Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06-19-2003 f St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3'd Floor Roger Poitras Anneg June 19, 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 - Mav 15.2003 Action Recommended.• Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of May 1 S, 2003, meeting AGENDA ITEM 2: JIT INVESTMENT COMPANY. LLC. -FILE NO. PA-03-001: This is the petition of JIT INi~ESTMENT COMPANY, LLC., for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from COM (Commercial) to IND (Industrial). Diana Waite will present Staff comments. I~ Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 3: GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC. -FILE NO. PA-03-002: This is the petition of GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC., for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from RE (Residential Estate) RU (Residential Urban). Diana Waite will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report and Site Location Maps ' AGENDA ITEM 4: BECKER HOLDING CORPORATION -FILE NO. PA-03-003: This is the petition of BECKER HOLDING CORPORATION, for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from RS (Residential Suburban) to RU (Residential Urban). Diana Waite will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 5: P&L PROPERTY MGMT A/K/A IE S DARE BINGO FILE NO. CU-03-007: This is the petition of P&L PROP MANAGEMENT (A/K/A ST. LUCIE SQUARE BINGO), for a Conditional Use Permit to a e operation of a Bingo Parlor within the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Cyndi Sna present Staff comments. ,~~t~'on Rec-ommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission y~~ Exhibit #S: Staff Report and Site Location Maps ~ `f St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency June 19, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 6: ALICIO PINA -FILE NO. RZ-03-023: This is the petition of ALICIO PINA, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #6: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 7: DALE T. MOSHER -FILE NO. RZ-03-024: This is the petition of DALE T. MOSHER, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #7: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 8: ORDINANCE 03-023 -EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES: This is an ordinance amending the educational facilities impact fees schedules and to consider several minor technical amendments to the text of the ordinance. Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #8: Staff Report AGENDA ITEM 9: ORDINANCE 03-024 - FIRE/EMS IMPACT FEES: This is an ordinance amending the fire/ems impact fees schedules. Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #9: Staff Report AGENDA ITEM 10: ORDINANCE 03-025 -LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES: This is an ordinance establishing law enforcement impact fees. Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #10: Staff Report St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency June 19, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 11: ORDINANCE 03-020 -FIREWORKS (Fire Protectionl: This is an ordinance establishing standards and regulations concerning the sale and use of consumer fireworks. Heather Young will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #11: Staff Report OTHER BUSINESS: A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion. B. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on July 17, 2003, in the 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 appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this:meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at (772) 462- 1586. ,LLB: -~='y -\j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ~ ~ _ ® PLANNING DIVISION ~ ~ - - ~ - M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mr. Ed Merritt, Plannin & Zoning Commission Chairman FROM: David P. Kelly roz bPK DATE: Friday, June 13, 2003 SUBJECT: Changes to agenda Originally, there were to be three additional items on the agenda. These three items were legally advertised and a mailing was produced. Unfortunately, due to an advertising error, these items will not be heard at the June 19, 2003, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Staff requests that you make an announcement at the start of the June 19th meeting that the following petitions will not be heard until the July 17, 2003 meeting. Anew mailing and advertisement will be processed for the new hearing date. The three petitions are listed below: William D. Miller - RZ-03-020 Eugene & Leslie Duncan - RZ-03-021 Cora L. Lambert - RZ-03-022 ~ ~ i- ~ _ _ ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT o Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Members FROM: Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary DATE: Thursday, June 19, 2003 SUBJECT: P&Z Attendance Mr. Trias will not be attending tonight's Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency Meeting. His absence is excused. Fred R. Jones, Jr 5409 Sunset Boulevard Fort Pierce, FL 34982 772-468-9839 June 19, 2Q03 Commissionez~ Doug Coward St. Lucie County " 2340 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 349$2-5652 Dear Commissioner Coward: I appreciate the opportunity to serve as your appointee to the County's Planning and ZoningJLPA board. I have enjoyed the experience and hope that my service has been of benefit. I also appreciate the crust you had in me to appoint me to this position. In the past two years my business has been focused primarily within Martin County and created little or no potential for conflict of interest. It is my plan to pursue more work in St. Lucie County and expect the opportunities for conflict of interest to increase. Because of this, I believe it is in the interest of all that I resign from the board, effective after tonight's meeting. I wish to thank all of my fellow board members for their comradeship during my tenure. Although we may not have agreed on all of the issues debated here, I know that we shazed a common goal of improving the quality of life in St. Lucie County. With sine a ar , 1; Fr R. Jones, Jr., .E. Cc: Dennis Murphy David Kelly Planing and Zoning Board Members FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCACL~Pp,~UggBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME ,-NAME~UCl2 D~OUYlt~ Yl MaI1T111I1CJA an~Rfly, OR CQM6.tQTEF ~ SSlOIl~ Merritt, Ed ~'C Gv11]11y WII[IT1 MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 4838 S. U. S. 1 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF; CITY COUNTY ~ CITY ~ COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Fort Pierce St. Lucie NAME OF POt.ITICAL SUBDIVISION: St. Lucie Count DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: .TUne 19, Z~O3 ~ ELECTIVE C~XAPPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM SB This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 712:3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 763.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). - ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. J IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the r„Ini ~ta~ of the meeting. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) ~ ~ APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • .The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Ed Merritt ,hereby disclose that on June 19 20 03 (a) A measure came or wiU come before my agency which (check one) ~ inured to my special private gain or loss; to my business as. a real estate broker. _ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or ~ . _ inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: AGENDA ITEM 6e ALICTO PINA -FILE NO. RZ=03=023-: This is the petition of ALICIO PINA, for a Change in Zoning fran the AG-l (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District. Date Filed ~ , - . ~ Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLO_ RIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 . _et St. Lucie County ~ - Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING May 15, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Matthes, Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Merritt. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Trias and Ms. Hilson (all with Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 1 1` . ~ t , E .l ' E: i! ~Ya t':.E7 :Z...~ '1 :sr,g~a CALL TO ORDER ~ ~'a s Chairman Merritt called to order the meeting of the- St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Merritt gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency 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. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. Mr. Lounds arrived after Agenda Item # 1 was heard. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 2 ~ ~ i'• ~ AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES =APRIL 17.2003: ~ { . „ Mr. Hearn stated that the first paragraph on page 8 should have the references to "they" changed to "we". Mr. Matthes made a motion to approve, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 5-0). P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 3 '.r'. ~ * 8 AGENDA ITEM 2: CHOICE PEST MANAGEMENT -.File No. CU-03-006 Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Choice Pest Management Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a disinfecting and pest control service in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. He continued that disinfecting and pest control services are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Flores stated that Choice Pest Management, Inc. is licensed through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) -Division of Certification and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He continued that HRS monitors the business operation and licensing requirements and that these requirements include training and testing of personnel in the proper use and correct handling of various pesticides. He also stated that DEP monitors the disposal of any hazardous waste materials and ensures that it is disposed of properly. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant or their representative was present. Ms. Brenda Hefty stated that she and her husband Eric Mageissen live at 232 NW Broken Oak Trail in Jensen Beach and own the building in question. She continued that Mr. Dale Mauro owns and is the head of Choice Pest Management. She stated that they met Dale when they were looking for a tenant and feel that he runs his business well. She also stated that they thought he would fit well with their building and didn't see any conflict with the location and type of business. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Joseph G. Miller stated he lives at 5500 Orange Avenue and owns two parcels of property on Hancock Drive. He also stated that he has no problem with this business' request. Mr. Owen Conner stated that he is a resident of Oleander Pines at 6731 Dickinson Terrace and is concerned because the building backs up the drainage ditch. He continued that he feels there should be more consideration given since there could be a chemical leak especially since the property backs up to a drainage ditch. Mr. Dale Mauro, owner of Choice Pest Management stated that everything done on premises - would be in containers. He also stated that there would not be any mixing done on site and - anything that is brought back to the office is in containers. He continued that there is no spraying going to be done on the property and really no concern about a leakage problem. He also stated that they do have spill control measures in place, just in case. He advised that he has been in business for twelve years and has never had an incident or any complaints. Ms. Barbara Highley stated she lives at 6723 Dickinson Terrace in Oleander Pines and would like to find out what the procedure would be if a 50-gallon drum should spill while being loaded or unloaded from a truck. Mr. Mauro stated that the largest container of concentrate they have is P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 4 [ - ~ i~ e-~~ Z ! c, .,''Me ,a 2 1/2 gallons. and if that were to spill it would be easier to control because there wouldn't be:a' ~ z large amount of product. He also stated that they don't mix on-site, so it is never opened and the chances of spilling it would be minimal. Ms. Highley questioned how many 2 1/2 gallon containers are shipped on a palette. Mr. Mauro stated that they are shipped with two 2 1/2 gallon containers per case and that is the largest order he has. He continued that they order in very small quantities because they do general pest control and .don't do any lawn service. Ms. Highley questioned what kind of inventory would be held on the property. Mr. Mauro stated that his present inventory is one 2 1/2 gallon container of liquid concentrate contained in the back office building. He continued that any other inventory is kept locked up on the individual employees truck. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Mauro was inspected by the Florida Department of Agricultural. Mr. Mauro confirmed that he was just inspected about two months ago and they usually inspect him once a year. Mr. Lounds questioned what happens if he fails an inspection. Mr. Mauro explained that they could revoke his license and fine him. He also stated that the EPA regulates the products they use and DAG regulates the use of the products. Mr. Lounds stated that he wanted the public to have some peace of.mind and be aware that these types of companies are thoroughly regulated and monitored and -that they have place to turn to if there are any problems. Mr. Hearn questioned why staff did not apply any conditions to this conditional use application. He continued that he feels uncomfortable with this type of operation not having any. Mr.-Kelly stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission has the right to recommend any reasonable conditions they feel are necessary but Staff did not see any issues for them. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about on-site mixing and large containers possibly spilling. Mr. Kelly stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission could make a recommendation to add conditions to address these issues if they felt it necessary. Mr. Hearn questioned if the petitioner would have any .problem with adding conditions regarding on-site mixing and size of the containers. Mr. Mauro advised that would not be a problem with him. Mr. Milton Hahn stated .that he lives at 771 Sandburg Lane in Oleander Pines. He questioned where the mixing is done if it isn't on-site and where unused materials are stored or disposed of. Mr. Mauro stated that there are tanks on the back of a truck and the unused material would go .into that tank and used at a residence. He also stated that there are designated areas for unused materials to be disposed of. Mr. Hahn questioned if the chemicals that are on-site are already mixed chemicals. Mr. Mauro stated that the mixed chemicals would be on-site but would be locked up in the trucks. Mr. Hahn questioned how the trucks are secured when they aren't being used at night. Mr. Mauro stated that none of the trucks are kept on the premises and are taken by the technicians to their homes. Mr. Hahn questioned if there was access (an opening rear door) to the warehouse from the canal. Ms. Hefty stated that the building has front doors that go to office space, roll-up garage doors on the back, sixty-foot of parking lot, twelve feet of lawn and then the canal. Mr. Hahn stated that he has one other concern about the technicians taking the trucks home to residential areas while holding chemicals. Mr. Kelly stated that he was not aware of there being any problem with them doing that. Mr. Charles Gilson stated he lives at lot 10, 6724 Dickinson Terrace in Oleander Pines and questioned how the concentrate is mixed and used. Mr. Mauro stated that the technicians take the concentrate with them on their trucks and mix it with water on the job site that they are treating. Mr. Gilson questioned if all of the containers that are stored at his facility are sealed. Mr. Mauro confirmed that they were and stated they are also locked up. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 5 :~'i~,. . .:_3 - ~eq,c~ Mr. Michael Reese, 6727 Dickinson Terrace stated that he has done his own~~'~~e~rc~`ion''tl~e` ' '"'~'"'S~~- health problems that .result from pesticide usage. He stated that he is concerned about Mr. Mauro's business getting larger and then he will start storing larger amounts of chemicals. He also. questioned the security of the buildings to avoid people breaking in and any possible fire hazards. He advised that pesticide and other chemicals could cause repertory problems in children and older people by being transferred through the air. He questioned what the response time is if there is a leak. He stated that they are relatively close to the subject property and is concerned about the effects on his children. Mr. Mauro stated that nothing is mixed on site and is contained in containers. He also stated that they do have a security system in the building. He continued that accidents do happen, but he has not had any incidents and he feels the risk factor is very low. Mr. Jones questioned if the containers that are stored on site have ever been opened. Mr. Mauro stated that some of them might have been opened by a technician and then taken off the truck to store. He continued that the amount of chemicals he stores he is very low because most of it is kept on-the trucks. Mr. Jones stated questioned if the potential for a spill would be more at the site where the technician is working rather than the subject property. Mr. Mauro confirmed that was correct and stated that most spills occur when there is an accident with a truck rolling over. Mr. Lounds questioned what Mr. Mauro's technicians do with the spray. Mr. Mauro stated that his business usually uses a lot of baited products within the house and the spraying is usually done on the outside perimeter of the structure. Mr. Lounds questioned if his products are similar to those that can be bought at Home Depot or Lowes. Mr. Mauro confirmed that is correct and that a lot.of the products that are sold at Home Depot are actually stronger than the products his company uses. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Mauro's products were really any worse than someone spraying a can of Raid in their home. Mr. Mauro stated that his products were not at all worse than that. Mr. Reese stated that he was sorry that others didn't see the potential problems that he sees. He also stated that this is a conditional use request for a reason and this should be located in more of an industrial area. Ms. Hefty stated that as owners of the building they are scrutinized by their insurance company and would not allow things to remain that would be perceived as a hazard. Mr. Paul Frishkorn, 1651 Benny Drive, stated that anyone who has a swimming pool could make mustard gas. because of the acids that they buy in Publix and other .stores. Ms. Joanne Russell stated that she lives in Oleander Pines and .that accidents do happen and that it could end up in their water system or airborne. She also stated that once this business grows there will be more containers and possibly drums on the property. Mr. Matthes questioned if the petitioner's business, which is currently located on Bayshore Drive. _ _ . is near any residences. Mr. Mauro stated that he is very close to the residents in that area and has - never had any complaints in the two years he has been there. Mr. Matthes questioned if that property also backs up to a canal. Mr. Mauro confirmed that it does. Mr. Matthes questioned where the site drainage is directed. Ms. Hefty stated that it goes across the parking lot to the east toward US Highway 1. She also stated that there are three spillways across the lawn to keep erosion down and spill into the canal but the parking bumpers direct the water mainly to the east. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 6 t.. _...i ~'u rasa ~,y f'!~a Mr. Owen Conner spoke again. He stated that it is their back yard and understands~that=h~~has:''a~'~~r ~r~.1 business and needs to make a living but is very concerned about the spillway, drainage and the transfer of the open containers from truck to truck. Mr. Charles Gilson spoke again and questioned if Canal 28 empties into the St. Lucie River. Mr. Matthes confirmed that it does. Mr. Hearn asked staff what the zoning is where chemicals like this are sold. Mr. Kelly stated that it is usually CG (Commercial, General). Mr. Mike Florio stated that he currently resides at 111 SE Camino Street but soon will be a resident of Oleander Pines. He questioned why the CG (Commercial, General) zoning district requires a conditional use permit for pest control services. Mr. Kelly stated that he thought it revolved around concerns with large pest control businesses and the volumes of chemicals. He also stated that having a conditional use permit request allows the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to decide how large of a business they would allow for specific areas. Mr. Florio stated that he feels that they wrote it that way because these large types of businesses are not appropriate in the CG (Commercial, General) zoning district. Mr. Kelly stated that the conditional use states that those businesses are generally appropriate in the CG (Commercial, General) zoning area but that they should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Florio stated this is a business plaza that does not have use of a centralized sewer system, no chemical retention areas on this property, and a minimal setback from the canal area. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Jones stated that the permitted uses in this zoning includes automotive rental, repair, and service, cleaning services, building material, hardware, and garden supplies, gasoline stations. He continued that all of these have a much more significant potential source of pollutants and problems than he believes this business would be. He also stated that the site is fairly small and the site would limit how large his operation could become in that location. Mr. Lounds stated that Mr. Hearn and the community seemed to have a concern with the container size and may want to consider adding that as a condition for the Board of County Commissioners consideration. Mr. Hearn stated that he would also like to see no mixing of chemicals on-site and no outside storage of containers on premises as conditions. Mr. Lounds stated that he did not feel that no mixing on site would be appropriate because Mr. Mauro may need to do that at one point in time. Mr. Jones stated he agreed that no mixing on-site might not be appropriate. Mr. McCurdy stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Choice Pest Management, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a pest control service in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because it is a conditional use and is a much lower intensity than the other permitted and allowed uses within the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District with the following conditions: P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 7 _ :-.l . . , ':a 1. Limit the size to 2 1/2 to 5 gallons per containers vf'liquitl'' ' -~r'a concentrate. 2. No outside storage of containers on premises. Motion seconded by Mr. Matthes. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 8 - - . . _ - _z AGENDA ITEM 3: GARV PROPERTIES (Richard M. McClure, Agentl-File No R,Z.03- - Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Garv Properties (Richard M. McClure, Agent) for a Change in Zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 4.81 acres of property located at 2541 Peters Road. He continued that the surrounding zoning is RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/acre) to the north and northeast; RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 9 du/acre) to the southwest, C-3 (Commercial -31) Zoning to the east, and south is in the city limits of Fort Pierce. Mr. Flores also stated that the petitioner has requested this change in zoning in order to establish a Recreational Vehicle sales operation on the subject property. 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 questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Richard M. McClure stated .that he was the applicant. Mr. Lounds questioned what type of recreational vehicles they would be selling. Mr. McClure explained that they would be high-end motor homes. Mr. Hearn questioned how long they had owned the property. Mr. McClure explained that they are currently in the process of closing on the property. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant was advised of any other options for the rezoning of this property. Mr. McClure stated that he was not. aware of any other options. Mr. Hearn stated that there. would be other ways for him to have this request met; one of them being a request for a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development). He continued that he was concerned about approving a blanket CG (Commercial, General) zoning change because he feels that some of the permitted uses might not be appropriate for the area since there is a residential area near the subject property. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Terry Torres. stated that he was the engineer representing the purchaser of the property and would be available to answer questions if needed. Mr. Merritt stated that since the area is very commercial now with a Motel 6, Cracker Barrel, packinghouse, and an amusement park, he didn't feel there would be any problem with the CG (Commercial, General) zoning. Mr: -Lounds stated that the maps show that the City of Fort Pierce has annexed several of the pieces surrounding the property and questioned why this piece had not been annexed. Mr. Torres explained that the duplexes behind the property also were not annexed and that the City had not approached them with regards to annexation. He also stated that he didn't believe the rezoning to CG (Commercial, General) would require it either. Mr. Kelly explained that the City usually requires annexation when there is a need for water and septic. He continued that the duplexes are most likely old enough to have well and on-site septic. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 9 - n ~ Mr: Hearn questioned staff as to why they had not offered the petitioner the opriori`of rec)uesttn~. a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) instead of a straight rezoning. Mr. Kelly explained that the only difference between the two requests is that the PNRD would limit and control future uses of the property. He also stated that it is still a rezoning request either way and that with an MXD future land use staff felt that the CG (Commercial, General) request was consistent. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt until the residential area becomes commercial they should have some assurance that the property will only be used for RV sales and nothing else and that with a flat CG (Commercial, General) zoning they are open to other options. Mr: Matthes questioned what kind of utilities would be needed for the property if their rezoning request were successful. Mr. Torres stated that eventually they may have a need for water and sewer and then would be annexed into the City. Mr. Lounds questioned the issue of run-off. Mr. Torres stated that there was less than 4,000 square feet of impervious and not a lot of drainage would be needed. He also stated that the property doesn't have a lot of paving or parking lot to maintain and they want to leave the property as natural as possible. Mr. Merritt questioned what would happen if there were a diesel spill from one of the RV's. Mr. Torres stated that they would bring in a special company located off Selvitz Road that handles spill control but that a spill was highly unlikely. Mr. Matthes stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn that a PNRD would have been a better request because it would have given the surrounding neighbors some assurances about what would be done with the property. Mr. Hearn stated that he thinks the plan is great and perfect for the area and was just concerned about what would happen to the property if the business failed. Mr. Jones stated that he disagreed and that he felt any of the permitted uses within CG (Commercial, General) zoning would be appropriate for that area. He also stated that he did not feel a PNRD request would be appropriate for the area and what they want to do. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed that this project does fit the neighborhood but that he firmly believes that a PNRD request would have been more appropriate. Mr. Jones questioned Mr. Hearn about what permitted uses under the CG (Commercial, General) zoning he would not be comfortable with on this property: Mr. Hearn stated that anything regarding gas and automotive services would not be appropriate because of the nearby residential properties. Mr. Matthes questioned the petitioner if they would consider changing their request to a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) rather than to CG (Commercial, General). Mr. Torres stated that they would rather have the CG (Commercial, General) zoning. Mr. Merritt stated that he feels a PUD or PNRD was designed to control more specific items and that making it a mandatory request would not be appropriate. Mr. Hearn stated that he was not suggesting making PNRD's mandatory but that he felt that Staff should be more vigilant in offering it to the petitioners as an alternative. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 10 q ~,..,~~t~r~n~ t, k t ~ : _ wJ Li .c,~ Mr. Matthes stated that after considering the testimony presented during ~t~he° public t~~_ 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 Garv Properties (Richard M. McClure, Agent) for a Change in Zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because the other three surrounding properties are CG (Commercial, General) and I feel that it is a good use. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 11 _ a~1 ~ n~as~ AGENDA ITEM 4: ,TERRY ,TAMES REPORT: ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 Mr. -David Kelly, Planning Manager, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was a presentation of some recommendations provided by the Ad Hoc Committee regarding changes to the agricultural sub- . division regulations. He also stated that these issues were currently on the Board of County Commissioners Agenda to be heard on June 10, 2003. Mr. Jerry James stated that when the Board of County Commissioners heard the two draft ordinances they suggested that an Ad Hoc Committee by any agricultural property owners and members of the public who were interested be formed. He continued that the Committee would -like to make their recommendations regarding Draft Ordinances 03-005 and 03-006 to the Local Planning Agency. He advised that the Committee was made up of the following members: Joey Miller, Jim Russakis, Mike or Bud Adams for Adams Ranch, Ovide Vachon, Matthew Wynne, Jeffrey Furst, Craig Linton, Toby Long and himself. He stated that there were some previous suggestions that they look at Indian River County's regulations regarding subdividing agricultural lands. He continued that they would recommend denial of the proposed draft ordinances. He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to delete Policy 1.1.2.2. regarding the 4-unit PUD threshold. He stated that in lieu of the deletion, the existing land use categories found in Chapter 1, Pages 23-25 of the Comprehensive Plan should remain in place and control PUD threshold under the following existing language. "All 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." Mr. Jones wr' s h' uestioned how DCA would feel about these ro osed chap es since the o dm wa t eir q P P g g choice on inall to brin the Count into com liance. Mr. Kell stated that a meetin would g Y g Y P Y g need to be scheduled with DCA since there is a conflict in the plan. Mr. James continued that existing Comprehensive Plan future land use designation for Agricultural 2.5 contained on page 1-25 of the Comprehensive Plan should remain unchanged. He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan 1.1.2.3 sub section (c) should be deleted because it conflicts with their recommendations. He continued that common open space as presently defined under county codes, building codes, and Comprehensive Plan s be exempt and deleted from those areas of the County with a future land use of AG - 2.5 and AG - 5. He stated that they feel the presently defined "open space" should continue unchanged. He also stated that unit or parcel clustering under Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan PUD requirements should be exempt as a mandatory development requirement for those areas of the county designated AG - 2.5 and AG - 5. He continued that supplemental to the committees recommendation to substituting the 10-unit threshold in lieu of the 4-unit threshold the committee would like to direct Staffs attention to curb cuts with a recommendation that excessive curb cuts adjacent to high traffic streets be addressed with parallel roads. _ IVIr. James also stated that the Committee would like to have the possibility of Family Farms explored more by Staff. He stated that family farm exceptions to platting and other code requirements in the present AG - 2.5 and AG - 5 land use categories should be considered. He continued that the committee had not developed any specific recommendations at this point and would welcome staff input. He also stated that the committee does have a desire to see development of parcels upon agricultural lands in order to permit homestead development of family members related by blood, marriage or adoption for use solely as a homestead. He advised that placing this procedure under Board of Adjustment with specific criteria would be suggested or alternatively allowing Family Farm homestead to come under specific flag-lot P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 12 ti Ft.. ~ criteria exceptions. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan density limits would remain in place. ~ F Mr. Kelly stated that Staff was also concerned about the Family Farm issue, but was not sure at this time how to deal with it and that it should be discussed further at a later time. Mr. James finished by stating that the Committee would like to remain involved in the process, which includes actively working with staff to furnish property, owners input at all levels. Mr. Merritt stated that he personally would like these issues to be resolved and would like to see it done by using common sense instead of bureaucracy. He also stated that clustering was not his idea of owning land. Mr. Hearn questioned if this was an urgent issue and if there would be any ramifications of a 30-day delay. Mr. James explained that the Committee was asked to have their final recommendations regarding the two ordinances to the Board of County Commissioners by the June 10, 2003, meeting. Mr. Jeff Furst stated that he has had quite a few foreclosures on agricultural land and that time is an issue with .regards to these matters. He advised that all of the uncertainty is causing a problem with investors and making agricultural development more difficult. He also stated that these recommendations were the most expeditious way to help resolve some, but not all, of the issues. He continued that they should be reviewing these issues on a regular basis and need to come up with some long-term resolutions for the problems. Mr. James advised that Comprehensive Plan changes could only be done in July and December and if the Board of County Commissioners makes a recommendation to act upon these recommendations, they could make the July submission deadline. Mr. Furst continued that he felt the Committee should continue to be involved in the process and work with Staff to tackle many of the other issues and possibly come up with some long-term answers. He also stated that he felt there was three items that were crucial at the moment were common open space, clustering, and the 4 to 10 threshold. Mr. Kelly stated that he felt that their recommendations should be sent to the Board with the exception of the issue regarding Family Farms because of the complexity of the issue. Mr. Merritt questioned if the Committee would have any problem -with deferring comment on the Family Farm issue for now. Mr. James stated that he and the Committee did not see a problem with forwarding the rest of their recommendations without Family Farms. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt the issue regarding Family Farms should definitely have further discussions because it is a very important issue. Mr. James stated that the Committee would definitely work further with Staff to bring some recommendations forward regarding the Family Farm issue in the future. IVIr. Lounds questioned where the term open space was defined. Mr. James stated that the term open space is defined as required to be 80% in AG - 2.5 and AG - 5 and is to be agricultural utilization of the land. Mr. Lounds questioned Mr. Furst that if a piece of land isn't being used for agriculture then does it qualify for open space under Mr. James' definition. Mr. Furst stated that he doesn't really review it like that. He looks for the AG zoning and that if the zoning is agricultural but there is nothing being done agriculturally on the property it is assessed at a higher rate than those using the property agriculturally. Mr. Lounds questioned if the County or the State could buy the development rights on a large piece of acreage so that it remains in agricultural, on the tax roll, and cannot be developed for 20 or 30 years. Mr. James stated that the Committee didn't deal with that issue. Mr. Lounds questioned if it was a viable issue to request that the Committee review. Mr. James stated that further south they use TDR's (Transferable Development Rights) to try to help resolve these issues. Mr. McCurdy stated that conservation easements and TDR's are in perpetuity and cannot be given a limitation of time. He also stated that this is going on all over the country and has been a vehicle to allow agricultural owners to transfer their development rights from their parcels P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 13 j r .r Cil fs and keep them in agricultural use with their exemptions. Mr. Lounds stated that he is coriceriiecl ' ~ ' about the development out west and owners being able to retain the value of their land so that they can survive. He advised that he does not have a problem with the Committees recommendations because he feels they really took their time going through it to help find a way to resolve these issues. He stated that he has an issue with people saying that agriculture in St. Lucie County is dead since it is having problems, but it isn't dead. He advised that these changes would be a tool to help them survive agriculturally. Mr. Jones questioned if the immediate need was to help stop the foreclosures on agricultural land. Mr. Furst explained that is part of the problem but the most significant issue. He continued that the urban service boundary issues and some of the PUD and clustering issues seem to be quite an important issue at this time. Mr. James stated that there are really three major concerns. He continued they are common open space, permissive instead of mandatory clustering in AG - 2.5 and AG - 5, and moving the threshold from- four to ten. Mr. Hearn stated that he didn't see a problem with these three items and the Committees recommendations. Mr. Jones stated that he doesn't see this as a long-term fix and that it should continue to be worked on to permanently resolve these issues in the future. Mr. Kelly stated that with regards to some long-term changes to fix these issues there was a consensus-building workshop regarding the Urban Service Boundary. He continued that the consultants; Tindale-Oliver & Associates would be making a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the consensus' recommendations as well. Mr. Hearn .stated that he is hesitant to adopt a recommendation on all of the Committees language because he doesn't fully understand all of it. Mr. Kelly stated that the first item relates to the ordinances that were previously before the LPA that they already recommended denial of. He continued that Policy 1.1.2.2 is the Comprehensive Plan policy that requires clustering and PUD's in excess of four units and their recommendation was to delete that because it is dealt with in another policy. He continued that they had even made a recommendation in lieu of deleting the entire Policy 1.1.2.2. He also stated that common open space be changed to open space and remove the word common in AG - 2.5 and AG - 5. He advised that they also requested the deletion of clustering. He continued that the Family Farm issue would be removed for now and the Committee wants to remain involved. Mr. Jones stated that they would like to urge the County Commission to approve the .i Committees recommendations (with the exception of number 8 -Family Farms) with the understanding that this is a work in progress and not a permanent long-term fix. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 5-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of the Committees recommendations. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 14 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: ~ ~ _ - ,y~ Mr. Matthes stated that he was respectfully resigning from the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency. He continued that Commissioner Lewis has found a replacement for him so his resignation would be effective tonight. He advised that he would need to leave the meeting prior to the final item on the agenda being heard. Next scheduled meeting will be June 19, 2003. AD,TOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: wn Gilmore, Secretary P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 15 Local Planning Agency Review: 06/19/03 File Number PA-03-001 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Planning Manager DATE: June 6, 2003 SUBJECT: Application of JIT Investment Company, LLC, for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from COM (Commercial} to IND (Industrial) LOCATION: Southeast corner of North Kings Highway (SR 713) and Angie Road, northwest of Ft. Pierce CURRENT FUTURE LAND COM (Commercial} USE DESIGNATION: PROPOSED FUTURE LAND IND (Industrial) USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/ac) PROPOSED ZONING: IL (Industrial, Light) PARCEL SIZE: 46.56 acres PROPOSED USE: Industrial development site. Potential Industrial park site. SURROUNDING FUTURE IND (Industrial) to the north and south. RU (Residential LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Urban- 5 du/ac) to the east, southeast and northeast. COM (Commercial) to the west. _ SURROUNDING ZONING IL (Industrial, Light) and (AG-1 (Agricultural -1 du/ac) DESIGNATIONS: Zoning to the north. AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) to the east and -southeast. AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/ac) to the west and south. June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 2 File Number: PA-03-001 SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USES: Most properties in the immediate area contain citrus groves nearing the end of their useful production cycle. Properties to the north of the subject site are used for citrus processing/packaging. To the northwest is the existing Kings Highway Industrial Park. Asingle-family residence is located to the east. UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is within the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Service Area. There are existing water and sewer lines adjacent to the subject site (north side). TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS: RIGHT-OF-WAY The existing road right-of--way width along North Kings ADEQUACY: Highway is 70 feet. The right-of--way width along Angle Road is 66-feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: (See comments) TYPE OF CONCURRENCY Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. DOCUMENT REQUIRED: COMMENTS The applicant JIT Investment Company, LLC, is requesting a change in the future land use designation from COM (Commercial) to lND (Industrial) fora 46.56-acre parcel of property at the southeast corner of the intersection of North Kings Highway (SR 713) and Angle Road. The existing future land use designation on this property allows for general commercial uses. The petitioner is seeking a change in the future land use designation in order to ~ permit the development of this property in an industrial manner, instead of a commercial one. The requested IND (industrial} Future Land Use designation may be considered to be consistent with the existing industrial uses already found in the area, to the north and south of this intersection. When the petitioned property was originally classified for commercial use under the County's 1990 comprehensive plan, the immediate area was expected to have been developed in a more intense residential fashion. Over the past 13 years, there has essentially been no residential development interest in this area, in spite of the availability of utilities and generally developable lands (e.g. no significant physical constraints or challenges). The only development interest that the County has been made aware of in this area appears to be directed towards non-residential/ industrial uses. Given the lack of interest in residential uses in this area, the intensity and amount of remaining commercially classified land use in this area (approximately 40 acres immediately adjacent and another 100 within 1 mile of the subject site} appears to be adequate to meet the anticipated community needs for at least the next 20-year planning period. June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 3 File Number: PA-03-001 Amendments to the County's future land use maps are considered to be a preliminary development order, as described in the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The granting of a preliminary development order does not vest, grant any rights or assurances, explicit or implied, that the County will indeed approve or otherwise authorize the issuance of a final development order for any activity that does not fully comply with all applicable provisions of the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Prior to the issuance of any final development order, the developer must demonstrate that all public facilities are available to service the parcel and a Certificate of Capacity must be obtained from the County. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . 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 J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The following sections addresses the proposed amendments consistency with each of these plans respectively: 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 County Comprehensive Plan are applicable to this petition. The following is an element-by-element evaluation of the proposed amendment: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT The proposed amendment to the future land use maps of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan has been determined not to conflict with this element. The future land use designations surrounding the subject property are COM (Commercial) to the west, IND (Industrial) to the north and south, and RU (Residential Urban) to the east. Land located at the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection of North Kings Highway and Angle Road contain existing industrial uses and have a Future Land Use designation of IND (Industrial). The parcel immediate south of the subject site has a IND (industrial) Future Land Use designation and currently contains a citrus grove that is no longer a viable production grove and is not being actively maintained. Goal 1.1: Ensure the highest quality living environment. through a mixture of land uses reflecting the needs and desires of the local residents and how they want their community to develop. The goal shall be implemented by strictly enforced building, zoning and development codes based on objectives and policies that will enhance St. Lucie County's natural and man-made resources while minimizing any damage or threat of degradation to the health, safety, and welfare of the County's Citizens, native wildlife and environment, through incompatible land uses. The site's close proximity to interstate roadways and it's Pack of natural features make it suitable for industrial uses. The proposed IND Land Use designation is considered to be compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding this site. 1f the site is developed for industrial uses, June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 4 File Number: PA-03-001 adequate buffering is to be provided betwee the site and any potential residential uses that may be located to the east of the project site. Assuming approval of this amendment, any requested change in zoning must comply with the site specific Iocational standards setout in Polices 1.1.11.2 and 1.1.11.3 of the County's Comprehensive Plan. These .zoning changes, while not subject to the same level of agency review as the proposed comprehensive plan map amendment would still need to be approved through the public hearing process described in Chapter 11.00.00 of the County's Land Development Code.