within the CG (Commercial General) zoning district are not compatible with the existing land uses. Mr. Lounds stated that he understands the concerns with Grey Twig, as this is a dead-end road. But the issues with Midway Road he did not understand. Midway Road may not currently be a major intersection, but it will be a major intersection in the future. He has concerns about the ingress/egress for this site in relation to the existing medians on Midway Road. The CG (Commercial General) zoning district will create a higher amount of traffic in the area. The CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district lends itself to a less traffic flow. Mr. Merritt stated he did not see the additional footage problem of the owner. There is a 30 foot buffer and the land use change and rezoning is not going to take it away. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Hearn stated that it is not the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission to make the property more valuable for sale. The reality is that this property is located within an existing residential area. He is not in favor of rezoning every intersection as CG (Commercial General) especially when the neighbors have come out in opposition to the petition. Mr. Merritt asked staff if gas stations were conditional uses within the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District. Hank Flores stated that it is a permitted use therefore no conditional use permit would be required. Any development would require an 8-foot barrier (concrete or wall or fence) with landscaping including a tree every 30 feet. Mr. Merritt asked if a site plan would be required. Hank Flores responded that yes a site plan would be required. Motion was called to deny the petition. On roll call the motion passed by a 4-2 vote. At this time, the Local Planning Agency adjourned and the Planning and Zoning Commission reconvened. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 12 AGENDA ITEM 4: ROBERT C. FENDER—RZ-02-022 Mr. Kelly stated that this agenda item paralleled the previous agenda item and the board must take a separate action on the item as a formality. Mr. Hank Flores stated that Agenda Item 4 is 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 District for property located on the Southwest corner of the intersection of South 25`s Street and Midway Road The stated purpose of the request is to allow the property to be developed for commercial general uses. 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, therefore, recommending that this Board forward a recommendation of approval to Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Merritt asked if there were any questions for staff, being none he opened the public hearing. Ms. Pat Ferrick, North Fork Property Owners Association stated her previous comments went along with this petition. Mr. Grande made the following motion: 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 Robert C. Fender, for a change in zoning from the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial General) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District because the at this point the petition would be inconsistent with the land use. The motion was seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 4-2. P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM 5. RANJAMA PATEL — CIRCLE C LIOUORS — CU-03-002: Ms. Cyndi Snay Agenda Item 5 is the petition of Ranjama Patel to a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a retail liquor store for the offsite consumption of distilled and undistilled alcohol within the Prima Vista Crossings to be known as Circle C Liquors. The proposed building will be next to the existing Publix Shopping Center in the Prima Vista Crossings. Circle C Liquors is currently operating on the west side of US Highway One, immediately across the street from Prima Vista Crossing, in the Port St. Lucie Shopping Center. The subject property is zoned CG (Commercial General) and the retail liquor stores for the offsite consumption of distilled and undistilled alcohol is permitted as a Conditional Use. The, subject petition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Codes. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded with a recommendation of approval Mr. Hearn asked staff if the Conditional Use Permit was for the entire shopping center. Ms. Snay responded that it is only being requested for Bay 121-C of the shopping center. Mr. Hearn asked if another liquor store could go into the shopping center or was there a distance criteria between them. Ms. Snay responded that there is not a distance criteria between liquor stores. The only distance criteria is for schools, parks, religious facilities within 1,000 feet. If another liquor store wished to operate within the shopping center, they would be required to come back before both this Board and the Board of County Commissioners requesting a conditional use permit for whatever Bay they were looking at. Mr. Hearn stated he was worried that the zoning maps depict the entire shopping center. Ms. Snay pointed out that there is a layout of the shopping center in the packet which clearly identifies where Bay 121-C is located and that is the only bay being reviewed for this type of use at this time. Chairman Merritt asked if there was anyone present to represent the petitioner. No one answered. He asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds motioned that since the petitioner was not at the meeting then the Board should not be heard at this time. Mr. Hearn made the motion to continue this item to the March 28, 2003, Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. McCurdy seconded the motion. On roll call the motion passed (6-0 vote). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 6: K & M CONCRETE — FILE NO. CU-03-001: Agenda Item 6 is the petition of K & M Properties of FL for a Major Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a Concrete Batch Plant and operation of a Concrete Mixed in the IH (Industrial Heavy) Zoning District for property located at 4170 and 4190 Selvitz Road. The purpose of the Industrial Heavy zoning district is to provide an environment suitable for heavy manufacturing and other activities that any impose undesirable noise, vibration, odor, dust or other offensive effects on the surrounding area. The applicant is proposing a manufacturing use which is consistent with this purpose. The manufacturing of stone, clay and concrete products is permitted within the IH (Industrial Heavy) zoning district as a conditional use. The applicant's petition is consistent with the Land Development Code and not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request to construct a concrete batch plant and operation of a concrete mixer subject to the following Condition: "The applicant shall be required to install an 8-foot high opaque fence or wall constructed of concrete or masonry materials or other similar material along the southern boundary line. The applicant shall install a minimum of 60% of the required perimeter landscaping material on the outside of the wall, consistent with the requirements of Section 7.09.04(E) of the Land Development Code." Chairman Merritt asked if there was anyone present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido & Associates came forward as agent of record for the petitioner. Mr. Boggs indicated that his client has a problem with the condition outlined in the staff report. He stated that the proposed 6-foot fence along the property line is sufficient to buffer the adjacent property to the south. He stated that the section sited by staff is for non-residential uses being next to single-family residential units. He currently has a petition in for a change in zoning and preliminary Planned Non -Residential Development (PNRD) for a Christian Campus. This site is unique in that it has a NSLWCD Canal No. 101 which is approximately 300 feet in width which includes a special buffer of pines, palmettos and slash pines, running the entire length of the site, this with the existing trees and proposed landscaping would buffer the property to the south. There would be no adverse relationship if the site only has a 6-foot fence. The closest building to this property line would be 165 feet. His client is requesting that the site plan be approved with only the 6-foot fence and a tree every 30 feet. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Boggs if he was associated with the church site. Mr. Boggs stated that he is the agent of record and Mr. Terry Redden is the pastor for the facility and they have indicated to him that the 6-foot fence would be okay with them. Mr. Boggs further indicated that the church property owner is proposing to rezone their tract of land from AR-1 (Agricultural Residential) to PNRD (Planned Non -Residential Development). Mr. Merritt asked if staff had heard from any of the surrounding property owners. Ms. Snay stated she had not heard from any of the surrounding property owners. Ms. Snay further indicated that there is a site plan under review by the Development Review Committee P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 15 but at this time, the property has not been rezoned nor has the site plan been determined to meet the technical requirements of the Land Development Code or consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Redden had been in touch with him regarding this site plan. Mr. Redden requested general information regarding the proposed project. Mr. Kelly stated that he described the requested petition including the staff condition on the 8-foot fence or masonry wall. Mr. Redden was satisfied with the petition after finding out about the buffering requirements and eight -foot fence. Mr. Redden further indicated that he would not attend the meeting in opposition to the proposed project based upon staff's recommendation. Mr. Kelly further stated that this is an issue that needs to be worked out by the applicant and the adjacent property owner. Mr. Boggs requested that staff clarify why this code section would apply to this petition. Ms. Snay responded that the adjacent property has an existing Residential Suburban (RS) land use designation and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) Zoning Classification. The code has been determined to be applied to properties with a non-residential use being applied to a residential use not just a residential structure. Mr. Merritt stated that the proposed project will be an improvement over what is existing there today. Mr. Hearn agreed with Mr. Merritt. Further, he asked Mr. Boggs to explain what native vegetation was located along the southern property line. Mr. Boggs showed a graphic of the site. Mr. Hearn asked if the vegetation is actually on the site right now or proposed to be on the site in the future. Mr. Boggs responded that the vegetation exists on the site right now. Mr. Boggs further stated that they are proposing a 6-foot fence with trees. Mr. Hearn asked if the fence would be wooden. Mr. Boggs stated that the 8-foot high fence condition would be overkill on the County's part. Mr. Hearn asked staff to clarify why the 8-foot high fence was being required. Mr. Kelly stated the 8-foot high fence is based on the Residential land use to the south. Mr. Kelly also stated that he can confirm that the statements made by Mr. Boggs regarding a proposed Preliminary PNRD plan for New Life Christian had been submitted to the County's Development Review Committee. Mr. Kelly stated that as Mr. Boggs is in contact with both the petitioner and the southern property owner that he could work out a compromise between the two entities. The Land Development Code does give the Board of County Commissioners the authority to waive the P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 16 buffering requirements between residential and nonresidential uses, if the adjacent property owner submits a letter of support for the waiver. Mr. Grande asked if they could pass the petition with staff's condition as requested at this point, and allow Mr. Boggs to work with the southern property owner and the petitioner to come up with a solution to remove the condition. Mr. Kelly stated that the Land Development Code allows the Board of County Commissioners to release the requirements of Section 7.09.04(E) with a written letter from the southern property owner supporting the reduction in the height of the wall. Mr. McCurdy asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being none, the Chairman opened the public hearing. After seeing no one, Mr. McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds asked what was presently on the property. Mr. Merritt stated a junkyard. Mr. Lounds further asked for clarification on whether or not the applicant's were requesting a rezoning for this property. Ms. Snay responded that no rezoning was necessary, the petitioned use was allowed after Conditional Use review and approval. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Boggs if his client would be okay with this Board recommending approval with the proposed contingency that the Board of County Commissioners can remove the condition before they pass it, if the issue can be solved between the two property owners. Mr. Boggs stated he could support this type of approval. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with this only if the decision is that the fence be lowered to 6 feet and the vegetation was still provided. Mr. Grande stated he didn't disagree with what Mr. Lounds said. Mr. Grande indicated he wanted to give the property owners the opportunity to discuss the issue and work out a satisfactory solution to the problem. His only concern was that the property owner to the south, based upon discussions with staff, had no problem with the project if the 8-foot fence was provided as recommended by staff. The condition would give Mr. Boggs time to meet with both entities and finalize a solution. Mr. Hearn asked if New Life Christian would have any residential uses at all. Mr. Boggs stated that there is an adult living facility proposed for the southern component of the site. Mr. Hearn stated that this Board should approve the condition as recommended by staff and allow the Board of County Commissioners to make a change if they want to. It would be P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 17 different if New Life Christian was approved and already there, then he could support the 6 foot fence but at this time he can't support the 6-foot fence. Mr. Merritt stated he was struggling with the issue, about what the Board could legally do. Do they have the right to approve the 6-foot fence instead of the 8-foot fence? Ms. Young stated that the Board if they want to approve the petition it should include the condition for the 8-foot high fence. The Board may recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to compromise with the condition. Mr. Grande made the following motion: 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 approve the application of K & M Concrete of FL, LLC, for a conditional use permit to construct a Concrete Batch Plant and allow the operation of a concrete mixer in the IH (Industrial Heavy) Zoning District with the one limiting condition recommended by Staff and request the Board of County Commissioners to review the condition and make a ruling based upon a joint decision made by the property owner and the southern property owner. The motion was seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon the roll call, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 6-0). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM 7: RODNEY HOPKINS — FILE NO. RZ-03-006: Mr. Hank Flores stated that Agenda Items 7 & 8 are two separate petitions but for clarity will be discussed together but a separate motion must be made for each of the items. The applicant Rodney Hopkins is requesting a change in zoning from the I (Institutional) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. The applicant, Rodney Hopkins, has applied for the rezoning in order to go forward with a request for a conditional use in order to operate a time- share from the subject property. Hotel/Motels (time-shares) are allowed as conditional uses in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed time-share operation is to be housed in a now vacant, previously operating hotel 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 if there were any questions for staff, hearing none Mr. Merritt asked if the petitioner would come to the podium. Mr. Rodney Hopkins, 4891 N. US Highway 1, stated that reason for the previous change that occurred a month or so ago was to help the elderly in St. Lucie County. Since the time of the previous rezoning there have been four or five isolated deaths last year in assisted living care facilities all over the state. Because of poor care on the deaths the insurance rates have risen to the point where the facility would not be an affordable operation. My intent was to make this facility affordable to the elderly to live there, for example a facility with 11 tenants previously paid an insurance rate of $9,000.00, today she is paying $25,000.00. There was no way to keep down the rising cost of an assisted living facility. When I bought this piece of property I was looking at it in two ways, the assisted living facility was my first choice; the second choice was as a timeshare/Hotel/Motel. What I am trying to do with the timeshare, most timeshares are pretty expensive on the most part, what I am attempting to target the individuals that make between $75,000 and $150,000 a year. The facility will have a club house and pool on the site, plus the fact that St. Lucie County has a number of sites around for the patrons to see. It would be more affordable for tourists to utilize and enjoy the county. Mr. Merritt asked if the Board had any questions for the petitioner. Mr. Merritt opened the public hearing on this item Mr. Hopkins stated that in this County we do not have a timeshare facility. Mr. Merritt closed the public hearing and brought the petition back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Hearn stated he wants staff to know he supports the project, but he questioned staff that when the Board gets the Conditional Use Permit for this request and the petitioner is asking for a P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 19 Conditional Use Permit to allow for hotel/motel would that conditional use applicant to operate a hotel or motel in lieu of the timeshare. Mr. Kelly affirmed that this was correct. Mr. Lounds made the following motion: 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 approve the application of Rodney Hopkins, for a change in zoning from I (Institutional) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District because it would improve the value of this piece of property and enhance the end result of what Mr. Hopkins is trying to do and will help the economy of St. Lucie Count by adding to the Tourist base. Mr. Akins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the petition passed unanimously (6-0 vote). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 20 AGENDA ITEM 9: CHITTO & MARIA SARKAR — FILE NO. RZ-03-005 Mr. Hank Flores stated that Agenda Item 9 is the petition of Chitto and Maria Sarkar for a Change in Zoning from the CO (Commercial Office) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for property located on the Southwest corner of the intersection of Prima Vista Boulevard and Airoso Boulevard. Subsequent, to the application for the change in zoning, the Sarkar's amended their request from the change in zoning from CG (Commercial General) to the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood). The stated purpose of the rezoning is to develop the property for a restaurant. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt asked if the petitioner was present then requested that he come forward. Mr. Chitto Sarkar stated that the reason they were requesting the rezoning was to purchase the property in order to develop the property as a restaurant. He stated that in his opinion a restaurant is very appropriate for the area. The property next door is currently utilized for a gas station and the other side has a convenience store. Mr. Lounds asked what the hours of operation for this facility. Mr. Sarkar indicated that the hours of operation would be loam to lOpm. Mr. Sarkar stated that the gas station across the street is a 24-hour facility. Mr. Hearn asked staff to clarify whether or not Lot 1 and 2 were CO (Commercial Office). His understanding was that the petitioner was only asking a change in zoning for Lot 1 to CN (Commercial Neighborhood). Having that type of zoning to the south of the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) would eliminate the requirement to have the fence between the two properties. Mr. Flores stated that it would depend on the interpretation nonresidential to residential uses; there is a residential use on Lot 2. Mr. Merritt asked if Lot 2 was a residential use. Mr. Hearn stated that it doesn't appear that way on the map. It appears that it is CO (Commercial, Office). Mr. Kelly stated that the property is zoned CO (Commercial, Office) but if you look at the aerial, there is a home on Lot 2. Mr. Lounds asked for clarification on whether a home is allowed in the CO (Commercial, Office) zoning. Mr. Kelly clarified that the property is zoned CO (Commercial Office) there is a nonconforming home on Lot 2. The property is nonconforming because of the zoning; however, staff has determined that where there is homes in commercial zoning if something were to happen, we are not fully treating them as the nonconforming, we have made some allowances. There is a home P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 22 AGENDA ITEM 8: RODNEY HOPKINS — CU-03-003: Mr. Hopkins gave a brief explanation on a timeshare. A timeshare has 52 week in which each room is sold for a week at a time. They could only be rented out if the week is vacant or still on the market. The bottom line to accommodate a hotel/motel with a timeshare, the hotel/motel action only occurs when a week has not been sold. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Hopkins if he would have a problem with the Board approving the Conditional Use Permit for only the timeshare use and not permitting the hotel/motel operation. Mr. Hopkins stated he would have a problem with this condition. If in the future he sold his property he would not be permitted the hotel/motel use. Mr. Hearn stated that they would have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Hearn if what he was recommending is that Mr. Hopkins could not rent out his unit, during a week that he did not have a sale for that week. Mr. Hearn stated that is not what he was intending. He further states that Mr. Hopkins appears to be want to operate a timeshare operation and I am asking if he has a problem with us limiting his use to the timeshare operation only. It would not be a straight hotel/motel Conditional Use Permit that stays with the property forever. I would support either concept, but if Mr. Hopkins is comfortable with a timeshare. Mr. Hopkins stated he is comfortable with the timeshare/hotel/motel concept because I have spent thousands of dollars on this property and have turned a disaster into something special. I would rather have the opportunity for the hotel/motel and timeshare. Mr. Hearn made the following motion 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 approve the application of Rodney Hopkins, for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Hotel/Motel (Time -Share) in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District because it is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood and it will be a tremendous economic benefit to the community and Mr. Hopkins has done a fantastic job in rehabilitating the property. Mr. McCurdy seconded the Motion. Upon roll call the petition passed unanimously (7-0 vote). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 21 � vet there, it could potentially be there for a number of years, and it is a residential use. Therefore, the requirement for an 8-foot wall/fence would be enforced on this site. Mr. Merritt asked staff if the lot would meet the required square footage for CO (Commercial, Office) if something happened to the house. Mr. Kelly stated he was not sure if it would, that would make it nonconforming in another manner if something were to happen to the house. It still is a nonconforming lot. The situation here is that we do have two commercial properties under separate tax ID numbers and Mr. Sarkar has an interest in one of them and not the other. Mr. Flores stated that Lot 2 would not meet the minimum 10,000 square foot criteria for CO (Commercial Office). In fact, I believe the property has been zoned such since about 1990. Mr. Merritt asked if we were creating a future problem. Mr. Flores stated, not necessarily, that a person could take the house and convert it to a commercial use as long as the use is permitted within the CO (Commercial Office) Mr. Hearn asked staff to clarify whether he understood the comments from staff, if the zoning is changed there would be a requirement for an 8-foot fence/wall between the two properties. Mr. Flores responded in the affirmative. Mr. Grande stated that he felt the PNRD (Planned Non -Residential Zoning) Zoning across the street is preferable for this particular lot, but I think it would be an onerous requirement on the petitioner at this point in time. If the change to CN (Commercial Neighborhood) is approved then I really see no problem with the intended use as a restaurant. I would stated that I would not consider a Conditional Use Permit in the future for either a car wash or a gasoline service station on this site. Mr. Merritt asked if the board had any further comments or questions for the petitioner. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. No person requested the opportunity to address the Board, so the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. McCurdy made the following motion: After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Chitto and Maria Sarkar, for a change in zoning from the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District to the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District, because it is a good fit in the area and is a P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 23 Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously (6-0 vote). P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 24 OTHER BUSINESSIDISCUSSION No business was discussed. The public hearing was adjourned. Mr. Kelly informed the Board that there was a scheduled meeting on March 27, 2003 of this Board to consider the rezoning petition for Wal-Mart and the petition of Ranjama Patel continued this evening. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly to discuss how the proposed lawsuit will effect the zoning request. Mr. Kelly stated the rezoning request is still in and is a valid request and the County can certainly continue to process the zoning. The lawsuit and what may come from that is a separate action and I think it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to be moving ahead on all other parts of the petition, while we see how the lawsuit plays out, but I don't believe there is a need for us to stop or back off on that issue. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: Carol Moler, Secretary Ed Merritt, Chairman P & Z Meeting March 20, 2003 Page 25 sunlnR'i D St. Lucie County�9, �. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minn es $rd�s� �' SPECIAL MEETING March 27, 2003 Conference Room 3, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Akins, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones and Mr. Grande MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Hearn and Mr. Matthes OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Carol Hi son, SLC School Board; Mr. David P. Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Carol Moler, Administrative Secretary. NOTE: Because of a scheduling conflict, this special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held in Conference Room 3, 3`d Floor, Roger Poitras Annex P & Z Meeting March 27, 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 Mr. Jones announced that he had contact with the Wal-Mart engineers. 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. P & Z Meeting March 27, 2003 Page 2 No other announcements or comments. AGENDA ITEM 1: RANJAMA PATEL — CIRCLE C LIQUORS — CU-03-002: Chairman Merritt read the title of the request by stating that this is the petition of Ranjama Patel, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a retail liquor store for the offsite consumption of distilled and undistilled alcohol within the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Mr. David Kelly stated that this Board may recall that staff made a brief presentation on this item last week and the applicant was not present and this Board continued the item to tonight's meeting. Briefly, Mr. Patel has made a petition to operate a liquor store within the Prima Vista Crossings Shopping Center which is the new center at Prima Vista Boulevard and U. S. Highway No. 1. The intent is for the retail sales of liquor for offsite consumption. The facility will be located next to Publix. That use is allowed as a Conditional Use in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Staff finds that it meets all standards of review and recommends its approval. Mr. Patel is here this evening. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Patel if he had any comments for the Board. Mr. Patel stated he had none. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing at this time. As no one addressed the Board, Mr. Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly to clarify that the use was not for the entire shopping center but only for one bay within the shopping center. Mr. Kelly stated that was correct. The zoning map shows the entire legal description for the shopping center. We showed the specific location last week. The resolution for this Conditional Use Permit will be tied to the specific location and not the entire shopping center. Mr. Akins asked if this was a relocation or a new business. Mr. Kelly replied that this business was being moved from the west side of U. S. 1. Mr. Lounds made the following motion. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Ranjama Patel, for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a liquor store for Unit 121-C of the Prima Vista Crossing Shopping Center in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District, because it is a good idea. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jones. P & Z Meeting March 27, 2003 Page 3 Upon the roll call, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). AGENDA ITEM 2: ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS — FILE NO. RZ-03-008: Mr. Hank Flores stated that Agenda Item 2 is the petition of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for a change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial Light) Zoning District. The subject property is located on the northwest side of Glades Cut -Off Road at the southeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike. St. Lucie County has requested this change in zoning in order to allow the property to be developed with light industrial uses. Staff has reviewed the petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and that it is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is therefore recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt asked if there was someone at the hearing from the County to make a presentation. Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director, stated that the crosshatched area is the property currently owned by Flagler Development Corporation. It carries a land use classification of Mixed -Use and is being developed as part of an industrial park. To which there is one primary tenant. The property owners are present and for the record the property owners acknowledged that the County has initiated a rezoning application on this property. Mr. Murphy stated that there is a portion of the property, up by 10-Mile Creek that is not being rezoned. It is not subject to this petition, that area is subject to slightly different land use classification and different use intensities allowed and therefore staff is not proposing to do any change in zoning in that particular area. At this point in time, I will be happy to answer any questions regarding the particular petition before you. Mr. Merritt asked the Board if there were any questions for Mr. Murphy. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the land being considered if the Board is being requested to change the land use for the crosshatched area on the map. Mr. Murphy confirmed that the requested change was for the cross hatched area as indicated and not for the area near 10 mile creek. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the thought is that this area is actually a buffer area for 10-Mile Creek. Mr. Murphy noted that was correct. In addition, this area has some other environmental and wildlife issues in this area. That will basically lock this area into some sort of conservation/preservation area for the future, however, at the moment it remains in title to the parent property owner, Flagler Land Development, the exact disposition of the property will be determined at a later date. Mr. Grande asked staff if based upon the proposed use of the land and the parties involved, the size of the parcel, is there a reason why the County has chosen IL (Industrial Light) as opposed to PNRD (Planned Non -Residential District). Mr. Murphy stated that the IL (Industrial Light) application would accommodate the proposed uses, it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan regarding development adjacent / near the natural water bodies at 10-Mile Creek. We have not pursued PNRD because it did not seem to be an appropriate P & Z Meeting March 27, 2003 Page 4 application in this area, and the designation and prior Board actions in the past applications of standard types zoning within the Mixed Use areas. This area is identified under the Mixed Use Activity Area as being an industrial use and the requested use is consistent with that particular designation. Mr. Ramon Trias asked Mr. Murphy to explain why the County is the applicant given the fact that this land is privately owned. Mr. Murphy stated that there are times when the County in corporation with a development prospects initiate petitions on behalf of economic development activities. In this particular case it was determined that it would be an appropriate initiation by the County to pursue this in our name, to bring in and reclassify this property from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) to IL (Industrial, Light). Mr. Trias asked if there had been a site plan submitted or some specific development proposal for the property. Mr. Murphy indicated that a site plan has been submitted and the county is in the process of reviewing a proposed development plat for this area. The county has received a development plan for a distribution center to be located in the northwest corner of the property as I am indicating on the monitor, roughly adjacent to I-95 / Turnpike for a project that has been in the media, the Wal-Mart Distribution Center. Mr. Trias asked if there is anything else occurring on the site at this time. Mr. Murphy stated that at the moment the distribution center is the only plan that the County has had filed. We have heard of some interest for some of the other properties. But to date, nothing has been brought forward. If you would like to see the plat information, I can pull it up. It is strictly in the preliminary stages at this time, the petition before you tonight is strictly based on a zoning question and the land use determination, is this strictly requested change consistent or inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Murphy how much of the site is proposed to be taken by the Wal-Mart Distribution Center. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. McCurdy to clarify if he was asking of the total Flagler holdings or just the area under rezoning. Mr. McCurdy stated he was asking of the area of the rezoning petition. Mr. Murphy indicated that the distribution center would take up approximately 60%. Mr. McCurdy asked if the center would use 60% of the 90 acres. Mr. Murphy stated that the Wal-Mart was the purple area on the monitor that he was indicating. It is essentially everything in the purple area except the triangular piece. The ringed area is the environmentally restricted area that is tied into other regulatory agency reviews. Mr. McCurdy then asked if the remainder of the site being proposed for an industrial park. Mr. Murphy stated that it is proposed for industrial uses, the County has not had any specific development plans come in for this area being indicated on the monitor, east of Jenkins Road Extension or this area here south of the Wal-Mart site adjoining Glades Cut -Off Road. This area will be subject to further site plan and development review should and when any application comes in. Mr. McCurdy asked where the access to the site occurs. P & Z Meeting March 27, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Murphy indicated the right-of-way for Jenkins Road. Which will be dedicated to the County. The county is currently completing some design work incorporation with the property owners to provide for the construction of a roadway within this area as well as some other roadway improvements associated with the Economic Development Works with the Wal-Mart property. Mr. McCurdy asked if the roadway would be a public road. Mr. Murphy stated that it would be a public road. Mr. McCurdy asked if this proposed roadway would connect to Jenkins Road proper. Mr. Murphy stated that in the long-term it is the County's intent to connect to the existing sections of Jenkins Road north of the Creek. At this point in time, the County is not going past the area being indicated on the monitor for construction of the roadway principally due to financial reasons. As we move further to the north connecting to the following alignment (indicated on the monitor) we have issues at a bridge that will have substantial cost, it is the long-term intention of the County to pursue a bridge crossing through there. We are not at this point in time pursuing such a crossing; we will eventually make the connection in the future. For the record, that connection would be consistent with the Long-term Transportation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan and the MPO Long -Range Plan. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy to identify the property located on Glades Cut -Off Road, east of Jenkins Road.' Mr. Murphy indicated the location of Southern Eagle and the PVC Pipe location. Mr. Lounds asked if the land between the pipe facility coming towards Jenkins is still held in private ownership. Mr. Murphy stated yes it is privately held. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing on this item. Mr. Bobby Klein, Dean, Mead, Minton and Klein, representing the landowners, Flagler Development Company, which consents to the County processing this petition. The landowners felt that with everything the county is doing it was easier for the County to process the application. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. McCurdy made the following motion: 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 approve the application of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, for a change in zoning from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential —1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District because the location is right next to the landfill, existing industrial uses with the exception to the northern end of the property, no one would really want to build there, it is a good use for the property plus it gives good exposure to commercial tenants from both 1-95 and the Turnpike. P & Z Meeting March 27, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Akins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously (7-0 vote). OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION No business was discussed. The public hearing was adjourned. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: Carol Moler, Secretary Ed Merritt, Chairman P & Z Meeting March 27, 2003 Page 7 PR. PSI 8 C Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations V. IX INDUSTRIAL, EXTRACTION 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for the extraction of natural resources from the ground, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with industrial extraction surroundings. The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels. (14) b. Mobile food vendors. (999) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Detached single-family dwelling unit or mobile home, for on -site security purposes. (9N) U Adopted August 1, 1990 129 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations R. CO COMMERCIAL, OFFICE 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for selected office and commercial uses, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with commercial office surroundings. The number in "Q" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Adjustment/collection & credit reporting services (732) b. Advertising (731) C. Communications - except towers (4s) d. Computer programming, data processing and other computer related services (737) e. Contract construction services - office only (1s.ls,n) f. Duplicating, mailing, commercial art/photography and stenographic services (733) g. Engineering, accounting, research, management & related services (ee) h. Executive, legislative, and judicial functions (s1.82.s3.94.ss.96,87) i. Finance, insurance, and real estate services (so,61,G2.63,64.s5.B7) j. Health services - except nursing homes and hospitals (eo) k. Membership organizations, except religious organizations (se) I. Miscellaneous business services: (1) Detective, guard and armored car services (73e1) (2) Security system services (7w2) (3) News syndicate t7W3) (4) Photofinishing laboratories u3m) (5) Business Services - misc. (7mg) M. Personnel supply services (m) n. Social services: (1) Individual & family social services (e3M39) (2) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services (e33) o. Travel agencies (4724) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements ,, Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. Adopted August 1, 1990 116 Revised Through 08/01/00 lses l I care sere 4SIOP, ai d' ommuniG >es j U C C� .O 0CIO C N O rr d N c fC c lee t \Pit tl i O � d PAR WAY H � 4OT AM y t7 AT SAIA W P"TIOSY W = W / y� f0 / n I� ow TAA J3 M cc —6i�OtlitlTBD J am I avow Man O mow wif-M-50 i �J z � —mow r:is 1 O U OWN Moklis i 1 o.ow a+t 35tl.w j —mow (lw iri wama� --- — ----- W u i � W olAOtpw tt301 WGo Z_ n � � Z / i i J VNV i / W W M / / / 1 � K S K I S St i S 9t i . LNnoo 3390HO33)40 o, A Petition of Dickerson Realty Florida, Inc. for a Rezoning from IX to CO 9 I Hiahland Boulevard 2 A t N O f/1 c Industri< W t LO N t O Z nk HIff! H 1 1 \ 1 I 1 RZ 03-009 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates St. Lucie Village O d Avenue =[Up Map prepared March 20, 2003 .. � h1-9-wp.-ft .W W.— PwP.- � N �x+e «av .noon. e.e� woo ro pwm r mo.i a.�one .cwm no.w., n � .a `xwea w.e busy bY,sq aowiwn. Zoning Dickerson Realty Florida, Inc. I Ut I I TTTTN Z 9 A __�hlond_Boutevord \_ __ \ r � a N t L N L it RZ 03-009 This pattern indicates subject parcel y ? > This pattern indicates St. Lucie Village C O u 9 Map prepared March 20, 2003 Wametlan poaaW,Mb MMetlW br wa u a bpYy b4WYp tlognWM. �anq use � _ � � h AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2003 7:00 P.M. Dickerson Realty of Florida, Inc., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: Northeast corner of the intersection of North 25th Street and Industrial Avenue Two Please note that all proceedings before 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, 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 adjacentproperty owners on March 28, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on April 2, 2003. File No. RZ-03-009 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS March 28, 2003 JL��J CMG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �OR1�Q' In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that DICKERSON REALTY FLORIDA, INC., have petitioned for a Change in Zoning from the IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning District to CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: Northeast corner of the intersection North 25th Street and Industrial Avenue Two. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The first public hearing on the petition will be held at 7: 00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on April 17, 2003, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal .any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date -certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above -described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. Please call 7721462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number RZ-03-009. Sincerely, ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Ed Merritt, Chairman JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 • PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. a • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 • CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590 • Planning: (772) 462-2822 GIS/Technical Services: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fax: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 • Fax: (772) 462-2132 www.co.st-lucie.fl.us M O O N C� M Ij�i;aiaaaaaaaaaaaaa (�y�;iw,.w�w4wlw cn d �t �t M M M M M klo %O �o 1.O 1.O o0 o0 00 00 00 lO %O %O l6 %6 p, C\ O� C\ ON ON Rt It IT d. d. M M N N 00 00 01 O� 'V' 'IT M M _- a w w N 00 ON It M - w N r` O •ct 00 M N O 0% P r` t` "t 00 «r .o M d O� O' Ot v I. v M M M ww w�w�w�w�w i tt O h 1,O O\ It M �t r` �o CN It M O OA d' MM ..�M "" •"'i ""' "" O O� n (� (� r` �t �o %O %O So %O 11q,60-1i i b b "t �t •ct ct O� ON O\ O� ON a\ It 'IT It ItNt It _ M M M M M aaa1a4 4aaaaixIx..4aaa w w�wl.w'w,w�wlw_�w�H�H'w O %O �D --T 0\ d M M M N . r �n ON I", M v1 "� 00 r" 'n '"� 00 I- ^' C` O N O1 O\ ct M N 'd' M i h d• O\ "t M "" � M t- 'd• ON 't M N IT M r- �t O� M N d' Kl t` �• O\ It M N �t M 'V O\ d M w w w aa w w i � , a� � v • v ; �v � o; of al s~ � �. >~ . w w 21.2 � a� s a�' o �� I �. w � � a� a w 2• i a� i a� � a> ; a� c>o. oo• 4. ! }, ! F. F. I 2' a� o t. ' a> o! w ! a� o t. j a� ; � ; , ; a� i a� ; c�; ! �� � oI o; �. • a> � ►.� � a� a> >~ . F. a� c� F+ a� o� I ►. ; � � } a> ( o }. a� � w a> c� tr a> � ►r a� � Fr 4 a21 lla�la;a;aa a aja a,Ia�a.Iala • 01o O, o 0 U�wwlw�w�w�wwFwww'wwwwwwww�wjwww1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 .� 0..�, «. O o 0 wwv�va�wwwww 04 44 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 — - { - +- I - - - -- f' I! itjtlt- t I�N N }I ' i I„( >i > >i >ji�r �P I , (D >} ) I '!NINN i ! > P �..� blo .� 0 1.00�00 .� N 0, 00 0 -, >~ w ~ E 0000 0 o rn .0 v mi •0 •0 a O «t N N N > N > f4 " j O O ca •• •• a war rn rn h y } V)w0A'ZZZZZZZZ!titiitiJl - kn h� kn N N N O O w N A r ar �t �t �T ! cn O, O O O pa vl �n �n h f It tt - .- • i V .-+ O M N It N N .-+ .. N N N N N N N N ON N .--, N -+ -- .. N N N 00100 00 0o N OA O r` N M N M o0 0 00 0 0o 0 O -+ ao O M M M M M 'd' �t •ct N M M M M N M M N N N N M N It�--� a+ N N N N N i - 1'�, .� : j i G' o 0 0 Zi ! i y jjP4G4�>> , a� -°0i I UF33 it x I v� I i a� of o 10 o 44 Ix'I I +j•c'� j.pi �!I U �i i i i 3 3 a j z + ; _La1►a1�a1lx x_ jai _a1) W U j t i IA A A � A A A N'! ! i 1 I �, a� o o a,� a O s a,jaf il >~I a.v O 0 c19 a � a ��.b I I I I �, Cd a c7 a s.q 0 in q q q �c �! _ �a o A A .. w rA Goi , > 't7 TO 10 'C .. •A o.-� pp byw �'d ww 0 !2 a a a a a o z MQQQQ pap-gpapgpqpapq�qUUUUAAAAAAAAA 0 ,— , ' ! U to N "o M O O O O O O r` O O O - 00 t` • O O O O 00 O to O n O 'T 1 � N ON 1O �O "0 O O O O O O O en O cn O O O t- O r` O r` O V O N O %0 O O O y 0e.O, Ij O O O O 0000000000000000000000000000000IT 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 C y O,% N M �o t1- I 00 0— •--� M tt O O kn O %O — NO O N M%0 t` �O 00 %O �o w M V' M t` �O (� to Q\ a\ O w (ON � w O �!' n cn t` wr- N(ON wO ON O N O N O y E pp O O O O O O O (00O N N N N N O O O_ O •-+ O O O O N N O O •--, .-+ M N N N .--, N N .-+ N N .-+ N N N N N N M -� — .~ .--, .-• .-r :.ti N N N N N N N .--� .-+ N O O •--, N .-r N N .--, N O O N N .-+ N N .-+ N M N M N M N t p A 0 0 0 O 1 0 O O 8 8 O 'o O i 0 O O O O O O O O O 00 00 o O 00 O 00 O 00 O O O r` O O O O O,O1O,01a,O,a,O, N N NNjN N N N o� o0 00 000000 N N N N N 00 N 00 N 0` 0` 00 0 N 00 00 00 00 00 000orno00000 N N N N N N N N N N 0 N 0 N 000000 N 0 N ot N �t 'ct '�t 't; •T -t -, �t rt It 'I I"- rl r1 rl -,t V �1 �t �t 7I �t V' 't rt �t �t V �t 14, �N v w O W cl a M N N N TM 00 00 m C% m M M I I I t` --i-- O d vl ON �o 1O O00 O MM — w a�ajaiaia�ti�aja ca I! R. Ni N bj Cni 2 O 1�a:alai�1�!!� aj O OI O OI' N1 O� U �wwlwjw'E-y ; i z w O a I j C* ! CC CV I I 0 N Vi ° o N II�b .ti d Oi0 0i0 0 O'O O:O O en M M j Nt CN N�N NIM M GQ M 0� O — W t` N t� I I I j ISI cl j cd ' aj pj o ! N R d C � a+ to � � d tg U 0 en ce z ��H533 U L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 wH O O . O O O O O Op V. i O O 00 O O 00 N O N O - O _ O- O O M a ~"4t I. N N N N O O N N N a A O ,) Cl W) O 110 O I �o O vn O oo O v, O t— �tC II CN N O% N oo N , 00 N1NIN ON. ON Orn N 00 N ST iUCIE "NTY;="ems "PNANNI, %AN6 7,e, PUBLIC_ If1G;` ' TO :VIIHONY t�T_fMAY! ! CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby'give"'I accordance with Sidi*11.00.03 of the SR'Lud County land Development Code and the provisions of the St. Lucie'County Com- prews!" Plan, the follow- Ing applicant has requesled that the. St: Lucie 'County Planning ,and Zoning. Cpm, mission considertheir'lot- lowing request. `. 1. DldcersoWRectty florida, Inc 7oF a - Change: to Zon- log from." IX (industrial Extraction)' -Zoning District to.: 04..C6:. IComme!ciol;. O(fice) , Zoning' Dishict .for the following: desciibed .property: Section: Z8, Township_ 34 5'oulh, Range' 40 Eat 'the'I West. 450 feet* -of Lots I I and 12 of Noggs-Subdivi lion Location . NortlieosI cdineF of.the intersection bf North' 25th -Street and industrial Avenue Two. P.UBUC;HEARINGS `will lie; held :in "Commission .Chem= berg Roger Poitras.Mnex, 2300 Virginia Avenue",'Fort Pierce, Florida on April-17;. 2003,'beginning ct:7.00 PM or as soon lhere-after. as possible. PURSUANT:TO".Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes;, If a ' person decides to appeal any dedsion`:made .by a board, agen4y,..ar commission with iespect to. any matter consideijO at a meeting or hearing, ire• will need a record of the pro- ceedings, and that, for such purposes, he. may medic, ensuie.ithat a verbatim record of the proceedings is made; which record includes the testimony and evidence '=upon`. which .the appeal is to be based. PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSION ' ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. /S/ Ed Merritt, y CHAIRMAN f Publish: April 2, 20l)3 2665755 j