-Any zoning districts that would be permitted within the proposed IND Future Land Use designation may be considered to be compatible with the existing .industrial uses to the north and can be made compatible with adjacent RU {Residential Urban) designated land use areas to the east through the implementation of the goals, objectives and policies of the County's Adopted Comprehensive Plan that protect adjacent residential areas and limit industrial development. Objective 1.1.11: St. Lucie County shall continue to work with the interested groups an agencies to increase and broaden the County's economic base while expanding existing business and industrial opportuniities. Over the past ten years St. Lucie County has seen a drop in our average annual unemployment rate drop from a high of just under 16% in 1992 to just over 8% in 2002. On a monthly basis, St. Lucie County is now as low as 5% {generally in line with the national. average}. However, we still experience some seasonal impacts that keeps our annual average rates in double digits, causing our annual average rates to still be higher that the state norm. The County's success in reducing our unemployment rate is due in no small part to the aggressive industrial development practices that the County and the municipalities within the County have undertaken. Along the Kings Highway Corridor Area, the Kings Highway Industrial Park, a 150 acre + development site, has been essentially built out. Just to the southwest of the subject site, construction is nearing completion on a new 50-acre industrial park at the intersection of North-Kings Highway and I-95. Industrial development operations at the nearby St. Lucie County International Airport, while effected by the nationwide downturn in the aviation industry, have renamed relatively stable and still provide fora substantial number of employment opportunities in the aviation and non-aviation related industry. Although the County has seen significant increase in our overall economic health, the County has been advised through several real estate relocation advisors and the local economic development council that we lack acreage sites that could be used for industrial development purposes. -The required acres sites are considered to be 5, 10, 20 or larger parcels that can be used by one user for manufacturing or distribution purposes. The proposed conversion of the subject parcel to industrial Land Use would provide an opportunity for an acreage tract to be made available for industrial purposes that has water and sewer services adjacent to it and acceptable transportation access. Policy 1.1.4.2: Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner, which does not place an unanticipated economic burden upon the services and facilities of St. Lucie County. June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 5 File Number:- PA-03-001 The proposed amendment would not result in an unanticipated economic burden upon St. Lucie County. Central water and sanitary sewer facilities are available from Ft. Pierce Utility Authority existing lines along the south side of Angle Road. Although, not currently funded the widening of North Kings Highway is part of the County's Long Range Transportation Plan. (See comments below} OBJECTIi/E 1.1.5: In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development within the Planned Urban Service Area shall be directed to areas where urban and community services/facilities can be provided in the most efficient and compact manner so as to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The proposed amendment directs industrial development activities into areas of the county already serviced, at least in part, with urban services such as water and sewer, pursuant to this . Objective. Urban sprawl is discouraged by the proposed amendment's location in the urban service area and its close proximity to facilities and services. Development under the proposed amendment would likely consist of general industrial uses consistent with those found to the north of the subject tract. Policy 1.1.12.1: Restrict higher densities and intensities of development to urban service areas, where public facilities are available. The existing COM Future Land Use designation and the proposed IND designation both allow high intensity development. The subject property is located within the designated Urban Service Area where public facilities and services -are available to serve this property. The subject site is complaint with this policy. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. Policy 2.1.1: The St. Lucie County transportation system shall be reviewed in coordination with any requested changes to the Future Land use Element or other related component of this plan. A report on the impacts to the system brought about by any proposed land use changes shall be prepared and presented to the Board of County Commissioners as part of the review of that Land Use change. The St. Lucie County Metropolitan Planning Organization staff has indicated the requested change in land use appears to be consistent with the land use assumptions used in the development of the St. Lucie MPO 2025 Transportation Plan. Within the projected impact area of the subject site, the only transportation corridor that wauld appear to be significant{y impacted by this land se plan amendments would be the Kings Highway Corridor. Under the 2025 Transportation Plan, impacts from this specific parcel were not calculated. The MPO at the time of the development of this plan, the MPO did not use a parcel specific trip generation calculation, as is now being encouraged by the Department of Transportation. Instead we use the standard general TAZ impact assessments to determine broad transportation system impacts. Because the granting of a land use map amendment is considered to be a "preliminary development order", no specific transportation improvements are to be required as part of this application for land use change. However, as we have noted, June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 6 File Number: PA-03-001 we except that there will be impacts to be addressed as part of any development proposals. These impacts will include at a minimum, the conveyance of necessary right-of-way to provide for the planned ultimate section needs for North Kings Highway and Angle Road; adjacent roadway improvements to be determined based on the actual development at the time of the consideration of any "final development orders" for this property. Currently the Florida department of transportation has not included nay funding for the identified improvement needs to North Kings way. Kings highway, north and south, is identified in the needs plan of the 2025 transportation plan. The FDOT has competed a preliminary planning study for this corridor, but has not identified any sources. The project, in its entirety, is not a part of the current cost feasible plans for the 2025 transportation plan. Since the State apparently is not in a position to provide funding assistance for this corridors improvement, the County will have to take a lead role in encouraging State funding participation or simply doing the projects itself. The specific needs for any transportation improvements would be addressed as part of the review of any final development order for the subject site. Policy 2.1.2.2: Review all proposed developments for consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of this plan and require coordination of traffic circulation plans and improvements with land use, right-of--way and infrastructure plans before development approval. Traffic circulation plan shall address the mitigation of all potential project impacts on the roadway system. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has completed a PD&E Design process to widen Kings Highway (SR 713) from the existing two Pane rural roadway to a four lane divided highway. This improvement is proposed within the St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Transportation Plan, however currently not funded. Roadway capacity and Level of Service analyses indicate that the proposed change in land use will have minimal affects upon the primary affected segments. An analysis of any future development proposals traffic distribution on segments within atwo-mile radius will be required before any final development approval; however, indications are that development of the proposed amendment would have minima! impacts an the arterial and collector roads within the two-mile radius. HOUSING ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT _ The applicant has provided documentation that water and sewer service is available. Prior to any Final Development Order for the property the applicant must obtain a Certificate of Capacity, which demonstrates sufficient capacity in these services exists to serve the property. • Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element The proposed amendment has bean determined not to conflict with this sub-element. The subject property is within the Fort Pierce Utility Authority's Service area. Prior to any final June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 7 File Number: PA-03-001 development order approvals, the .applicant would need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity is available to service the project. The applicant has received written confirmation that capacity would be available from the Fort Pierce Utility Authority to service the property. The petitioner will be obligated to extend all required service lines to the property. • Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment is not in conflict with this sub-element and would not reduce the Level of Service standards for the County's solid waste facility as set forth by Policy 66.1.1.1. The County's Solid .Waste facility currently has a 37-year capacity based upon current usage. • Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with this sub-element. In accordance with Objective 6C.1.4.2 of this element, all development will be conditioned on the availability of services necessary to maintain the level of service standards for stormwater set forth in Policy 6C.1.1.2. Objective 6C.3.2 requires development to protect the functions of natural groundwater recharge areas. Prior to development taking place the project will also require an Environmental Resource Permit from the South Florida Water Management District. • Potable Water Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this sub-element. The subject property is within the Fort Pierce Utility Authority's service area. The applicant has received written confirmation that central water service would be available from Fort Pierce Utility Authority to service the subject property. Prior to any Final Development Order approvals, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that sufficient capacity is available to service the project. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. The subject site is not located within any high hazard coastal planning area. CONSERVATION ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. Goal 8.1: The natural resources of St. Lucie County shall be protected, appropriately used, or conserved in a manner which maximizes their function, and values. The subject property contains tittle native vegetation. No adverse impacts on the natural environment are anticipated, as development on this site is not expected to impact the County's natural resources. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 8 File Number: PA-03-001 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 element. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. 11.1.1.28: The County shall continue to require new development to meet level of service standards for both on and off-site improvements, including local streets, water and sewer connection lines, Stormwater management facilities and open space. The applicant of the proposed Future Land Use Amendment has signed a Concurrency Deferral Affidavit that defers the reservation of capacity in public facilities until a later time. The Affidavit states "St. Lucie County can make no guarantee that adequate public facilities will be available when I apply for the Final Development Order" and that "the issuance of a preliminary development order without a Certificate of Capacity creates no vested or other rights to .develop the subject property." A Certificate of Capacity will be obtained before the issuance any final development orders for development of this property. Policy 11.1.4: No right to obtain final development order, nor any other rights to develop (B)(3)(b) the subject property have been granted or implied by the County's approval of the preliminary development order without determining the capacity of public facilities. A Certificate of Capacity demonstrating sufficient public facilities are available to support any future development proposal must be obtained before a final development order is issued. ECONOMIC 12.2.1.1: Develop an area-wide land use plan that will increase opportunities for business and industry consistent with smart growth principles. The applicant states that the market shows increasing demands for available industrial sites between 5-10 acres in St. Lucie County, which is currently under supply. All light industrial lots in the nearby Kings Highway Industrial Park are sold or under contract. The applicant states that the purpose of the Future Land Use change is to develop the property as a light industrial subdivision. - _ The County's Economic Development Division staff has indicated they are not able to fill the request of individuals looking for parcels within fight industrial park subdivisions. 12.2.1.3: Identify locations for and encourage development of economic clusters for business and industry that would benefit from being located near related industries in the area. The subject property is within the area of existing and proposed industrial uses. June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 9 File Number: PA-03-001 CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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 Ptan, 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: LAND USE 187.201(16), FS: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those 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. With adequate buffering from adjacent residential uses and oversight of industrial materials and solvents that would be detrimental to adjacent .waters, the proposed amendment can be expected not to adversely affect the quality of life in the immediately surrounding area. The subject property is located. in an area of industrial and commercial activities with scattered residential and agricultural uses also found in the area. With adequate buffering of future residential uses to the east, light industrial activities on the subject property is not expected to adversely affect the surrounding area and natural resources. The proposed amendment is located in an urbanized area that continues to receive significant public improvements to support the growing commercial and industrial centers locating in the area. Currently, significant capacity exists to serve the proposed amendment area and not reduce the existing Level of Service of public facilities. The following specific goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan apply to this amendment: WATER RESOURCES,187.201(8), FS: Addresses the maintenance of the quality and quantity of ground and surface water natural resources. The proposed amendment is not incompatible with existing local and regional water supplies and protection measures for the ground and water natural resources. Any final development order would require the concurrence of the South Florida Water Management District. NATURAL SYSTEMS AND RECREATIONAL LANDS ,187.201(10), FS: Addresses the protection, acquisition~nd restoration of unique natural habitats and ecological systems. The project lands consist of an existing orange grove with little or no native vegetation. Development of the property for industrial purposes can occur without negative impacts to the County's natural systems. PUBLIC FAGILITIES,187.201(18}, FS: Promotes the .protection of existing public facilities and the timely, orderly, and efficient provision of new facilities. June 10, 2003 Petition: J17 Investment Company, LLC Page 10 File Number: PA-03-001 The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers this policy because it would maximize use of the existing and proposed public facilities. TRANSPORTATION,187.201(20), FS: Directs future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and promotes an intermodal transportation system. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers this goal. An analysis of the impact of the proposed amendment on effected roadways has been provided. The subject site is located adjacent to a State Highway and in close proximity to the Interstate and Intrastate Highway Systems. Industrial Light uses will reduce vehicle miles for those industrial uses that access these highway systems and assists to develop the employment clusters that will assist with the development of a mass transit system. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The following are the primary regional goals and polices that apply to this petition: Strategy 1.1.2: Promote compatibility of urban areas, regional facilities, natural preserves and other open spaces. The proposed Future Land Use Amendment is not inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRRP) and would encourage the location of additional industrial development in an area where there are existing, vacant properties served by adequate infrastructure. The proposed amendment is compatible with, and complementary to the surrounding existing and future commercial and industria! land uses and dues not negatively affect any existing or approved development activities. Policy 8.1.1.1: All development should take place concurrent with or after the provision of necessary infrastructure and services. The proposed amendment would result in directing industrial development to a suitable location in the urbanized area of the County served by ample public facilities and services. The proposed amendment site is located in an area with the necessary water, wastewater and roadway capacity currently available. Future industrial uses would occur within close proximity to existing industrial employment sectors to facilitate -any future transit system and to provide convenient access to emergency evacuation routes. CONCLUSION ~ - - Based upon the information provided staff has found the proposed land use change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that they authorize transmittal of this amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. June 10, 2003 Petition: JIT Investment Company, LLC Page 11 File Number: PA-03-001 Attachment cc: County Administrator County Attorney 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 JIT INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COM (COMMERCIAL) TO IND (INDUSTRIAL), 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. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMM{SSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF JIT INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COM (COMMERCIAL} TO IND (INDUSTRIAL), BECAUSE . CITE REASON(S) WHY -PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] i i o Residential development shall be regulated by the intensity district in which it is to take i place. In no case should gross residential density exceed i 5 du/ac. o A11 uses shall be compatible with internal and external adjacent land uses. ~ I SPECIAL DISTRICT (SD) I 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 i 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 i 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 i 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 those existing developed commercial areas. Future commercials i areas should be located at points of high transportation access, with specific action taken to prevent-the development of new linear commercial strips. i Although this plan supports the location of higher intensity 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 an the future land use maps, applications for commercial use should be done in conjunction with a detailed review of the impacts of such development on adjacent property, specifically noting what, if any, negative neighborfiood impacts could result. The Commercial (COM) designation is intended to accommodate all 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 use designation is intended to be implemented through both the heavy - - and light industrial zoning districts, with the specific criteria for zoning application as provided for under the policies of the Future Land Use Element. Under{ine is for add'Rion st~iiEe-t#~et~t~ 'rf for deletion St. Lucie County Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan 1-31 Adoption: March 5, 2002 i i f o 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 dulac. o All uses shall be compatible with internal and external adjacent land uses. ~ I SPECIAL DISTRICT (SD) I 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 i 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 Distract, are limited to what the i current land use designation authorizes. Any increase over the present designation may be considered only through the Plan Amendment process. i COMMERCIAL (COM} The Commercial (COM) land use designation is applicable to areas of future commercial ~ development, in addition to chose existing developed commercial areas. Future commercials areas should be located at points of high transportation access, with specific action taken to ~ prevent the development of new linear commercial strips. Although this plan supports the location of higher intensity 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 use maps, applications for commercial use should be done in conjunction with a detailed review of the impacts of such development on adjacent property, specifically noting what, if any, negative neighborhood impacts could result. The Commercial (COM) designation is intended to accommodate all 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 (1ND) This land use designation is applied to specific areas of the County identified- as-sr~itable gor industrial use. This land use designation is intended to be implemented through..both the heavy and light industria! zoning districts, with the specific criteria for zoning application as provided for under the policies of the Future Land Use Element. Underline is for addition st~i4~e-H~ret~~ if for deletion St. Lucie County Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan 1-31 Adoptan: March 5, 2002 i i . Areas designated for Industrial activities must have available all necessary services and facilities i ' prior to development, supplied by either public or private sources as permitted. In addition, developments proposing to incorporate heavy industrial uses will be required to be adequately buffered from any adjacent use that would be incompatible. ~ I PUBLIC FACILITIES (PIF1 I The Public Facilities (PIF) land use designation is applied to properties used for such activities as education and places of worship. This designation may also be applied to other public uses i such as jails and administrative buildings. TRANSPORTATIONJUTILITIES (TIU) ~ The purpose of this district is to recognize the Transportation or Utility use of property. This i designation may be applied as appropriate subject to review of the specific application and intended use of the property. i The TransportatioNUtilities (T/U) land use designation has been applied principally to four areas: ~ 1) St. Lucie County International Airport; i 2) The St. Lucie County Landfill; ~ 3} The St. Lucie Power Plant site located on South Hutchinson Island; and, 4) The Florida Power and Light -Midway switching station along West Midway Road. HISTORIC (H} The Historic (H) land use designation is applied to properties of historic significance as identified by the national historic register, Or State of Florida. CONSERVATION The Conservation land use designation has been divided into two categories: ResidentiaUConservation {R/C) and Conservation-Public (Cpub). These_ designations -axe _ intended to identify areas of the County which exhibit unique _ or ,special environmental - characteristics, and may be either publicly or privately.held. The designations are described in more detail below. Underline is for addition at~+~l~ 'rf for deletion St. Lucie County Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan t-32 Adoption: March 5, 2002 I I ~ U ~ ~ J _ ~ `Oei~~" i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L f1'~ i W \ ~ • ~U N~ rc v~ p M YIW-N3lW ~ ~3 ~ ' 1 ~0 Y ~ _ J ~ ~ d ~ ~ = ~ W ~OxL?v' W o t ~ ~ ~~7?q ! ~ ~ ~ ?y3ovrno~ ~ Y~ rys~v f__ _ " ~,L``l~'opA 4 v° C ~ . a Y ~ ~ y, ' ~xucs i is d d ,p: ow MNi oefxtu77s "t rues •a. h i' Y ~ i ~ - . y W1BtiWniiL- WOY~A11110 YOL~I ~ pA17 a,l~ ~ t fit s~ £It s1rY ~ - - A i W "]M7AY ~Y6S(13e3 ~ O. - W .1$MIOP ( - _QMOY OYM73100y OrOtl \7~n O ~ O~Otl N1eKg0YY _ Z I~ ~ ~f O / \ CMOY I/I.K O !1'C " QIOY 7lOWWOYl xnua~; ww.~ ~ Yx0~13Y a W ~ i ~ d 91.O~Ox 117f11 W I ~ 1 ~ Q n YoaiYn g ~ i 8 - croY o3iws i I q i it Q ~ K-~ tru'~ l ~ - r ~ - ltlNtl ~ i I ~ ~ W W / ~ ~p n ~iI r+ i ~ ~ ~ V , u / y. I S YL 1 S Sf 1 S 9F 1 1~i.N(ld~ 3380Hd33~i0 ~~bo i i z ~ Q i U ~ ~gg C N C U / ~ N O ~ ~ ~ m ~ ; 5 ~p ~ ~ O v y ~ V {C Nuo~ ~O~N'M'l'S'N ~ ~ ~ ~ s a i vii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i cv i ~ - - ~ i J LL ~ I N C ~ c U ~.V 4 L Vl /4~ fJ V J J Q, 3ZC'oN N~ ~ '0'w'M'1'S'N ~(GMy ~ a u!N ClL 'tl'S pooa ~apaa,~ a~duinl a{o{$ agyaun5 M N 0 u M'M' 'S~N ~ U ~ _ a~ N ~ U_ C - ~ 8 ~ " s - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ i i ~z - ~ ~ ~ Q p o. ~ ' . N 0 ~fl.. U N p ~ o- v ~ cn ..Q ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o Q QU _ u- • - r - J ~ r , L1+ i i i ~~~i ~ ~ ~ s U ~ T !E~! ~ ~ ~ 3L~~; D y~ a'~py~ tf '0N pW~ '0'W'M'l'S'N ~ ~ ~ ~y s m U J J i` ~ ~ ~ ~ O U v ~ 4 ~ ~ z ~ z -f--i u W 3Lf '0N p ~ 'U'NI'M'TS'N Lowµ !H s wH ftt '2i'S pooa ~a0aaj a~Eu~nl 01015 a~WS 5 M N u M' ,S_N ~ CLS U ~ ~ $ N ~ D _ O N U ~ O Q 8 ~ o. ~ ~ D r ~ a ~ ..C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v r . o~-- , r r y ~ n Z T N ,i ~g~ ~ ~ $ Q ~ ~ •r + a E U 1 ~ ~ p b/ ~y I£'WJ pu~~ '0'N'M'TS'N ~ ~ a ~;i a }}f Q 1~ ~ U r , ~ Q Q 0 U ~ 4 cv ~ cv > 3L£'oN ~ 'U'w'M'1'S'N Ro*y ~y L wH £IL 'N'S pooa ~ipaa~ ax~du,n~ a~o~s auysunS r ~ _ M N OYY'M' 'S'N ~ V U_ Q - ~ - 8 ~ U .b # - a a~ U O ~ _ ~ ~ _ gg i ~ - - - ~ Q a r O Q V N GJ` ~ f- cn ~r - rJ o- ~ C _ ~c- N LL i i 1 d M4 _ - R~_il Ut) f) . .W ^ ~ ~ Y ,~,.i 'g=el ~>J .N Y" f. ~.i _ `=I ~Ei11 • ;F ~~~''I:~Z,.~l ~f}w ~.~c~i~t+s. ~ SSS99¦LLp ; 5 ~ ~ i tt y~~,,.. ~ , `j1 y l '"Yt #~4~ RI" ' U _ j , 8 w. . .1 J tt ~ ~ ~ ~ cL~ ~ r i ~2. i O C - _ ~ - ~ s_t c4r ~ ~x~` ; - _r ~ K .(ty' 1 I ~ i ••*C f { } s .r _ f s`s. f r rf t 3~F. ~ ~ r t f s i i~ .~rE• ~+k~~ ~ V z:.ljE L= ~ ~ i t Ct S ~ ~ 'C 4. ` i ~ V~/ V ~ ' ~ / O _ .4 w f /V''\ AGENDA -PLANNING & Z©NING COMMISSION y~G~E CpG ~ June I9, 2003 ~ ~ ~ 7:00 P.M. F~ ORIOQ' JIT INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from COM {Commercial) to IND (Industrials for the following described property: Location: Southeast corner of Kings Highway and Angle Road. Please note that all proceedings before. the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing 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 hettring will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners June 6, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie Count.,y, on Tune 4, 2003. File No. PA-02-005 - 0,~.~.0 h ~i~ N~~ O N'M 0~:,-• N OO:~F ~i' _ M;b d' ~ O N1~, M N O ~'`:p,[~:tt M N tt d' : M'. ~":M O M ~'M N_M O .-+1N M:M ~1 M•M;. ~n v) O ; oo ; d• ~t : mot' ~D . O , oo O i LL '01 ~ V O\~ D\'~. O~. d'~M.O~oO - lV `M M M M MM~M~M~M~M M i d • ! - i{ ~~w'4aa a s aiaa aka a aa•a~ara a a a if I~cn~fw;w,w w wlwiw w~w,w w,w,w;w;w'¢ w w, i. M ii O~~ ~ ~ ~ . :I C i y; Nl ~ U. ~ J. .S: .r. ~W' v v GYa~ caf ~ v; ~ v ~ .o ~ ~ ~ ~~~•q ,0.1 ~,aaa a. a. aa.:a as Ya.'a • o o.o ~:o o(~ o 0 0 ~s.o 0 0 0 i :.U;3;w w w 3,>;w~w>,w;ww:aw~w'x w w _ ~ - ~ N b . ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ x ~ c~;~:z: o ~~~:z 3,.x;3 ~ ~ z c~ ;'O OM!o00'O;~ OMrNO~lN~I000 OOOj~'•000~0'VO~(N~•'U ~ . rQ -MoO•N'Pr Mid'NiNir+,N~~D.~-+:M.M•N..~_~.~-+, ~j ~ - ~ a 'a,~ z. Hr~ac7' V M i', ~ U' U' U. ~ 1' ~ ~ ~ o ~z as-a:~. o • ii :r !N,. ij ~ ~ ~ ~ if o eta' ~ o ~ o' o U a - ',a ea U ~ ii ~ j ° c ; u. ~ ~ w f': ~ o a f; ~ > :a ;a ; E~ ~ a I~ p H ~ ca 'C ' y ~ ' w C7 ~ C7 x C7 .d c ; co 0 !Z vwi'c~;.5_:~ rwnja~,zx O~'ld~~;v~.~'z,x ~ ti d ~ - !i p Qw ~ ioOO~N!M Nia\j0\+thih Nr~O?M OOiO~ N N~d' O!O;O;OrO+OIp OO O O O.O;O:O Oi0:0 ~~y,,, p .-~!O O'O:O O;O~O~O;Oi O'O;O O O:O p br , OOf00:0~0~0~0(O.O S:O,OiO O O!O • r-+ O~-"(O, h'N MIO h!.r .-riMld'.01M M:d':.-y y i „o~o•oi.-~ofo o oio O;o~o!--~ o;ofo p ( O O'O'O O OSO O O~OfO`Oi0 0 O Of0 ~ a I CIO O(O!OIO OIC O Oi0~0!O;OOiO`O'Oi+-+'j pp I A~ ' M M j .r j N M M t M N i .-r ~ .-i ..r ; ~ .r j r.+ f~M d'fM M M Mlet M M!O~Ot0;0!O•~ ~?rl" ~ p' M d' M M M M M NI~O ~Or~O ~O~'~O r"'~r' U{ ~ ~ I ~ ~ V1 ~Q ~D lp ~p ~p .r .r ~ R .r ~ N N C N ~ ~ p"' NCO ~ (M MiM M M M M O O~O O~OfOiO O OIO~ ~ d ~ M Mt M M M Mll M M M M MIIM MiMfM MiI M A ~ JfE"~ ~`_"_'-!.I~" ^"1.~ N N~N~NiNf_N~NLN.-N.`N~-¢y~ ' PLANNING AND r ZONING COMMISSION ( ~ PUBLIC HEARING t AGENDA lone 19, 2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County fond Development Code and the provisions of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, the following applicants fwve requested that the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission consider their following requests: I. JIT INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC" for a Change in Future Land Use Clossificotion From COM (Commercial) to IND (InduslrioQ for the following described properly: LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 0, LESS THE WEST TO FEET OF LOT B MARTIN'S SUBDIVISION OF THEN 1/2 Of THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST, ACCORDWG TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 46 Of THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, fLOR10A, LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF LOTS b, 7, AND 8, CONVEYED ~ IN DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 270, PAGE 1251, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS Of ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE fOLtOWiNG DESCRIBED PARCEL: A PORTION Of LAND LYING IN LOTS 8 AND T OF ~ ~ SAID MARTIN'S SUBDIVISION, BEING MORE PARTICU- ' LARLY DESCRIBED AS fOllOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SECTION ~ 1, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST; THENCE S 0'28"42°E 213.96 FEET ALONG THE WEST ItNE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE N 89'31"18°E 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING; THENCE S 0'28"42°E 358.42 FEET ALONG A LINE 70.00 FEET EASTERLY OF, ANO PARALELL WITH, THE WEST LINE OF SAID SEC- TION 1; THEN N 89'31"18°E 350.00 FEET; THENCE N 00'26"42°W 425.05 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE Of THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 270, PAGE 1251, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORI- DA; THENCE 5 83'38"29°W 323.91 FEET ALONG SAID ~ SOUTH L: JE; THENCE S 39'17"40°W 43.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Location: SE corner of Kings Highway vnd Angle Road. 2. GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC., for o Change in Future Lond Use Clossificotion from RE (Residential Estate) fo RU Ilf (Residential Urban) for the following desuibed property: BEING_ THE SOUTH ONE-HALf OF THE NORTHEAST ' ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, fLORIDA LESS THE SOUTH 830.00 FEET TO THE EAST 1550.00 , FEET THEREOF, ALSO LESS RIGHT-OF-WAYS. Location; Northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue. 3. BECKER HOLDING CORPORATION, for o Change in Future Lond Use Clossificotion from RS (Residential Subur- ban) to RU (Retidentiol Urban) for the following desuibed property: SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 35, RANGE 40, THAI PART OF THE SOUTHERN 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4, LYING SOUTHERLY OF CANAL 71 (TEN MILE CREEK) ANO WESTERLY OF SEIYITZ ROAD ANO THE NORTHERN 1/2 Of THE SOUTHEAST 1 f4, LYING WESTERLY OF SELVITZ AND RALLS ROADS AND SOUTHERLY OF CANAL 71 (TEN M1lE CREEK) ANO THE NORTHERN 50 FEET Of THE NORTHERN 1/2 Of THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 (72.62 AC), (OR BOOK , AND PAGE NUMBER 495.2541). - - location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Selvifz _ _ - .Rood ord Rolis Road. - PUBLIC HEARINGS wi8 be held in Commission Chambers, Roger Poitras Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, florida on tune 19, 2003, beginning at 7:00 P.M. or os soon thereaher as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if a _ person decides to appeal any decision mode by a board, agency, or commission with respell to any matter consid- ered al a meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and tfiat, for such purposes, he may need To ensure +hot a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA f S/ Ed Merritt, CHAIRMAN Pabtish: Lune d, 2003 2714359 Local Planning Agency Review: 06/19/03 r rite ~.d ~ li f' ~ i File Number PA-03-002 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Planning Manager DATE: June 4, 2003 _ SUBJECT: Application of Glassman Holdings, LLC, for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RE (Residential Estate - 2 du/ac) to RU (Residential Urban - 5 dulac) and movement of the Urban Service Boundary Line approximately 1,050 feet to the west to incorporate the parcel. LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue. CURRENT FUTURE LAND RE (Residential Estate - 2 du/ac) USE DESIGNATION: PROPOSED FUTURE LAND RU (Residential Urban - 5 du/ac) USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/ac) PROPOSED ZONING: PUD (Planned Unit Development) PARCEL SIZE: 47.96 acres PROPOSED USE: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND RE (Residential Estate) to the south, north and west: RU - - USE DESIGNATIONS: (Residential Urban) and COM (Commercial) to the east, and COM (Commercial) to the south. SURROUNDING ZONING AG-1 (Agricultural-1 du/acre) to and I (Institutional) to the DESIGNATIONS: north. AG-1 (Agricultural -1 du/ac) to west.) IX (industrial, Extraction) to the east. AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/ac) and RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/ac) to the south. June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 2 File Number: PA-03-002 SURROUNDING EXISTING: To the west/northwest are old citrus groves. To the north is large lot/tract residential. To the east (east side of Emerson Avenue) is a county park site and a pending residential development to be known as Emerson Green PUD UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is located within the North County Utility District service Of The St. Lucie County Utility Department. The Utility's Master Plan for this area proposes to provide- water and sewage service within the five-year plan. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY The existing road right-of-way for Indrio Road (S.R. 614) is ADEQUACY: 80 feet in width. The existing right-of-way width for Emerson Avenue (S.R. 607) is 85 feet in width. Additional right-of-way will be .required as part of any final development order/plan review on this property. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. DOCUMENT REQUIRED: COMMENTS: The Glassman Holdings, LLC, is requesting a change in the future land use designation for a 47.96-acre parcel located just north and west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban). The existing future land use designation allows for residential uses at 2 dwelling units per acre or a total of 96 dwelling unit. Approval of the proposed change to RU will allow a maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre or 240 total dwelling units. ~ - _ - _ The stated purpose of the requested change in future land use is to develop the property for single family residential uses through the County's Planned Unit Development process. The applicant has submitted a concurrent application for a Planned Unit Development that provides for 140 single-family units in a manner that maintains a .46-acre wetland and provides a 2.43- acre passive recreation area. A change in the Future Land Use designation is required to allow the applicant to seek a change in zoning from the subject property's existing AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/ac) zoning classification to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The PUD application June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 3 File Number: PA-03-002 package includes a Traffic Impact Report and an Environmental Impact Report, which were utilized to evaluate the proposed Future Land Use amendment. The proposed future land use amendment is a preliminary development order and does not imply that any specific development scen an occur on the property but allows the developer to ro erty for 'ndustrial uses. No right to obtain a final development order, or any other rights to develop the subject prope y have been granted or implied by the County if the proposal is approved. Prior to the issuance of any final development order the ~ developer must demonstrate that all public facilities are available to service the parcel and a Certificate of Capacity must be obtained. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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. The following sections addresses the proposed amendments consistency with each of these plans respectively: 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 County Comprehensive Plan are the primary components applicable to this petition. The following is an element-by-element evaluation of the proposed amendment: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. Surrounding future land use classifications are RE (Residential Estate) to the north and west, RU (Residential Urban) to the east, and COM (Commercial) to the south. The future land use classification of RU allows residential densities of up to 5 units per gross acre and some limited commercial uses. The existing Urban Service Boundary (USA) Line is adjacent to the subject site. Approval of this amendment will-extend the USA 1,050 feet to the west of the subject site. This will not extend the US~of any other parcel in the County. Approval of the proposed amendment would result in residential development that is compatible with the medium density residential areas to the east. The site's frontage along two major roadways will provide easy access to the existing commercial uses at the intersection of Kings Highway and Indrio Road. This should encourage short vehicle trip lengths, thereby reducing the vehicle miles on State and County roadways. OBJECTIVE 1.1.5: In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development within the Planned Urban Service Area shall be directed to areas where urban and community services/facilities can. be provided in the most efficient and compact manner so as to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 4 Fife Number: PA-03-002 The proposed amendment discourages sprawl, pursuant to this Objective, and Section 9J- 5.006(b)(7}, FAC. Urban sprawl is discouraged by the proposed amendment's location adjacent to the existing urban service boundary and its close proximity to urban facilities and services. The proposed RU Future Land Use class cation would allow for the development of medium density residential dwelling units, institutional and neighborhood commercial uses. If developed through the PUD process as proposed, the units would be clustered in order to promote the efficient provision of services and to provide on-site open space and recreation. The commercial needs of the project residents would be served by nearby existing and proposed commercial establishments. The subject site is bordered on the east by Emerson Road, a County collector roadway, and on the south by an Indrio Road, an arterial roadway that is proposed for widening in the County's Five Year Transportation Improvement Program. The amendment sites location on Indrio Road will. allow direct access to this major arterial and emergency evaluation route that connects to I- 95. The proposed amendment will not result in any unacceptable reduction in the LOS standards on any of these arterials. Sufficient water and wastewater capacity is also available from the North County Utility District to accommodate the 240 dwelling units that would be allowed under the proposed amendments maximum density. Policy 1.1.5.7: No urban development activity shall be permitted outside of the Planned Urban Service Area that does not address all of its community infrastructure impact, both on-site and off-site. All development outside the Urban Service Area shall pay the entire cost of its fiscal impacts on public facilities and services. The proposed amendment would not result in an unanticipated economic burden upon St: Lucie County. North County Utility District is owned and operated by St. Lucie County. The District's Five Year Plan proposes to extend water and wastewater lines along Indrio Road adjacent to the subject site. Representatives have indicated that central water and wastewater service will be available to serve the site. Prior to development of the site, a Certificate of Capacity indicating that all adequate infrastructure services are available is required. Central water and sanitary sewer facilities required for any future development proposal along with stormwater, roadway, and other public facilities are the responsibility of the developers and not the local government. Objective 1.1.5.8: The Planned Urban Service Area is not intended to be a static line of development. This area may be extended or contract only for a residential classification up to 1,500 feet from that which is indicated on Figure 1-9 without necessitation an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan where the urban service area lies contiguous to a residential classification, the owner of contiguous property can ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure and services, and the resulting change does not detrimentally impact the established character of the area. St. Lucie County shall be responsible for maintaining an updated map indicating the location of the approved Planned Urban Service boundary and once every two years include as part of its Comprehensive Plan amendment process, the latest Urban Service Area Map. The- proposed amendment site is located within 1,500 feet of the designated Urban Service Area, and public facilities and services would be available to serve the development of this June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 5 File Number: PA-03-002 property. The amendment meets -the above po{icy that allows a 1,500-foot extension of the Urban Service Areas for residential classifications. Both the existing RE and the proposed RU Future Land Use designations are residential classifications. The subject property is contiguous to RE (Residential Estate) designation to the north and west. A portion of the amendment site's eastern boundary is contiguous (across Emerson Avenue) to RU (Residential Urban) designated property. In general the proposed amendment is consistent with sound planning principles and the County's goals, objectives, and policies for the following reasons: • It provides for the logical extension of the USA to provide more compact residential development compatible with those found in northern St. Lucie County; and • It will provide moderately dense residential development in close proximity to shopping opportunities; and • Water and wastewater services are proposed for expansion; and • Indrio Road is planned for widening; and • The amendment area is within 2 miles of a public elementary school and proposed regional park. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT Policy 2.1.1: The St. Lucie County transportation system shall be reviewed in coordination with any requested changes to the Future Land use Element or other related component of this plan. A report on the impacts to the system brought about by any proposed land use changes shall be prepared and presented to the Board of County Commissioners as part of the review of that Land Use change. The applicant has provided a Traffic Statement as part of the Future Land Use amendment application. An updated report will be required before any final development order approval is obtained. At a minimum, turn lane improvements will be required at any development access point and left turn improvements and signalization at the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Road and Indrio Road and Johnston Road may be required. The proposed future land use change is a preliminary development order and as such does not imply that the required public services, including roadway capacity will be available to service the subject site. The proposed RU Future Land Use designation would result in the potential to develop an additional 143 dwelling units resulting in an additional 353 .persons (143 X 2.47} and 1,361 vehicle trips per day. The maximum number of residential trips under the existing and proposed Future Land Use designation was distributed on the affected roadways segments as proposed within the applicants Traffic Statement. These were added to the existing volumes on each roadway link within the study area to determine the effective Volume/Capacity Ratio of the proposed amendment. As shown below, the Capacity and LOS analyses indicate that the proposed change in land use will not reduce the level of service upon the affected segments if June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 6 File Number: PA-03-002 development occurred at this time. The project's traffic distribution on segments within atwo- mi{e radius will be required before any final development order approval. Level of Service was determined using the FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, LOS Table 4-1 (2002) for both the maximum development under the existing and proposed Future Land Use designations. The results are summarized below: Roadway Link 2002 Volume/Capacity - Volume/Capacity - Volume/LOS LOS RE FLU LOS RU FLU Development Development Indrio Road 067/ C of Kin s H 11,700 12, 12,615/C Indrio Road (W of Emerson 7,567/C 8,115/C Ave 7,200 Emerson Avenue (North of Indrio 5,283/C 5,557/C Rd 5,100 HOUSING ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. A Certificate of Capacity showing all necessary infrastructure will be available is required prior to obtaining any Final Development Order. Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this sub-element. A portion of the proposed amendment is adjacent to the County's .Urban Service Area and within the utility service area as determined in the St. Lucie Utility Master Plan. Sanitary Sewer _ service will be provided from the North County Waste Water Treatment Plant that is currently - operating at 65°!o capacity and is under design for expansion. The St. Lucie County Utility Master Plan proposed to provide a 12" force main and a 12" water main in the five-year period to be located in the Indrio Road right-of way. The North County Utilities District Service currently has- capacity to service the maximum number of dwelling units under the proposed RU designation. Prior to any final development order approvals, the applicant would need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity is available to service the project. June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 7 File Number: PA-03-002 Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment is not in conflict with this element. The County's Solid Waste facility currently has a 37-year capacity based upon current usage and would have sufficient capacity to service the maximum density of the proposed Future Land Use amendment and not reduce the LOS standards for the County's solid waste facility as set forth by Policy 66.1.1.1. Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element The proposed amendment does not conflict with this sub-element. The amendment .site is within the Fort Pierce Farms Drainage District and served by the Fort Pierce Canal No. 7. Stormwater treatment will be provided on site with a discharge overflow into Canal No. 7. Post development discharge will be equal to the pre-development discharge. Any future development of the site will require natural drainage features to be maintained and a stormwater management system to be provided in accordance with the County's land development code and permitting requirements of the- South Florida Water Management District. Potable Water Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. The residential units will be served by the North County Utility District, which currently operates at approximately 70% of capacity. Expansion of the water plant is currently underway to increase the available capacity. Prior to any final development order approvals, the applicant would need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity is available to service the project. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. CONSERVATION ELEMENT Goal 8.1: The natural resources of St. Lucie County shall be protected, appropriately used, or conserved in a manner which maximizes their function, and values. The amendment site consistent of - a fallow citrus grove- and pastureland with limited native vegetation. Residential development on the site can occur with little or no impact to the remaining natural resources. The site consists of one .46 acre isolated wetland and one 2.03 acre man made wetland. These wetlands will be protected by the local and state wetland protection standards that require their protection unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed activities cannot be located on the upland portion of the site. Adequate disturbed upland lands are available to accommodate the maximum number of units allowed under the RU Future Land Use designation without wetland impacts. June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 8 File Number: PA-03-002 The proposed Emerson Green PUD currently proposes to impact a small portion of a man made wetland with the isolated natural wetland being enhanced through exotic specie removal. The proposed development plan is currently under review by County staff. Prior to the authorization of any Final Development Order the PUD must comply with local and state wetland protection rules. No adverse impacts on the natural environment are anticipated. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. Policy 9.1.1.1: Level of Service for Recreation and Open Space shall be as follows: Community Parks: 5 acres11000 residents in the unincorporated area. Regional Parks: 5 acres/1000 residents countywide The proposed amendment would not result in a reduction in the LOS for recreation and open space. The additional 143 units would accommodate 352 persons resulting in an increased recreational demand of 1.77 acres. The proposed Emerson Green P.U.D. would incorporate a 2.53-acre recreation/preserve area into the single-family home project. The proposed development will also include sidewalks on al! streets and bike paths on the project's collector road. The site is also within 2 miles of a proposed regional park that will assist to meet the recreational needs of future residents. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. Policy 11.1.28: The County shall continue to require new development to meet level of service standards for both on and off site improvements, including local streets, water and sewer connection tines, stormwater management facilities, and open space. Sufficient capacity is expected to be available to service the proposed amendment site. Prior to the approval of any Final Development Order, a Certificate of Capacity must be obtained demonstrating that water, wastewater and roadway capacity is available to meet to developments needs. Policy 11.1.4: No right to obtain final development order, nor any other rights to develop (B)(3)(b) the subject property have been granted or implied by the County's approval of the preliminary development order without determining the capacity of public facilities. A Certificate of Capacity must be obtained before a final development order is issued. June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 9 File Number: PA-03-002 CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESOURCES 187.201 (7)(a) Goal: Florida shall assure the availability of an adequate supply of water for all competing uses deemed reasonable and beneficial and shall maintain the functions of natural systems and the overall present level of surface and ground water quality. Florida shall improve and restore the quality of waters not presently meeting water quality standards. The proposed amendment is not expected to reduce the quantity or quality of the areas water resources. The applicant has proposed residential development through the PUD process that allows clustering of units to avoid impacts to on-site and off-site water resources. Any final development order would require the concurrence of the South Florida Water Management District. The previously cleared agricultural lands within the amendment site will provide sufficient lands for future residential development and associated infrastructure without impacting the on-site wetlands. NATURAL SYSTEMS AND RECREATIONAL LANDS 187.201 (9)(a) Goal: Florida shall protect and acquire unique natural habitats and ecological systems, such as wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks, palm hammocks, and virgin. longleaf pine forests, and restore degraded natural systems to a functional condition. The subject lands contain few natural areas and is not expected to result in the loss of natural habitats. LAND USE,187.201(16)(a) Goal: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those 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. The proposed amendment to the future land use classification is not expected to adversely affect the quality of life in the immediately surrounding area. The proposed amendment site is within an area with existing or proposed public facilities sufficient to support residential development. PUBLIC FACILITIES 187.201(18)(a)FS: Florida shat! protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. - - - The amendment would maximize the efficient use of the existing and proposed publid facilities in furtherance of this state goal. TRANSPORTATION 187.201(20)FS: directs future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and promotes an intermodal transportation system. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers this goal. An analysis of the impact of the proposed amendment on effected roadways has been provided. The proposed amendment June 10, 2003 Petition: Emerson Green Page 10 File Number: PA-03-002 lands are located adjacent to a State Highway that is proposed for widening to accommodate future growth. The increased density will assist in the development of an intermodal transportation system. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN Strategy 1.1.2: Promote compatibility of urban areas, regional facilities, natural preserves and other open spaces. The amendment is consistent with and furthers this goal. The proposed future land use change is compatible with and extends residential uses at similar densities located to the east. Urban facilities are available to service the site and additional public facilities are planned, including the widening of Indrio Road and the development of a regional park less than 2 miles north of the amendment area. The sites location is within two miles of an elementary and middle school, which would eliminate the need for busing many of the children that may reside in the proposed community. St. Lucie County Utilities would provide water and wastewater service to any future development on the proposed amendment site. Policy 8.1.1.1: All development should take place concurrent with or after the provision of necessary infrastructure and services. The proposed amendment site is located in an area with the necessary water, wastewater and roadway capacity current{y available and a regional open space and recreation area recently purchased by St. Lucie County. Development of residential units on the amendment site would provide housing units within close proximity to major roadways to facilitate any future transit system and to provide convenient access to emergency evacuation routes. CONCLUSION Based upon the .information provided staff has found the proposed land use change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment to not conflict with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. The proposed Future Land Use Classification change would allow slightly higher residential densities to occur within a growing area that contains the necessary infrastructure and services within close proximity to the amendment site. The amendments location within 1,500 foot of the existing Urban Service Area will result in extending the boundary line tc the western side of the - " - amendment site. ~ ~ - - Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that they authorize transmittal of this amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Attachment cc: County Administrator County Attorney 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 GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC, FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RE (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE) TO RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN), 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. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC, FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RE (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE) AND RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN}, - BECAUSE . CITE REASONS}WHY -PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] o All 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 activity other than crop or food product related production, including combinations of propertiesluses, in excess of 200 acres should be in conjunction with the 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 .20 units per gross acre (one (1) unit per 5 gross acres). AGRICULTURAL - 2.5 (AG-2.5) . The AG-2.5 land use designation is intended for those areas of the County outside of the planned urban service area which are associated with agricultural and agricultural-related activities. These areas are recognized for first being appropriate for the production of citrus, cash crops, or ranching activities. These areas are acknowledged as potentially suitable for limited residential development under the following criteria: o AI! residential development must be in accordance with applicable standards and restrictions as set forth in the Land Development Regulations; i o All 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 activity other than crop or food product related production, including combinations of propertiesJuses, in excess of 200 acres should be in conjunction with the establishment of a Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of.providing the necessary infrastncture facilities to support that development; and, o Residential densities are set at a maximum of .40 units per gross acre (one (1) unit per 2.5 gross acres). RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (RE) The Residential Estate (RE) 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 the western edge of .the urban form, but is also appropriate for areas of special environmental concern such as along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon. Underline is for addit'~on stfike-tl3rea~ 'rf for deletion St. Lucie County Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan 1-27 Adoption: March 5, 2002 I I The RE designation is intended for large lot, single-family detached residential dwellings, at a I 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. I The RE designation is acknowledged as potentially suitable for limited residential development under the following criteria: o Alf residential development must be in accordance with applicable standards and I restrictions as set forth in the Land Development Regulations; o All residential development proposals in excess of 10 units must be approved through I the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process as provided for in the Land Development Regulations; I o Any residential development in excess of 200 acres should be in conjunction with the I . establishment of a Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing the necessary infrastructure facilities to support I that development; and, o Residential densities are set at a maximum of one (1) unit per one (1) gross acre. I I RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS) I 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 the western edge of the urban form, but is also appropriate for areas of special environmental concern such as along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon. The RS designation is intended far 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 served with central utilities, however when at all 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 for a 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 Rroperties need to be serviced with central water and wastewater services.. These services. may be provided by either a public utility or through private on-site facilities, as would be permitted in accordance with all applicable regulations. New development in the RU areas car. occur using traditional single-family ormulti-family zoning designations or through the Planned Unit Development process. Underline is for addition st~iice-t#Fea~tr ff for deletion St. Lucie County Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan 1-29 Adoption: March 5, 2002 i i 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. I 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 i restrictions as set forth in the Land Development Regulations; o All 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 the i establishment of a Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing the necessary infrastructure facilities to support i that development; and, o Residential densities are set at a maximum of one (1) unit per one (1) gross acre. ~ RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS) The Residentia! 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 the western edge of the urban form, but is also appropriate for areas of special environmental concern such as along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River~and the Indian River Lagoon. The RS designation is intended for large tot, single-family detached residential dwellings, at a density of one to two units per gross acre. These areas are not required to be served with central utilities, however when at all 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 for a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per grass 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 and wastewater services. These services-may be provided by either a public utility or through private on-site facilities;. as would be.permitted in accordance with all applicable regulations. New development in the RU areas car, occur using traditional single-family ormulti-family zoning designations or through the Planned Unit Development process. Underline is for addition at~ilee-tf~re~~t'rf for deletion St. Lucie Gounty Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan 1-29 Adoption: March 5, 2002 i o Residential development shall be regulated by the intensity district in which it is to tae ~ ~ place. In no case should gross residential density exceed 15 du/ac. i o All uses shall be compatible with internal and external adjacent land uses. i i SPECIAL DISTRICT (SD} i 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 i 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 i - development. i 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 i considered only through the Plan Amendment process. i COMMERCIAL (COM} ~ The Commercial (COM) land use designation is applicable to areas of future commercial ~ development, in addition to chose existing developed commercial areas. Future commercials areas should be located at points of high transportation access, with specific action taken to ~ prevent the development of new linear commercial strips. Although this plan supports the Location of higher intensity 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 {and use maps, applications for commercial use should be done in conjunction with a detailed review of the impacts of such development on adjacent property, specifically noting what, if any, negative neighborhood impacts could result. The Commercial (COM) designation is intended to accommodate all commercial zoning districts as identified under St. Lucie County's Land Deve{apment Regulations- Office and general retail uses are considered the principal uses within the COM designated areas. INDUSTRIAL (1ND) This land use designation is applied to specific areas of the County identified as suitable fo? industrial use. This land use designation is intended to be implemented through both the heav}~- - and light industrial zoning districts, with the specific criteria for zoning application as provided for under the policies of the Future Land Use Element. Underline is for addition stye-t#~retx~t'rf for deletion St. Lucie County Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan t -31 Adoption: March 5, 2002 i _U_I z ~ J ~ I ~ ~ d O ~ N N Q o R K ~ ~ v\ p N w ~ ~~7NY M3IM] ffY ~ a ~ ~ 1£ / use .a" s° i e VO ~a u ~ 1 7 i Y`S of i ~ W sO ?,~CN W a b,ti3wrlw ~ rvs~Lf a1a- ~ o ~ 1~r la. ~ ~ r ~7Mrlio ~ ,~us~'~ W; v y ~ ~v static ~e w i ~ \ ~ C• ~ is 'd .y~'i5r. ~ ~,o°' is ~ ~ °u wviU °azlut;f ~atc 40 c ~ ~ . urt i ;v j ~ 1 - ..MtirMO~rT Crotl AanO wurt ~ ~ aim uy`~ TtC ar S~t+r tll ' 1h~' W W d113AY t10$y~r3 q 01 tn'Qtl tUlSM10r / ''O' - ~ ~ M ~ ° `Z7 ~ ~ 0 / W~,. dtr~3lBOr_- °i _ Z Or°Y 1arp11 ~ ~ tlr°tl MtrKy>DUB O I ~ _ (tt°r NMS ~ ~ i aroa ~i ova ~ a.tw xiawe.oai W ~ i txou hMY] u3Cr3u W ~ O / 1 ~ t i litl 'JN070N had \.l . 1 ` ~ 4 ¢ ~ ~ N ~ .4 n I ~ °rfJU WdvS ~ t Q ~ KO bur) Z / _ / _ _ VNV / i/ Y / W W / A / R~~ ~ ~ ~~~o t t S Y£ 1 5 S£ 1 S 9£ 1 1~1.Nf10~ 3390N033~0 o i r w ~ I ~E~ ~ ~ I ( ' ~ Y~~ I I ~ i I I ~ ~ ~ , .a ~ ~ a ~ a I ~ o I I ~ I------ o ~ CLS coe 'oN 'a's anuany uos~aw3 y:_ 9'oN N'b~ '0 •W 'M '!'d 9'~N p~7 'Q '17'M '!'d CtS U ~ ^1 o , o c ~ C(S ~ v ~ _ c q~ U v as (LS v a L i° U O ~ o: ~ J ~ J vi c/i ~ U_ Q oo s~ o ~ _ ~ G 'oN louoq 'q •rv 'M ' j 'd ' j _ G •oN ~ouoq Q'w 'M ' j 'd ' j (LS - C _ _ - ~ N ~ p ~ O a~ o~ ~ ~ o~ o ~ Q~ I I ~ I i I I ~ I ( ~ ~ oC I i ~ t, ~ ~~f I ~ ~ ~ I l_._ _ ~ ~ I I I I = I tog 'oN 'a "s anuany uOS~aw3 •q~ puo~ '0 •ry'M •d ~ 9'q0 puo~ 0 •ry 'M'i'd J J j o ~ I o O ~ ~ ~ U I O c I O ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ tC1 c~ Q. "r a U ~ 0 Q. N ~1I ~ ~ U 1 00 ~ o ~ L •oN louo~ 'Q •W 'M •j •d •j L 'oN louo~ •p .ry .M . .d C i ~ N a G a ~ O ~ W ~ ~ O i ~ I~~ Q i ~ n- z i i i s~][x` N ~ . I I ~ 3 N ~ya~~ nv~ ~ Ffi~ Q I I r I I V bD V d N a~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ X _ cog 'oN 'a's anuany uos~aw3 'oN puo~ '0'l7'M '!'d'! 9'oN p~J '0 'NI'M'!'d J 0 J ~l 0 ~ 'r'- ~ - ~ C Q O r U f2. Q c~ U_ 0o s~ o ~ 'oN louo~ '0 'W 'M 'j 'd 'j _ _ L 'oN Louo~ 'Q 'W_'M d ~ ~ L N a O I Q Q O o~ Q 0 ~ N r'; [ e ` _ ~~i. ~ r.:... ~ -aa-re-~cr7~s1~l.F-_ . - ..1Wr.~ ~ - .mew - . - : ~..y ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ 1 f { ~ ~ R U ~ ~ i' I ~ ~R Y. L t~, ~ _ w.Mw:~rwr • ~ ~~1yr ! O ~ ~ ~w. I w~ wi.w-wrw-wwwr.w~wia'~ r 1 / I .ww.. ~V ~ ~ t L ~ r ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ` ~ try ~t • . _ _ .~.u.~nw~e~w~t~lrMrs(iifi~t~ -Y. - -.-~r.~ ~i"w~w~s.~a'uwi'swii'~e. Wn~~i+iii~att ~ - w + y~ df i ~ 7 'q* ~ ? E C ~ ~ s~~ ~ ° - Y ~ O ~ • i 1~~ .r ti • - • tit:. s..r .i...: - AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMIS5ION ~~G~E Cp~y ~ ~ June 19, 2003 ~ ~ ~ 7:00 P.M. OR1~P GLASSMAN HOLDINGS LLC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban) for the following described property: Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Indria Road and Emerson Avenue. 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 June 6, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on June 4, 2003. File No. PA-03-002 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA June 19, 2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and the provisions of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Pion, the following applicants have requested that the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission consider _ (heir following requests: 1. 117 INVESTMENT COMPANY, ILC., for a Change in . Future Land Use Classification Irom COM (Commercial) to IND (Industrial) for the following described properly: LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8, LESS THE WEST 70 FEET OF LOT 8 MARTIN'S SUBDIVISION OF THEN 1/2 OF THE NW 1 /4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING 70 THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 46 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF 1075 6, 7, AND 8, CONVEYED IN DEED RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 270, PAGE 1251, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, fIORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOCIOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN LOTS 8 AND 7 OF SAID MARTIN'S SUBDIVISION, BEING MORE PARTICU- f LARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1, 70WNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST; THENCE 5 0'28"42°E 213.9b FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE N 89'31"18°E 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING; THENCE S 0'28"42°E 358.42 FEET ALONG A LINE 70.00 FEET EASTERLY OF, AND PARALELL WITH, THE WEST LINE OF SAID SEC- TION l; THEN N 84'31"18°E 350.00 FEET; THENCE N 00'28"42°W 425.05 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THOSE (ANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 270, PAGE 1251, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORI- DA; THENCE S 63'38"29°W 323.91 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LS lE; THENCE 5 34'17"40°W 43.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Locotion: SE corner of Kings Highway and Angle Road. 2. GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC., for a Change fn future Land Use Classification from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban) for the following described property: BEING. THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS THE SOUTH 830.00 FEET TO THE EAST 1550.00 , fEEi THEREOF, ALSO LESS RIGHT-OF-WAYS. location: Northwest corner of the intersecion of tndrio Road and Emerson Avenue. i 3. BECKER HOLDING CORPORATION, for a Change in future Land llse Classification from RS (Residential Subur- ' ban) to RU (Residential Urban) For tFre fallowing described property: SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 35, RANGE 40, THAT PART OF THE SOUTHERN 1/2 Of THE NE 1/4, LYING SOUTHERLY OF CANAL 71 (TEN MILE CREEK) ANO WESTERLY OF SELVITZ ROAD AND THE NORTHERN 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, LYING WESTERLY OF SELVITZ AND RALLS ROADS AND SOUTHERLY OF CANAL 71 (TEN MILE CREEK) AND THE NORTHERN 50 FEET Of THE NORTHERN 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST I/4 (72.62 AC), (OR BOOK ANO PAGE NUMBER 495.2541J. - Locotion: Northwest corner of the intersection of Seivitz _ Road and.Rolls Road _ PUBLIC HEARINGS wilt be held in Commission Chambers, Roger Poifras Anneu, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Forf Pierce, ( Florida on June 19, 2003, beginning at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.OT05, Florida Statutes, if a person decides to appeal any decision mode by a board, agency, or commission with respect fo any matter consid- ered at a meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and Ihat, for such purposes, he may need fo 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /5/ Ed Merritt, CHAIRMAN Publish: June 4, 2003 2714359 Local Planning Agency Review: 06/19/03 ~t~t ',fie - 1 ~ „ File Number PA-03-003 O MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Planning Manager DATE: June 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Application of Becker Holding Corporation, for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RS (Residential Suburban - 2 dulac) to RU {Residential Urban - 5 du/ac) LOCATION: Northwest corner of Selvitz Road and Ralls Road along the south side of Ten Mile Creek CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: RS (Residential Suburban - 2 du/ac) PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: RU (Residential Urban - 5 du/ac) EXISTING ZONING: AR-1 (Agricultural Residential -1 du/ac) 1 PROPOSED ZONING: RM-5 (Residential Multi-Family 5 du/ac) PARCEL SIZE: 72 acres ROPOSED USE: Multi-Family Residential c SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATIONS: AR-1 (Agricultural Residential - 1 du/acre) and RS- 3 (Residential 3 du/ac) to the east, west and north. IX (industrial, Extraction} and AR-1 (Agricultural Residential 1 du/ac) is located to the south. - SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: RS {Residential Suburban) to west and southeast. RU (Residential Urban) is located to the south, north and northeast. SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USES: Residential to the north, industrial and vacant to the south, and residential and institutional to the east. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 2 File Number: PA-03-003 UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is within the service area identified within the Fort Pierce Utility Authority (FPUA) District Master Plan. FPUA proposes to provide water and sewage service along Selvitz Road within a five year period. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing road right-of--way for Selvitz Road is 66 feet in width. The existing right-of-way width for Rails Road is 66 feet in width then narrows to 50 feet in width. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: Turn lanes and signalization at the intersection of Selvitz Road and Edwards Road. Construction will begin within the next 12-16 months. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. COMMENTS The applicant is requesting a change in the future land use designation fora 72-acre parcel from RS (Residential Suburban) to RU (Residential Urban). The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Selvitz Road and Rails Road in a transitioning area of the County. The current future land use designation allows residential uses at 2 dwelling units per acre or a total of 144 dwelling units. Approval of the proposed change to RU would allow a maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre or 360 dwelling units. The stated purpose of the requested change in future land use is to develop the property as amulti-family project. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan that provides for 360 units. A change in the Future Land Use designation is required to allow the applicant to seek a change in zoning from the subject property's existing AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/ac) zoning classification to RM-5 (Residential Multi-Family 5 dulac) or PUD (Planned Unit Development}. The Future Land Use application package includes a Traffic Impact Statement encompassing athree-mile radius that was utilized to evaluate the proposed Future Land Use amendment. _ The proposed future land use amendment is a preliminary development order and does not imply that any specific development scenario can occur on the property but allows the developer to seek development of the property for multi-family uses. No right to obtain a final development order, or any other rights to develop the subject property have been granted or implied by the County if the requested comprehensive plan amendment is approved. Prior to the issuance of any final development order, the developer must demonstrate that all public facilities are available to service the parcel and a Certificate of Capacity must be obtained. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 3 File Number: PA-03-003 CONSISTENCY WITH THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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 and Rule J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The following sections address the proposed amendment's consistency with each of these plans respectively: 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 County Comprehensive Plan are the primary components applicable to this petition. The following is an element-by-element evaluation of the proposed amendment: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT The petitioner's application for this amendment to the County's Future Land Use Ma states, "Any future development of this site would have to restore natural vegetation and restrict any development from within the floodplain pursuant to the St. Lucie County Land Development Regulations". 1t is acknowledged that increasing the gross land use density on this site will likely have some degree of impact upon the floodplain of Ten Mile Creek. An estimated 35 acres of the 72-acre amendment site is within the 100-year floodplain. The conceptual site plan for the .development site indicates that a portion of the floodplain would not be impacted by direct site development; however, this area would include stormwater management facilities within the floodplain area. Although much of the floodplain on this site was previously filled for agricultural activities, lower elevations continue to store water during heavy rains. There is also a remnant oxbow from the natural course of Ten Mile Creek in the western 113 of the petitioned parcel that was cutoff from the main channel when the river was dredged and straightened for drainage control purposes in the 1940's. Surrounding future land use classifications are RU (Residential Urban) to the north, south and northeast, RS (Residential Suburban) to the southeast and west. Farther to the south/southwest of the petitioned property is a large area of industrially classified lands that house a number of industrial activities from material processing to distribution of goods. The requested future land use classification of RU allows residential densities of up to 5 units per gross acre and some limited commercial uses. Approval of the proposed amendment would result in residential development densities slightly higher than the residential areas to the north, across Ten Mile Creek. Higher density residential units can be considered a good transition from the adjacent industrial uses and the residential uses to the north. The primary concern that the County currently has in regard to this petition is the increase of potential impacts that may be generated from this site into the floodplain area of Ten Mile Creek. Objective 1.1.5: In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development within the Planned Urban Service Area shall be directed to areas where urban and community services/facilities can be provided in the most efficient and compact manner so as to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 4 File Number: PA-03-003 The proposed amendment discourages sprawl, pursuant to this Objective, and Section 9J-5.006(b)(7), FAC. Urban sprawl is discouraged by the proposed amendment's location within the existing urban service boundary and its close proximity to urban facilities and employment centers. The proposed RU Future Land Use classification would allow for the development of medium density residential dwelling units, institutional and neighborhood commercial uses. The developers are encouraged to cluster units in order to promote the efficient provision of services and to eliminate development within the site's protected shoreline preservation zone, floodplain and floodway. The site's close proximity to employment sectors may reduce future home to work trips on the County's roadways. Representatives of the petitioner have indicated that sufficient water and wastewater capacity is currently available from the Fort Pierce Utility Authority. Prior to the issuance of any Final Development Order, a Certificate of Capacity indicating that a{I adequate infrastructure services are available is required. Central water and sanitary sewer facilities required for any future development proposal along with Stormwater management, roadway, and other public facilities are the responsibility of the developers and not the local government. The amendment site is bordered on the east by a col{ector roadway that allows easy access to the major arterial and emergency evacuation route (Midway Road) that connects to 1-95. Policy 1.1.7.1: Continue to support and encourage innovative land use development patterns through adequate provision in the County's Land Development Regulations including Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and Miixed Use Developments (MXDs). The application indicated that a change in zoning to RM-5 would be sought if the Future Land Use Amendment was approved. Staff recommends development of the subject site be proposed through the County's PUD (Planned Unit Development) process, which will result in a change in zoning to PUD. Policy 1.1.9.7: Enforce Section 6.02.02 of the land development regulations to protect the watercourses identified below: North Fork of the St. Lucie River -from the Martin County line to the confluence with Five & Ten Mile Creeks Five Mile Creek -from the confluence of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River to the Florida East Coast Railroad, Glades Cut-Off Branch Line. Ten Mile Creek -from the confluence of North Fork of the St. Lucie River to McCarty Road. (Beyond these points, channetization effects are so great that natural course and habitat are lost) The amendment site is located along Ten Mile Creek and contains a remnant of the historic Creek that is at least hydrologically connected to the main channel of the Creek. Increasing densities within the project site June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 5 File Number: PA-03-003 can be expected to further impact this oxbow and the Ten Mile Creek floodplain. Goal 1.2: Recognize that land use and transportation must be considered concurrently in all planning, and to the extent feasible, modify current land use patterns to decrease dependence on the automobile in order to minimize the need for future roadway expansion and promote the use of alternate modes of transportation. The increased density and close proximity of the subject site to employment sectors provides an opportunity to decrease automobile trips and provide alternate modes of transportation, including bicycling, walking and mass-transit. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT . The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact. Statement based upon a "worst-case" traffic generation rate for the amendment site utilizing the maximum density as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. The analysis indicates that an additional 210 single-family dwelling units would not reduce the level of service an Selvitz Road. If developed for multifamily purposes, the trip generation would be reduced from that of the single-family demand. Policy 2.1.1; The St. Lucie County transportation system shall be reviewed in coordination with any requested changes to the Future Land Use Element or other related component of this .plan. A report on the impacts to the system brought about by any proposed land use changes shat! be prepared and presented to the Board of County Commissioners as part of the review of that Land Use change. The applicant has provided a Traffic Impact Summary as part of the Future Land Use amendment application. The analysis year is 2008; the estimated build out of the proposed development. A comprehensive and updated report will be required before any Fina{ Development Order is obtained. The analysis utilizes the road network in place based upon adopted work programs of FDOT and the Capital Improvement Program of St. Lucie County. The summary indicates that no significant impact occurs and the additional vehicle trips will not reduce the level of service standards of County roadways. Policy 1.2.2.1: Explore development patterns, which allow for employment and shopping opportunities in close proximity to residential uses. The proposed amendment will increase residential densities that are in close proximity to existing and proposed employment centers. HOUSING ELEMENT - - The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. Objective 5.1.2: In order to facilitate the development of industries (industrial and commercial) providing numerous positions, the County shall encourage the development of housing conducive to the attraction of these new industries and which have been iidentified as a need within St. Lucie County. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 6 File Number: PA-03-003 The proposed Future Land Use change will provide for higher density residential units in close proximity to the proposed 1.2 million square foot Wal-Mart Distribution Center. This will provide housing in close proximity to the new employee center and reduce the overall vehicle trips on County roadways. INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. A Certificate of Capacity showing all necessary infrastructure improvements will be available is required prior to obtaining any Final Development Order. Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. The amendment area is within the utility service area of the Fort Pierce Utility Authority. According to the applicant, wastewater service is not available directly adjacent to the project site, however, FPUA can treat and dispose of wastewater generated from the project. Development of the project's improvements would require installation of a wastewater pumping station and off-site force main extension to connect to existing FPUA facilities. The FPUA has the capacity to provide wastewater treatment and disposal for the allowable density of 360 units. Prior to any Final Development Order approvals, the applicant would need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity is available to service the project. Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment is not in conflict with this element. The County's Solid Waste facility currently has a 37-year capacity based upon current usage and would have sufficient capacity to service the maximum density of the proposed Future Land Use amendment and not reduce the Level of Service (LOS) standards for the County's solid waste facility as set forth by Policy 66.1.1.1. Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element The proposed amendment does not conflict with this sub-element. Objective 6C.1.3. The County shall enforce existing Land Development Regulations, which support the protection and maintenance of the natural _ functions (flow and sto[~ge) of_ the 100-year floodplain and other natural drainage features. - Any future development of the site will require natural drainage features to be maintained and a stormwater management area to be provided that is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the development standards set forth in the County's land development code and the South Florida Water Management District. Any future development proposals will require the demonstration of compliance with the County's Flood Damage Prevention standards, which are intended to control the alteration of natural floodplains and natural protective barriers. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 6 File Number: PA-03-003 The proposed Future Land Use change will provide for higher density residential units in close proximity to the proposed 1.2 million square foot Wal-Mart Distribution Center. This wilt provide housing in close proximity to the new employee center and reduce the overall vehicle trips on County roadways. INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. A Certificate of Capacity showing all necessary infrastructure improvements will be available is required prior to obtaining any Final Development Order. Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. The amendment area is within the utility service area of the Fort Pierce Utility Authority. According to the applicant, wastewater service is not available directly adjacent to the project site, however, FPUA can treat and dispose of wastewater generated from the project. Development of the project's improvements would require installation of a wastewater pumping station and off-site force main extension to connect to existing FPUA facilities. The FPUA has the capacity to provide wastewater treatment and disposal for the allowable density of 360 units. Prior to any Final Development Order approvals, the applicant would need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity is available to service the project. Solid Waste Sub-Element The proposed amendment is not in conflict with this element. The County's Solid Waste facility currently has a 37-year capacity based upon current usage and would have sufficient capacity to service the maximum density of the proposed Future Land Use amendment and not reduce the Level of Service (LOS) standards for the County's solid waste facility as set forth by Policy 68.1.1.1. Drainage and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element The proposed amendment does not conflict with this sub-element. Objective 6C.1.3. The County shall enforce existing Land Development Regulations, which support the protection and maintenance of the natural _ functions (flow and storage) of the 100-year floodplain and other natural drainage - features. Any future development of the site will require natural drainage features to be maintained and a stormwater management area to be provided that is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the development standards set forth in the County's land development code and the South Florida Water Management District. Any future development proposals will require the demonstration of compliance with the County's Flood Damage Prevention standards, which are intended to control the alteration of natural floodplains and natural protective barriers. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 7 File Number: PA-03-003 Potable Water Sub-Element The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. The applicant has reported that Fort Pierce Utilities Authority staff stated that the FPUA can provide potable water service for the subject site. FPUA owns and maintains a 12" diameter water main along the project's frontage on Selvitz Road and has adequate capacity to provide potable water service to the site. Prior to any Final Development Order approvals, the applicant would need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity is available to service the project. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined to conflict with this element. The amendment site is within the area of collaboration between federal, state and local agencies targeting the restoration of the North fork of the St. Lucie River and its natural tributaries to improve water quality in the North Fork of the St. Lucie River Outstanding Florida Waters and downstream estuaries, the St. Lucie Estuary and Indian River Lagoon. A significant portion of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and its main tributaries, Ten Mile and Five Mile Creeks, contain floodplains that are completely or partially isolated from the river's main branch because of dredging in the 1920-1940's. As part of the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan project, approximately 55 miles of riverfront along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and its natural tributaries have been identified for reconnection to the main river channel. This will greatly improve the North Fork of the St. Lucie River's water quality and water storage functions and enhance the river's ability to support a diverse and healthy biological community. This will greatly benefit the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. Positive effects will extend to downstream receiving water bodies, the St. Lucie Estuary, Indian River Lagoon and Atlantic Ocean. Goal 7.1.1: BALANCING GROWTH AND COASTAL RESOURCES. ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IN THE COASTAL AREA SHALL OCCUR IN A MANNER WHICH PROTECTS, CONSERVES, AND ENHANCES THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE COASTAL AREA AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM. The County waterways, including Ten Mile Creek, are impaired as a result of past agricultural and expanding urban activities. Although the floodplain on the subject site was previously cleared and partially filled to allow for agricultural activities, a remnant of the historic creek and fow elevations along the floodplain still remain. Increasing the - densities on the subject site can be expected to increase development pressures that may result in filling low areas within the floodplain and impacting the oxbow. The low elevations along Ten Mile Creek provide water storage during time of heavy rains. The oxbow appears to be connected to the Creek, at least hydrologically. Policy 7.1.2.9: The County shall support and implement programs, in line with the administrative and fiscal constraints of the County, to restore, enhance, and maintain the functions and values of natural waterways and adjacent upland habitats within the coastal area. Through state and local programs, St. Lucie County will continue to encourage the preservation and enhancement of June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Hoiding Corporation Page 8 File Number: PA-03-003 floodplain wetland functions through public purchase and restoration of the floodplain wetlands and adjacent upland buffers along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon, including their natural tributaries. The subject site is targeted for restoration as part of the North Fork St. Lucie River Oxbow Reconnection Project that is proposed within the Indian River Lagoon Feasibility Plan and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan. Funding for the acquisition of site for this purpose is currently not available. Development of the amendment site should occur in a manner that furthers efforts to restore, enhance and maintain the functions and values of natural waters and adjacent upland habitats. Increasing the density on the amendment site would reduce the probability of protecting the Ten Mile Creek floodplain and physical reconnection of the oxbow to the main river channel. Policy 7.1.3.3: The County shall cooperate with the appropriate regulatory and management agencies to implement comprehensive and coordinated management plans of the Indian River Lagoon in order to improve the biological health of the Lagoon. The amendment site is included within the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the Indian River Lagoon Resistibility Plan as a natural area restoration site. Joint state, regional and federal agencies have funded a feasibility study that will include designs for the future restoration of the subject tract. Funding for the acquisition of this site for this purpose is currently not available. Any future development plans should be designed in conjunction with the proposed restoration of the floodplain to enhance the natural floodplain and reconnect the isolated oxbow to the main river channel. Objective 7.1.4: St. Lucie County shall strive to obtain or maintain water quality and trophic state index classifications of "good" for the Indian River Lagoon, Five Mile Creek, Ten Mile Creek, and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The County shall enact appropriate regulations that provide for the maintenance or improvement ofi water quality. A significant portion of the floodplain of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, including the amendment parcel, is isolated from the river's main branch because of dredging that occurred in the 1920-40's. This resulted in a significant loss of natural filtration of nutrients that has resulted in degradation of the quality of water in Ten Mile Creek and downstream waterbodies, including the St. Lucie Estuary. The North Fork St. Lucie River Marsh Reconnection project is part of the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) Feasibility plan; our area's portion of the Everglades Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline restoration and reconnection of partially isolated floodplain wetlands is a _ separate .component of- the 1RL Feasibility Study of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Funds for conducting pilot studies and feasibility planning of marsh and oxbow reconnections have previously been supplied by the St. Lucie River Issues Team and other matching grant sources (e.g., USFWS, SFWMD). The proposed amendment would increase development pressures along Ten Mile Creek, which will hamper efforts to improve the quality of water in Ten Mile Creek and downstream estuaries. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 9 File Number: PA-03-003 CONSERVATION ELEMENT The proposed amendment is not consistent with Goal 8.1, 8.1.2.11, 8.1.3.1, goals, objectives and policies found within the conservation element. Goal 8.1: The natural resources of St. Lucie County shall be protected, appropriately used, or conserved in a manner which maximizes their function, and values. The proposed amendment would increase density within the floodplain along Ten Mile Creek, a degraded waterbody, and headwaters to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The proposed increase in density can be expected to increase development pressure within the amendment site's floodplain that also includes a remnant of the pre-dredged Creek. The placement of improvements within the floodplain is not an appropriate use and will result in a loss of existing (although minimal) and potential floodplain values. The amendment site consists of a fallow citrus grove and floodplain along Ten Mile Creek. Although, the previous citrus operations severely impacted the site's natural environment, the site still contains 1,500 feet of frontage along Ten Mile Creek, remnants of the pre-dredged Ten Mile Creek, an oxbow, and lands within the Ten Mile Creek floodplain. The site contains a large section of the historic Ten Mile Creek that was primarily cut off from the main channel when the creek was channalized in the early 1900's. Policy 8.1.1.2: St. Lucie County shall facilitate development that maximizes energy efficiency and sustainability. This should include techniques that will reduce the total fossil fuel energy required to build and maintain urban land uses. This shall include standards that promote mixed land use patterns, urban infill, public transit and provide non-motorized interconnections between land use types to reduce auto dependence and vehicle miles traveled. The site's close proximity to major employment sections can be expected to reduce the vehicle miles traveled to work. Non-motorized and public transit facilities within the proposed development site, proposed employment centers and retrofitting of adjacent b and future roadways to accommodate non-motorized users would fully address this policy. Policy 8.1.2.11: St. Lucie County shall support and assist with projects that further the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Imitative goals to restore and maintain ecosystem elements most resembling natural, healthy functions of a complex balanced_aquatic system. Increasing densities along Ten Mile Creek will increase development pressures within the floodplain resulting in further impacts to Ten Mile Creek and eliminating the ability to reconnect the oxbow on this site to the main river channel. The project site is included with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan and Indian River Lagoon Feasibility Plan as a natural area restoration site. Joint efforts between, state, regional and federal agencies has funded a feasibility study that will include designs for the future restoration of the tract. Funding for the acquisition of this site for this purpose is currently not available. Any construction in the floodplain should June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 10 File Number: PA-03-003 assist to enhance the natural floodplain and reconnect the isolated oxbow to the main river channel. Policy 8.1.3.1: The County's land development regulations shall include the use of programs to protect or maintain floodplain, such as reduced parking, conservation easements, cluster site plan and micrositing of buildings. The County shall continue to strictly enforce regulations that direct development away from the floodplains and provide upland buffers along the floodplain. Residential development on the site can occur with little or no impact to the remaining natural resources and adjacent waters if the development and accessory facilities are located outside the floodplain and shoreline preservation zone. The preliminary Multi- Family Conceptual Site Plan places all structures outside the floodplain except for two lakes that would provide stormwater management. One of the lakes is proposed within the remnant oxbow that is located on the property. The remnant oxbow is protected through local standards, however there is a potential that increased densities and development pressure on the floodplain could result in impacting the oxbow if the future developer proposes sufficient mitigation. Policy 8.1.8.16: The County shall require clustering of dwelling units and/or open space for land development projects which contain environmentally sensitive lands and critical habitats within its project boundaries, in order to preserve these resources. Ten Mile Creek shoreline is considered environmentally sensitive. Increased densities will increase the probability that impacts to this area will occur. Policy 8.1.12.7: No fill or regrading of property shall be allowed except to establish required road elevations for driveways, unless the environmental assessment shows that fill or regrading will not adversely affect the environment and fill is available on site. The proposed amendment may increase development pressures along the Ten Mile Creek shoreline and prohibit the future connection of the historic oxbow to the existing channel as proposed by the local, state and regional agencies. Residential development could occur outside the floodplain and any construction in the floodplain area should assist in restoration of the Ten Mile Creek floodplain natural functions. Increasing the density, and thereby the development pressure on this tract, reduces the likelihood of this happening. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE - - Policy 9.1.1.1: Level of Service for Recreation and Open Space shall be as follows: Community Parks: 5 acres/1000 residents in the unincorporated area. Regional Parks: 5 acres/1000 residents countywide Recreation and Open Space Level of Service demands are based on the 2000 Census reported persons per household of 2.47 and the 360 maximum dwelling units allowed under the proposed Future ,Land Use designation of RU, the resultant population estimate for the amendment site is 889 persons. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 11 File Number: PA-03-003 The amendment site would require 4.45 acres to provide the required community level of service for recreation and open space for the maximum development of the site. The 72 acre project site contains sufficient land area to accommodate the recreation needs of it's future residents and has been determined not to conflict with this element. The floodplain and shoreline protection areas on the subject site can provide passive recreational activities for its residents to meet the community LOS standards. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT The proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with this element. Policy 11.1.4: No right to obtain final development order, nor any other rights to develop (B)(3)(b) the subject property have been granted or implied by the County's .approval of the preliminary development order without determining the capacity of public facilities. A Certificate of Capacity must be obtained before a Final Development Order is issued. Policy 11.1.28: The County shall continue to require new development to meet level of service standards for both on and off site improvements, including local streets, water and sewer connection lines, stormwater management facilities, and open space. Sufficient capacity is expected to be available to service the proposed amendment site. Prior to the approval of any Final Development Order a Certificate of Capacity must be obtained. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The. following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan apply to this amendment: WATER RESOURCES 187.201 (7)(a) Goal: Florida shall assure the availability of an adequate supply of water for all competing uses deemed reasonable and beneficial and shall maintain the functions of natural systems and the overall present level of surface and ground water quality. Florida shall imptQVe an_d restore the quality of waters not presently meeting water.qua.fity standards. _ - There is a concern that the intensity of development proposed for the project site will pose a threat to the adjacent Ten Mile Creek and downstream Outstanding Florida Waters. The applicant has provided a preliminary development plan that clusters dwelling units to avoid impacts to on-site and off-site water resources. However, proposed stormwater treatment facilities are provided within the floodplain that contains an oxbow that represents a portion of historic Ten Mile Creek. The oxbow would have been created and cut off from the river when the river was channelized. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 12 File Number: PA-03-003 The proposed increase in density on this tract is expected to increase the pressure for development to occur within the floodplain and thereby reduce the restoration goals of local, state and federal agencies. NATURAL SYSTEMS AND RECREATIONAL LANDS 187.201 (9)(a) Goal: Florida shall protect and acquire unique natural habitats and ecological systems, such as wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks, palm hammocks, and virgin longleaf pine forests, and restore degraded natural systems to a functional condition. The amendment site consists of a fallow citrus grove and floodplain along Ten Mile Creek. Although, the previous citrus operations severely impacted the site's natural environment, the site stil{ contains 1,500 feet of frontage on Ten Mile Creek, and remnants of the pre-dredged Ten Mile Creek. About 50°to of the amendment site is within the Ten Mile Creek floodplain. The site contains a large section of the historic Ten Mile Creek that was primarily cut off from the main channel when the creek was canalized in the early 1900's. The proposed amendment may increase development pressures along the Ten Mile Creek shoreline and prohibit the future connection of the historic oxbow to the existing channel as proposed by the local, state and regional agencies. Residential development could occur outside the floodplain and any construction in the floodplain area assist in restoration of the Ten Mile Creek floodplain natural functions. Increasing the density and thereby the development pressure on this tract reduces the likelihood of this happening. LAND USE 187.201(16)(a} Goal: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development sha{I be directed to those 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. Representatives have indicated that sufficient capacity is currently available from the Fort Pierce Utility Authority to provide water and wastewater service to 360 dwelling units that would be allowed under the proposed amendment's maximum density. Prior to the issuance of any Final Development Order, a Certificate of Capacity indicating that all adequate infrastructure services are available is required. Central water and sanitary sewer facilities required for any future development proposal along with stormwater management, roadway, and other public facilities are the responsibility of the developers and not the local government. The amendment site is bordered on the east by a coNector roadway that allows .easy access to the major arterial and emergency evacuation route (Midway Road) that connects to 1-95. The proposed amendment to the future land use classification is not expected to - - adversely affect the quality of life in the immediately surrounding area. The site is located in an area that contains public improvements sufficient to support residential development. PUBLIC FACILITIES 187.201(18)(a)FS: Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 13 File Number: PA-03-003 The amendment would maximize the efficient use of the existing and proposed public facilities in furtherance of this state goal. TRANSPORTATION 187.201(20)FS: directs future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and promotes an intermodal transportation system. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers this goal. An analysis of the impact of the proposed amendment on effected roadways has been provided. The applicant's Traffic Impact Statement is based upon a "worst-case" traffic generation for the site utilizing the maximum allowed density as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. The analysis indicates that an additional 210 single-family dwelling units would not reduce the level of service on Selvitz Road. If the site is developed for multifamily purposes, the trip generation would be reduced from the single-family demand. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The following are the primary regional goals and polices that apply to this petition: Strategy 1.1.2: Promote compatibility of urban areas, regional facilities, natural preserves and other open spaces. The amendment is in conflict with this goal. The proposed increase in density will allow high density along Ten Mile Creek. The existing RS land use category is appropriate for areas of special environmental concern such as along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and Indian River Lagoon. Ten Mife Creek is the major tributary to the North Fork. Increased densities and intensities along the river shoreline would increase the likelihood of further degradation of these waterways. Policy 8.1.1.1: All development should take place concurrent with or after the provision of necessary infrastructure and services. The proposed amendment site is located in an area with the necessary water, wastewater and roadway capacity currently available. Development of residential units on the site encourages the location of housing units within close proximity to major employment sectors to facilitate any future transit system and to provide convenient access to emergency evacuation routes. .CONCLUSION Based upon the information provided, .staff has found the proposed land use change not - - wholly consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment is not wholly consistent. with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. The proposed Future Land Use Classification change would increase residential densities and development pressures along Ten Mife Creek, the headwaters of the North Fork of the St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve. County staff believes that most, if not all of the inconsistencies cited above, can be addressed through the removal of the 35 acres of this site that lie within the floodplain June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 14 File Number: PA-03-003 from the proposed future land use change. This area would retain the RS (Residential Suburban) future land use designation, thereby reducing densities on the parcel and potential development pressures along Ten Mile Creek. In more general terms, this adjustment would result in a maximum parcel density of 260 units as opposed to the requested 360 units. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval for the future land use change on the approximately 38 acres that are located outside the floodplain only and decline the requested future land use designation change on the approximately 35 acres with the Ten Mile Creek loodplain. Attachment cc: County Administrator County Attorney File June 10, 2003 Petition: Becker Holding Corporation Page 15 File Number: PA-03-003 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 BECKER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN), 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. LUCIE COUNTY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF BECKER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, FOR A CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN), BECAUSE . CITE REASON(S) WHY -PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] 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 All 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 the 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 Resid nsities 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 the western edge of the urban form, but is also appropriate for areas of special environmental concern such as along the North Fork 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 served with central utilities, however when at all 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 for a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre. The RU designation is generally found between the identified urban service _ area~and the transitional RS areas. These properties need to be serviced with central water _ ar~d wastewater`services. These services may be provided by either a public utility or throuc~l~~ private on-site facilities, as would be permitted in accordance with a{I applicable regulations. New development in the RU areas car. occur using traditional single-family ormulti-family zoning designations or through the Planned Unit Development process. Underline is for addition s~filee-fHfettgE} if for deletion St. Lucie County Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan 1-29 Adoption: March 5, 2002 i i 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: I o All residential development must be in accordance with applicable standards and restrictions as set forth in the Land Development Regulations; i o All 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 the establishment of a Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida i Statutes, for the purpose of providing the necessary infrastructure facilities to support that development; and, i o Residential densities are set at a maximum of one (1) unit per one (1) gross acre. i RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS) The Residential Suburban (RS) (and 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 the western edge of the urban fom1, but is also appropriate for areas of special environmental concern such as along the North Fork 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 served with central utilities, however when at all practical, service connections should be required. RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU} The Residential Urf~an (RU) classification is the predominant residential land use category in the County. This residential land use category provides for a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre. The RU designation is generally found between the identified- urban service areas and_th_e transitional RS areas. These properties need to be serviced with central water and wastewater services. These services may be provided by either a public utility or througf~ private on-site .facilities,. as would be.permitted in accordance with all applicable regulations. New development in the RU areas car, occur using traditional single-family ormulti-family zoning designations or through the Planned Unit Development process. Underline is for addition stye-ihret~i~ if for detetan St. Lucie County Future land Use Comprehensive Plan 1-29 Adoption: March 5, 2002 i o 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 dulac. i o All uses shall be compatible with internal and external adjacent land uses. SPECIAL DISTRICT (SO) ~ 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 i 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. ~ i COMMERCIAL (COM) i The Commercial (COM) land use designation is applicable to areas of future commercial development, in addition to ?hose existing developed commercial areas. Future commercials ~ areas should be Jocated at points of high transportation access, with specific action taken to prevent the development of new linear commercial strips. Although this plan supports the location of higher intensity 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 use maps, applications for commercial use should be done in conjunction with a detailed review of the impacts of such development on adjacent property, specifically noting what, if any, negative neighborhood impacts could result. The Commercial (COM) designation is intended to accommodate all commercial zoning districts as identified under St. Lucie County's Land Development Regulations- Office and genera! 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 fidentified as suitable for industrial use. This land use designation is intended to be implemented through both the heavy " and light industrial zoning districts, with the specific criteria for zoning application as provided for " under the policies of the Future Land Use Element. Underline is for add'Rion strtl~e-thret~ if for deletbn St. Lucie County Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan 1-31 Adoption: March 5, 2002 Z i ~ ' Q , ~ ° ~ - ~ U O t0~ WM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ p ~ ~.'`F7' ~ ~ ~ S ~ E .a~,~w c Q ~ ~ ~ c ~ N vr+Ea ~ L ~ i ~ Pl£ tN _.AN - Y7NN -M77u0 U 6 ~ F ~ so s ~ YJ.~'NS r J~ @~ Sk"iA 1 +g~gy ~ ~ ' P~ o ~ i ~ _ 4~ W ~ ~ ~ Y 7awUw yd?zs~ypL - ~y~ g o syE?t7a W 1 t ~ r 67pn71D 1~' ~ a ap t'} ~ I ~ - 7di 37ttl1r7- / ~X~ - . Ste-. w, SI9 ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a I ~ ,71 rc Y S~ i 3~ p~. -~ar~ii ..taro i iY ~ ~ sFapcc- is dal d I.~p= oe`- ~a~ arl OA M7/1 - - paZ1N175 PARItMO ~ C~ i~ 1 $g ~ ~ e rim ~~y _ ~ . .OU.Sf+iNT; '~';r~ Sr3 ~ ~1P a; - _ ~ ~OrOa Aai0 ~a0tiii- - N ~ ~,g ~'OAIB-r`p6e`ri~~ e- flL Ar shay £IC ~ ~T,~ ~ WON 7i0Yw75 qy ~ ~ _ _ `tee ~ ~ - -~OiOa wD1L+~W'. ~ '6 m ~ ~ N i ~Z O Otl~~ -OiOa Oar07%OM ' ~ _ ^U ~aroa ar»ri I O ~ _ ~ o I i ~ 1 GrOU ~ ~3ii- 3~klru - - - ~ C.~ 1 " , ~~J ~ 1 ? ` I ~ WW lrMr~ a70r7x ( . e I W o, l ~ Oa lya010N 1r30 ~ W ~ :I m Q M ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I g orou O77N5 WW W71y19 ~ ~ Z 1 Q. I O 1 .z-~ nu.~ - Z _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ i_ ~ ~-J IVNVJ i i i i w W ~ ~ / ~~0. n n i i ~ o; 0 I I I S 6f 1 S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 uNno~ ~~aoHO3a~o Land Use Becker Holding Corporation . . Edwards Rood ~ ~ r r • V r ~ w ~ M f ' • i . o ~ 1 ` a RU r ~ • C ¦ • w • ~ r O r r~ f M f O • b i j r • • • ~ yc u r r • + ~ nt ? ~ r • V a r ~ • + ~ 0aµ c r ~ • • • I y • ~ r 6( n s r R~ 2 s 4 y tl 4 H S 0 • 2 0 od v G° RU / / / / / / 0 0 i IND RS RU z R~~ E - _ I D - - - IND - ab°h~ ~ PA 03-003 s~.~ This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared May 2a, zoos ww. wrr .anw e..n mw a v~.~e. mxan...q •avrr iwm.ao~. y.w., ~a ir.a.a tr w r . ryy e:~p ww.«+. Zoning Becker Holding Corporation 0 . w e u ~ - ~,-J-wo. AR-1 I ° w i w . - O • w ~ E ~ ~ ~ i w IC f 0 ~ u , J ~ Y ~ ~ w - • - `c~K Y ~ w V µV • ~ jE > ~ - - ~ w w o - ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~C „ - - - C1 • / X00 r • ~ ~ R e w q w • h H ~ o° U G° / 2-°~ I 1 AR-~ a ° O N 7 3 = X IX " I! \ ~ ~G IH IH od ~o 0 GJ~O °•o PA 03-003 s~....~^T This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared May za,zoos - ~xw w.y .non w wn m.a a polC. h ~ro+w..+.ne roan- :rm~wo, co..o~.. ~ ~ ow~x.a.a iv w e . YWt ohaiq aoon+w Becker Holding corporation 0 f ~;fr e ~ - 9. . t , 7 ~ ~v~+w it r ? }pqY ~~(e~~~ III i ~ ' ~iii ~a,., q ~ r a ',Y ~L ~ s~ n.e ' .i. Y ..a , M I~ w~ a F F J f It f d f i e ~ f ,~yqy ~ i. ~ e T aK". ~ ~ ~ I i i - - e:x w'w.r~ f ~t r ~ , ,b .,',-A waew a _'v ~r' } r PA 03-003 ` - cis This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared May 28,2003 FbrniaY.^I~ [4e(Ve, i Y rci Forded b Ytl tl • Ypeiy GdV AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~~G~6 Cp~~ ~ ~ June 19, 2003 ~ ~ ~ 7:00 P.M. 'c~ ORI~Q' BECKER HOLDING CORPORATION, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from RS (Residential Suburban) to RU (Residential Urban) for the following described property: Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Northwest corner of the intersection of Selvitz and Ralls Road. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any parry 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 adjacenrproperty owners June 6, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on June 4, 2003. File No. PA-03-003 ~ I - ~ M ~ Ih - I ~ M M M h O ((~~M'' M I ~ M~~((vi ~ V M ~ ~ O~ ~ M DD c•1 M M M M lV N ~ d' ^ M O O O'O~N~V11 e}`O OTO O Of~+1~M'N~MI~O M'O'^ M O~^~OOIM M~O Oi d' O O 00 O N i v1 v1 i~ v~' D\ O~ h V~ v~ O O v) vl ~O v1 O : v1 v'~ ; O~ v1 N . ~D Q\ H M h vl h M ~ M v1 O~ 1~ ~!1 I~ ' q ~'~~~v v;~rfY``~'Iv~~; ~oI.~I~t~NI.q.I~n Y 'tt M v v;~'Mi~gl~`y'~v~y~~!'~oMo ~ ~t M Y' ~ i; ^:M :MiM ~i... I i0 ~D'.-.. ,--~,~0 .M.~'I 00.00;0 W , ' joo(00100 00;oo~ooioo%O~ 00i ^ '.ao 00'~ 00 ^ . N oo~ooyoo Ooloo ool~' v Oo a0 00 Oo . 0. ~ 0~!D\ 0~' i0~ O\II 01jO~~Q~ O~ T~l~ Q~ ~!'~O~'O~.^ O~ 00,00 ~01•Q~iO~~O~ O~ O~ O~IO~ O~ Q~ 01 01 i ~t.'cY~N V'- !ViV' ~t~~t!et V ~t`N 'cf'M'.~ ~~M ~.M;M ,'~I'~i~Fl~Y ~t ~ Vj'~h V' ~ ~Y ~Y • N M M~ M M; t M l M I M .MiM M, M' M M~ M~ M~ M M M' M~ M •MiM ' M; M ~ M I M_j M~ M M 1 M M M ' i 1 w I ~ f( I a a a a a~a a,aia as a'a;a ...a_a a .-i a a a a aja a~a~aiaia~a,aj..a aj..alaj ,va w w;w w w;w ww w w w~w;w w•w;w,w w w w w'w w w;w c,, w,w!wjwiwiw,w4wlcs.jw; M' O - y U v M. U U! ~ U' U- U- U' U U O U U" U ~ C~if~ U U U 'rY... O- Ui U U-, U U~ U-: U U~ U' U U; U~ UI N i. 1.. ~ L , L: L L f.. ,a L L 4., 4 i.. b. L 'fl ~ a a. ~ L L. L L 4+ w. L i ~ r., y L 4. I L ~ a~ ~ v a~; ~ a~, v a~: a~ ~ a~. ~ v a, c~,Q, , a„ a~ a~ ~I a~ ~i ~i,v, ^I.~I =ii °'i.=4 a a. a a'a a:a'a v~ n, a a. a~;a~ ~ h, a ' a ? ~n a;a a;a a a;a~a;a~a,a,aia., C C° C C': G C`~.r C r C C ~ C Q- ~.C C x o~ C ~ C'r ~ '~'~'Ci~~i~;~,Cj 0 0° o 0 0 0:0 0'0 0 0 0' o; o 0 0~> o 0 0 0.0 0,00 oio;o,o,o o. ,U w w> w w!w~w.w.w a w w,w 3:w,3 w w~ w a d a w w;w w.w wiw;w:w;wjwjw;w 0 N t. ~ a. vi a'a a a a s 'u:i 1 x .e' ~ u ~ Q u' o; i~ I c: > o ,j o' o 0 0 •o •v L o o v v' ° 'O~ j a as ~ . E ~ ~ E . cK a; ' > .Ly ~ ° : i 'o l b ~ ~ - L L L O j: h 1.. ~ L C) ~ a~ fl- ~ ; ~ L . (n vi d ~ ' ~ U i L I ~ A c'd ro A;A.A A cv ~ ~ 'C] A ~ ~ v cc. ro A A •v ~vv' a~iA~ N~ v,iA! ~1y LO: ~ x Q"~~U i:.: L L: kd.. L x'x N x':~.x L L a. a. ~ x-x L L c~otr ~ Lti~i N L! I ~ ~ se > > > ~ J cad X N .x X-. j 3 > C c ..YY > 3 3M cOd: ~i >i ~I . o:.~ ° O~~ a a ii a'a: O O o 0 o O'n;',.. r~ ~n cn z 0 0 aii~ w w o~ r.~;cnjG7~a!in! vv~oo~vv~~n~ov~rGgoal oo~noo~ooNO f~oc~!N~o;~o~^~ ~ of N O N: .N'N D1 N b'~ O ~ a\ O~O n 00:00: h:V' O:~O:O O~ '~IO_~M~•.•I - N Nk~O D\.~-0-N;N~N O~~M O:O O O'O'~O N:O N'~0,~0 h OHO N!N M Mt ~/1~Nlt~Mi N M~ is ~d ~M M`~0 M;V'~OO'M ~M MI~~MV'~~0. ~;CL:V':M~^ M v1 'ct'~F'M'M 'ct'~i~l. v1iM!M'et!M~M~ I I '3:3i ~ ti! ~ j ~ ~j , o o' z A C] ~ v ° v ~o 'D E ~ ~ N z O bA ~ cd v, cv ca ° a, co o ca ° : ~ ca z a W U W u;.cL' ~ aG: v~ R:,~ A ~ ~ 0.:A ~ ~W ,A! y y M 7. p cV. .C Vl ti ,L L 'C'.C ~ Ei ~ E ca 7 3 ~ C t ~ ` .e ~ U E o>' ro ~ c°v ~ O ca c c~ i_° ~ 7 ° ro o ° ~ ° a> ~ ° • ;z dao cnw mmv w Vxxr7~ ~Gx~~;~~~ ia.,' E ~ a s w W C7 C7 ~ c c x w ~ W m a a cn w: jm N - tt7 G C N - O C cd ~ - ~i ' eV I e o ..d ~ ~ ~ v v cv cc C ~a ~ ao o •v v ro -O a~ C ' i a~ i ~n s d eEa .e a~i a°~ 0 0 0 o c"~v ' ro -OO ' ~o a°~ ~ ° c>v c>a ~ ~ c°v c°o o ~ ~ .n ' ° ; ~ i ~ ' co Lo z U C7 ~ C7 R.' 0.~ ~ a. _ C7 ~ ~ Ca C] ~ . 4 0.' 4~ n 3 " d ~-a t'-e. OD U - - 'C o A U _ ,o; y ~ o a°i ~ m; fn Imo; ;E Y U U: o;p ; 'a ° ~ ~ w: o o i i~ o E . ,D ~ o , 3 .c ~ : ~ o ~ ; .a ° ~ U ~ a, ~ .c ~ L ca • c~3 0 >..c : b>, cdi v ~ ( l~u.. l v0i ~ ~ ~ I f 0o ea c'~•° °~°':o c~~:o='==:a o:.. o'~;o °>','c'c ~ d:a~ E'o'n ~ai~- ~'O•r=1~: z ¢;w w m ao m w:r~ U U U w w w w w'c7:x x x...,...... ae'a~ is ~,~;~i~1~ia.laia.ya,! E , O 0. _h ~ O 'ctN'~n.^-O M OO.N-Nv1 :M ~t o0 Ma' 0~.~0:~0-^.00.0 W DO v1'O ~t ~O;^I~1~0'1~~~ ~;V L. OO O OO.O O'OO O O O.O O.OO O O,O O O:O;O O.O O O O;O:O O O~O~Oj0~0~ O O O ~O.O~O.O.O'O O~O N M O.O VO'O'O O O.O~O,O'O.O O.O'O Oi0'ih O,O O. C~ O O O O O O.O O O O,O OOO O~O O_ O O O O~O O O~O.O.O O_ O~O O O'Oi0:0 Oj _ aa+ NoO 'ct 00 b b M N O O N ~ h ^~M -v1 ~0-lam ~t -N:M 'O~^'V1'N- y -v1. O ^ O O O O N,^ O.O.O O.O O O~N-O O ^:O,O ^ OO.O O,~OtOIO,~iOt ~ O.O O O OO'O~O.O O.O O~OO O O O O.O O O'O O:O OO OO O~O Oi Oi010 i0:0~ E pD ~ N'N:~t oM c vo v°rN N N:VO' O'O N.O O O N O O Oi0 N O O N N O _O O ~INi~j^!d0'~~t~ i r-, O O M M^ MM O O O-M M M O M.M M OtM O N' O M~MO'O V' 'cr'M'V'!O~M'~• IM ~F, ~ Q h h-. N M- ^-V) ~ Yl NINV) N rt:N ~/1,N Vl M r~}} Vl N N h,vl ^'N]N~v1~NIV';^~^( O O'O 0~10~0:~0'O 0.010 0~;0~0 O~'OO~ O.O~ O O~ 0 0 O~;O~'O;O O O.O~,O O O\ O O O ,y •O MV VM~VM''NV MV~MVV ~ 7.'MV~MV ~`~MV VN',7NV VM'-VN' ~~~~.VM' VM.NV'VN' VM'~V 7.7~~~I~f~I~I~~~I ;;A ~ jF N N N~~~N N~ N N N ~ 'N~N ~N'N N N; N. N'N iN~N,:N;NIN~NiN_;N,t;l 10,.-.'~O'~ O~i~iN -`-i'cn)M O~iviiNf(V'Nj, O-oo ~'O M.OpIM N OIM.~D N!N ~O'• ~ O\Ih~~!O~j~D h,et v1, V1~O~V1, V1'~i, _ ^ ~ ~ ' ~ ~O~ : 0~ 00' !00 OO'00ipp~00 pp,pp:00 N .M O M 'M M M!M M M M M M :y, , c}n`c'~l.wUu"a-we'~=.w;r~u"~..r'~ac"'~,c`~.wc`:, o o ~ ~ N ' Ln v a~ a~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ eq v v v v v o 0 0~ o 0 0 - O~ O O O~ O O O~~ O O U O. O O"- 'U aw3wwww:w:ww3www. w o; a .a ~ o o a x ~ > ° .Opp-'~ Off: ''O oo N'.N rz1 h~ '~.•~ON 'V;N:N'M vi:N'N N O 0~.6~N:. ;~Q'~--•;MM M: M!N~M iM'M M G. M.M~M~- b 6! L~ ;z U E• N - Rt 4- z ~ N N b0 0] ~ ~ 0. w y c~V T N t N a'~-. ~ I.. C cc1 y N y W ~U.Z U ln~~ ~ Q ~ K ~ 3 C/1 v ~ G iN, 7~i ~ vi ~ V Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 U' ca E L a W Q y V y ti O y ~ F Oa ~ E E... y ~CC U~ OD C C C CC ~ G - O N fd d ac Z W Wr/1Q 0.'L`"c QQQ i U o ~ ° " V 'e c y ~ ~ ~ t; vc ~ U- G F ~ y CO 'Q v.. ~ U V. ~ U p : 'L7 C H C 1.. .b ~ d~ N N H D M - e~V i0 O-. ~~;'X:.Y. wW 7, ~ avi a~:~a~ O~ yea 'IV 0. M N:M '~t~D~e1'~N et ~O V o0 O'+,h oO _;!O w O O!O O~O O~O~:O.O O O_ O_O_ O~ « v'! MONO O+.O ^--N ~t D\ "mot. O:O~O~O'O O O'pi0 O O OOO ~ ~ O.OOO O O O O~O~O O O.O.O-- E pp ~ M N,--~ N N N M N N N M,M N; O ~ O O O O N O O O M M M O M: V1. `7 N V1 H M v1 vl vt-d'N N v1 OO O OO O O~ O O O O O~O~~O ~ ~~y ~ MGM MM M M N M M M M N NM Q d - V ~t d' 'd' d'et V d' ~t d - V •-G ~ F N N'N N-N N N N N~N N (V -y"7 N ~ • r~.. - I ~~~F` ~ ~ iii-ii 2S ~_s~ J ~ North Fork Property Owners To: Lpcal Planning Agency Board of County Commlasiansts i)epartmsnt of Cornn~unity Altaira From: Patricia A. Ferrick +Govsrnmenlal Representative 4802 South Street Fort Pierce, Fla. 34981-6009 Subjec#: Fits Number PA-t13-Q03 (8~ecker Holding Corporatiorf~ Locstion: Northwest comer of Sehribt Road and Rails Rd. along Ten Mile Crack. Size of property: 72 acres, t+equest Land use change trwrt RS- 2 ~ RU- 6 dwelling units to acre. L0 39tid ~321~t! 11i9I~t3`IQNti~ ZL9Et9DZLL 9L=69 b60Z/$Li90 r~ r7 ~ R ~5{. ~ ...C.~d ~ ~ ~_~~1 M ~ ~~yyyy~~~ ' .MY i 8 4UlJJ r r ~ The North Fork Properly Owners questions the need for such high density on property that borders Ten Mite Creek, that flows directly into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The impact coin be well over "ttMO people on this property. How wilt tt impact our schools? We understand work is currently being done bo ~torra Oxbows in the North Fork, this property Iola an Oxbow vn site. We also question the traffic impact stater»ent; does it include pro,~ac~d dally trips for the Wal-Mart Distribution Cen1e?r? noes it include trips generated with the opening of Selvitz Road, providing it dir+act connection inba Port Rt. Lucie, and the accompanied additional traffic from recent zoning changes in the PSL cvrridar? Nte question the additions! trip generations on the roadways in d» surrounding area. There ere no grocery stores, ,drugstores, or doctor ofltces iii this corridor. We question the noise from the adjacent industrial uses to this ar+r?s. How wilt this impact a multi~imity setting? Wits this change encourage odser property owners along the Tan-Mile Creek area and the North f=ork to request this same change? Will it set a pe+ecedent for more multi amity development along the pristine waterways too the south and thereby degrade the water quality that flows into the aquatic preserve south of the Midway Road bridge? The North Fork Property Owners feels that tftese questions need to be answered prior to the Land Use change being granted. $iric ty, a 'cis A, Ferrick Z0 3~317d S32l~tt 1WJI"137QNti~ ZS9EI9bZLL 0I ~60 b00Z/8tl90 - D ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ Submitted by James B. Pulliam J..a E Rebuttal to local planning Agency Review 6/19/03 File #PA-03-003; ~ ~,F g~r;~.°~=nir _ _ Application of Becker Holding Corporation, for a change in Future Land Use Designation from RS (Residential Suburban - 2 du/ac) to RU (Residential Urban - 5 du/ac) Comments Page 3 Future Land Use Element Developers should restore and ensure establishment of natural vegetation prior to actual project construction. Grove has not been in use for several years. Wildlife is already reestablishing itself, due to access of surrounding natural areas. High density would effectively increase one mile population from approximately 850 residents of single family owned homes and (40 duplexes) to 1,770 for 350 units or 1,500 at 260 units. Objective 1.1.1 S Urban sprawl is encouraged by this plan! Currently there is no family support areas i.e., gas stations 1,S miles, grocery stores 3 miles, Doctors S miles. By increasing family density adjacent to an industrial park will encourage all retail activities to proliferate in an area that is primarily single family homes. Although this project is within urban service boundary and dangerously close to a work area, it is not close to urban facilities. Also no areas close to the project are desirable, nor zoned for urban facilities. The site's "protected" shoreline and preservation zone, flood plain, and flood way will be an unauthorized playground for approximately 200-300 children in the project area. If the children are supervised this will add to the unauthorized playground density. (See Attached Pictures) Pg. 5 Goal 1.2 Traffic Circulation Locating in this area is close to work area, but further away from all other family support activities. This increases road use for everything else but work transportation. "Also "close to work area" encourages single automobile families 1 Submitted by 3ames B. Pulliam to drop off workers at beginning of shift, use car during shift, and pick up workers at end of shift, actually increasing traffic density. Housing Element By approving development is this area the county is endorsing and ensuring residents are placed in harms way of two chemical fertilizer Plant's Explosion Blast Area, and deadly ammonia gas from two Fertilizer plants and two large citrus processing plants. Evacuation times on a single entrance Road leading closer to hazard area is a county liability issue. This is a precedent setting project allowing multifamily units (apartments) to be interspersed among older established single family owned homes. Single family homes built in north Port St. Lucie off Midway Rd. are closer to the Wal-Mart Distribution Center than proposed project area. Page 6 Sanitary Sewer sub-element Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority will bring in sewer lines. Does this mean every residence that Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority pass enroute to site will be charged a sewer fee whether they are connected or not? 7.1.1.1 Site does not protect, conserve, or enhance the natural resources of the area. St. Lucie County has not assured that the developer will restore natural vegetation and physically protect the Ten Mile Creek shoreline and flood plain. Long time resident George B. Brown says flood plain is larger than depicted on site plan. 7.1.2.9 Any development of the amendment site should occur in a manner that further the efforts to restore, enhance and maintain the functions and values of natural waters and adjacent upland habitats. It should be obvious to everyone that allowing 700-1,000 people, 300-400 automobiles, 260-350 apartments, will not accomplish 2 Submitted by 3ames B. Pulliam anything towards restoring, enhancing, and maintaining the upland habitats. (See Attached Pictures) 7.1.4. Water quality cannot be enhanced by locating storm water treatment areas (holding ponds) in a flood plain. Ten Mile Creek will be polluted by these holding areas during flood stages. Policy 8.1.1.2 To provide residents non automotive transportation to work, developer should provide and construct approximately eight miles of sidewalks and bike paths along Ralls Rd., Selvitz Rd., and Glades Cut-off Rd. Policy 8.1.3.1 Placing of storm water management sites i.e., Holding ponds, in flood plain will ensure contamination of Ten Mile Creek during floods. Policy 9.1.1. Passive flood plain use by residents means allowing approximately 200 -300 children to play in flood plain area. Supervisors of children adds to that density. Water Resources. 187.201 (7) (a) goal Placing of storm water management sites i.e., Holding ponds, in flood plain will ensure contamination of Ten Mile Creek during floods. Land Use. 187.201. (16) (a) Goal The proposed amendment future land use classification is expected to adversely affect the quality of life in the immediately surrounding Area, Approximately 30 residents will suddenly have 700-1,000 new neighbors within the neighborhood. Traffic density will not effect the roadways as much as waiting times at intersections. Residents turning into and out of project area will create a hazard, as well as delaying Selvitz Rd. Traffic, especially north bound entry and exits of project area. (See attached photographs) 3 Submitted by James B. Pulliam The site is not located in an area that contains public improvements sufficient to support residential development. Water, and sewer does not exist and must be brought to the area. The closest public park, library, and school is miles (3+) away. Currently there is no family support areas i.e., gas stations 1.5 miles, grocery stores 3 miles, Doctors 5 miles. By increasing family density adjacent to an industrial park will encourage all retail activities to proliferate in an area that is primarily established single family homes. Transportation. 187.201 (20)FS: Selvitz Road is primarily a feeder road for the Ft. Pierce Industrial Park. The Park contains two countywide garbage collection companies, one waste water treatment company, four ready mix companies, two highway building companies, including the asphalt plants, four beverage distribution companies, one mulch processing and vegetation grinding company, two large citrus processing companies, a propane distribution company, and the county landfill, along with other various heavy industry companies. Selvtiz Road traffic count should indicate 70-80 % heavy & commercial vehicles. All family automobile and school bus traffic on this road "is at risk". Ralls Road intersects Selvitz Road in a downhill slopping apex of a curve 300 feet south of bridge approach & exit area. Road viewing distance is 300 feet both directions. Posted speed is 35 MPH but reality 40-45 MPH. (See Attached Photographs) Conclusion: County should assume liability for allowing development of high density development that puts 700-1,000 people at risk (Adjacent) to Industrial Park Environment, containing massive explosive, force created by ingredients in fertilizer plants, deadly, colorless, suffocating, ammonia gas, used in huge quantities by citrus process{~~ plants, and dust hazards created by mulch grinding and concrete plant activities. Project is located less than 200 yd.'s from 2 fertilizer plants, 2 asphalt plants, a ready mix concrete plant and a citrus processing plant. Noxious smells, blowing dust and loud heavy machinery noise are ever present irritations in project area. Combined this with placing the project on a single entry and exit road creating an extremely dangerous intersection that can be "fixed" by complete relocation of the 4 Submitted by James B. Pulliam road & bridge approach. Single entry and exit road becomes critical in an extreme emergency evaluations, (hurricanes, industrial park accidents, swat team operations, floods, ect). Project is located close to work area, but further away from all other family support activities. This increases road use for everything else but work transportation. "Also close to work area" encourages single automobile families to drop off workers at beginning of shift, use car during shift, and pick up workers at end of shift, actually increasing traffic density. This is a precedent setting project allowing multifamily units (apartments) to be interspersed among older established single family owned homes. All the admitted adverse effects and hoped for solutions that will impact the natural protected shoreline, flood plain, and upland habitat of Ten Mile Creek will probably jeopardize future funding of environmental restoration money to St. Lucie County especially during lean budget years Attachments: 3 photographic pages Of road 1 phot©,graphic page Of local wildlife environment 2 pages fertilizer plant Explosions and evacuations ,1r~ames B. Pulliam 5 1~ wow/~ /i l« ~rH,ta.l~ CJ~~ra~? l~o~ ~y ~r~r~ ~l~~~cr~ -fa? ~ cXc~~o~n ~~e„~~ ~M-o3-o07 Po- L'r ~ ~ d.y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 4/19!03 ~f~t i File Number CU-03-002 U' ' ` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • Planning Division • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager ' " DATE: June 19, 2003 SUBJECT: Withdraw of P & L Property Management (A/K/A St. Lucie Square Bingo) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Bingo Parlor within the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District. Please find attached a letter from the P & L Property Management requesting that their petition be withdrawn from consideration by the County. Staff is recommending that this petition be withdrawn and no further action take place on this item. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 6/19/03 File Number CU-03-007 ~ ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A Planning Division e ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Plannl g and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning anager DATE: June 10, 20 3 ~ SUBJECT: Application of & L Property Management, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a operation of a bingo parlor, within the St. Lucie Square Shopping Center, in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District. LOCATION: 6666A uth U. S. Highway One, St. Lucie Square Shopping Plaza (a portion of the old Publix Supermark t in the center of the St. Lucie Square Shopping C ter) ZONING DESIGNATION: CG (Commerci I General) LAND USE DESIGNATION: COM (Commerci PARCEL SIZE: Parent Tract 13.72 acres Subject Parcel 000 square feet of leasable area PROPOSED USE: Bingo Establishment SURROUNDING ZONING: CG (Commercial General to the north, south and west and RM-9 (Residential, M tiple-Family - 9 du/acre) to the east. - SURROUNDING LAND USES: Commercial to the north, south and west and Residential Medium to the eas The general use of the surrounding property is comm cial retail. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station # 6 (350 East Midw Road) is located approximately 2 1/2 miles to the ortheast. June 10, 2003 P & L Bingo Establishment Page 2 CU-03-007 UTILITY SERVICE: Port St. Lucie Utilities Authority will provide water and sewer services #o the subject property. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way width for U. S. Highway One is 120 feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: FDOT has scheduled the widening of U. S. Highway One to six lanes by 2006. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Certificate of Capacity. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for a proposed Conditional Use Permit, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(S)(7), CG (Commercial General) Zoning .District, allows bingo establishments as a conditional use with Board of County Commission approval. The proposed location is a 9,000 square foot portion of the Building which was previously occupied by a Publix Supermarket. The subject area is zoned for the commercial uses. According to Section 7.06.02(A) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, bingo establishments that are located within a commercial center 50,000 square feet or more in size are required to provide a minimum of 5 parking spaces per - _ 1,000 square feet. The proposed location is 9,000 square feet of a 97,000 square foot shopping center, therefore, 45 parking spaces are required to meet the minimum Land Development Code parking requirements. The St. Lucie Square Shopping Center was developed with 547 parking spaces being constructed on the site. Based upon this, this site will have sufficient parking to meet the needs of this project. In order to ensure that parking capacity on this site does not exceed the June 10, 2003 P & L Bingo Establishment Page 3 CU-03-007 current number of spaces, staff is recommending the following condition of approval The Board of County Commissioners shall reserve the right to review the conditional use permit on asemi-annual basis to ensure that the proposed project will not have an undue, adverse effect on traffic conditions and parking for the entire shopping center. If the Board of County Commissioners determines that the parking required for P & L Bingo is creating capacity problems for the shopping center, the Board may impose additional restrictions on the hours of operation of the facility. 2. .Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on nearby properties; The proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The proposed site is located within an existing shopping center (St. Lucie Square Shopping Center) in the previous Publix Supermarket location and is zoned for General Commercial businesses. As the current location is a vacant building within an existing shopping center, the proposed use is expected to provide an economic boost to the shopping center. The applicant has indicated that the proposed bingo establishment will employ approximately 30 to 40 people. The applicant's supporting documentation indicates that the hours of operation for the bingo establishment will. be from 11:00 am to 1:00 am, .seven days a week. Staff is recommending that the following condition of approval be included in the Final Development Order for this use. The hours of operation for the P & L Bingo establishment are from 11:00 am to 1:00 am, seven days a week. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit; - - _ This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. At the time that the St. Lucie Square Shopping Center was reviewed any proposed impact from the center was identified. The Bingo Parlor is not expected to significantly increase the number of trips on US Highway One. Therefore, the proposed use will not have a negative impact on any roadway network within the vicinity of the shopping center. The proposed property receives water and sewer from the Port St. Lucie Utility Development. June 10, 2003 P & L Bingo Establishment Page 4 GU-03-007 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The St. Lucie Square Shopping Center is built and the proposed location is within an interior unit of the center. The proposed bingo establishment must comply with all local, state and federal regulations concerning its development and operation. COMMENTS The applicant, P & L Property Management, Inc., has applied for the requested conditional use. permit in order to operate a Bingo Parlor within the St. Lucie Square .Shopping Center for property located at 6666A South US Highway One, in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District. Bingo Parlors are allowed as a conditional use in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant has indicated that the hours of operation for the facility will be from 11:00 am to 1:00 am, seven days a week. In addition, the facility will employ between 30 to 40 people. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, with the following conditions of approval: 1. The Board of County Commissioners shall reserve the right to review the conditional use permit on asemi-annual basis to ensure that the proposed project will not have an undue, adverse effect on traffic conditions and parking for the entire shopping center. If the Board of County Commissioners determines that the parking required for P & L Bingo is creating capacity problems for the shopping center, the Board may impose additional restrictions on the hours of operation of the facility. _ s _ 2. The hours of operation for the P & L Bingo will be from i 1:00 am to 1:00 am, seven _ - days a week. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment cs cc: P & L Properties, Inc. File Suggested motion to'recommend approval/deniai'of this requested conditional use. MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING- THE TESTIMONY :.PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING., fNCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH ;IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCRE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,- HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND.: THAT THE ST. LUCIE -COUNTY BOARb OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION. OF P;& L PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., FORA ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A BINGO`. ESTABLISHMENT IN -THE CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT; BECA~.ISE... :[CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO DENY: AFl'ER. CONSIDERING. THE TESTIMONY ,.PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC ~ HEARING,INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS'OF REVIEW AS ~ SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST: LUCIE 000NTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, . i HEREBY-MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENp ~ TMAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD DF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE' APPLICATION OF P & L PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., FOR A CONDITIONAL USE ~ PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A BINGO ESTABLISHMENT 1N THE GG ~ (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... ' [CITE REASON(S) WHY - ;PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] Section 3:01.03 , Zoning District Use Regulations , t ' S. CG COMMERCIAL. GENERAL 1. Purpose . The purpose of this 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, which do not impose undesirable noise, vibration, odor. dust, or offensive effects on the surrounding area, .together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with: general commercial urroundings. The number -in "Q" .following each identified use corresponds o the SIC code reference described in. Section 3.01,02(B), The number 999 applies; to a use not defined under he SIC code but may be further defined in.Section 2:00:00 of this code. 2.. Permitted Uses a. Adjustment/collection & credit reporting services rr~i b. Advertising ~3+> c. Amphitheaters tess~ d.: Amusements &recreation sentices-except stadiums, arenas, race tracks, amusement parks. and bingo parlors ~sl` -e: Apparel & accessory stores css~ ' f, /Automobile dealers (5s> g: ' Automotive rental, repairs & serv. (except body repairs) ~s+~ss.isar h. Beauty and barber services nz3n2al is Building :materials, hardware and garden supply cszl i j. Cleaning servicesaaasr k. Commercial printing cs~) I. Communications -except towers lair m, Computer programming, data processing & other computer serv. crs» n. Contract construction serv. (office & interior storage only) rs~+~ur o. Culturalactivifies and nature exhibitions tit p. Duplicating, mailing, commercial art/photo. & stenog, sere. l7~1 q. Eating places css>> r, Educational services -except public schools cezr , Engineering, accounting, research, management & related services tell . t. Equipment rental and leasing services ~asr u; Executive, legislative, .and judicial functions ce+rsvs~sa~ssrsr~s>> ' v: Farm labor and management services ~o~el w. Financial, insurance, ahd real estate tsors,reus~sa~sn x. Food stores tsar y. FuneraL'and crematoryservices n2a> z, Gasoline service stations cssatl., _ aa.: General- merchandise stores cs31 _ bb. Health services teoy - _ _ . cc. Home furniture and furnishings csrl dd. Landscape & horticultural services ~orai . ee. Laundry, .cleaning and -garment services as+r ff. Membership organizations -except for religious organizations as provided in Section 8A2.01(M) of this code ce~l . gg. Miscellaneous retail (see SIC Code Major Group 59): (1) Drug stores cs9,l 'i Adopted August 1, 1990 118 Revised l`hrough 08/01!00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations (2) Used merchandise stores tss3r (3) Sporting goods rssa,r (4) Book & stationary tssazrssa3r (5) Jewelry tssaor (6) Hobby, toy and games rssasr (7) Camera & photographic supplies tssasr (8) Gifts, novelty and souvenir tssa~l (9) Luggage & leather goods tssasr (10) Fabric and mill products tssasr (11) Catalog, mail order and direct selling tsss,~ssssr (12) Liquified petroleum gas (propane) tssaar (13) Florists tssezr (14) Tobacco tsss3> (15) News dealerslnewsstands tsssar ' (16) Optical goods tssssr . (17) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) tssssr hh.. Miscellaneous personal services (see SIC Code Major Group 72): (1) Tax return services pzs,r (2) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) r~zssr ii. Miscellaneous business services (see SIC Code Major Group 73): (1) Detective, guard and armored car services ~~s,r - (2) Security system services ~3ezl (3) News syndicate ~3asr _ (4) Photofinishing laboratories p3ear f C (5) Business services -misc. n3ss~ JJ• Mobile home dealers tszrr kk. Mobile food vendors (eating places, fruits &vegetables-retail) tsssr - II. Motion pictures ~sr mm. Motor vehicle parking -commercial parking & vehicle storage. (7sz> nn. Museums, galleries and gardens teal oo. Personnel supply services p3sr pp. Photo finishing services t~3sar qq. Photographic services t~zzr rr. Postal services ta3r ss. Recreation facilities laser tt. Repair services ~sr uu. Retail trade-indoor display and sales only, except as provided in Section 7.00.00. tsss~ vv• Social services: (1) Individual & family social services taszre3sr (2) Child care services laser _ (3) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services ta~al +Nw• Travel agencies ta~z<~ - - xx. Veterinary services ro~<~ - - 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 aecticn 3.01.03 Zoning District Use f2egulations ~ f . 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. Adult establishments subject to requirements of Sec. 7.10.10. (s99) b. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) -free-standing. (se~3) c. Disinfecting & pest control services.. p34z d. Amusement parks. ~s9s) e. Go-cart tracks. ~sss> f. Hotels & motels. poi) g. Household goods warehousing and storage-mini-warehouses (999> h. Marina -recreational. boats only. (4493) ( i. Motor vehicle repair services -body repair. ~s3) j. Sporting and recreational camps. no3z) / k. Retail trade: is (1) Liquor stores. (s9z) k. .Stadiums, arenas, and race tracks. nsa) I. Telecommunication towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10.2'~~ tsK,~) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and incluci;:! U 4C' :F a. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages as an accessory use to a restaurant and/ear civic, social, and fraternal organizations). b. One single-family dwelling unit contained within the commercial b~?ilding, Qr a detae:hed single-family dwelling or mobile home, (for on-site security purposes). c. Retail trade: (1) Undistilled alcoholic beverages (accessory to retail sale of food). Adopted August 1, 1990 120 Revised Through 08/01/00 U C ~ Z ~ ~ C C m i ~ ~ ~ , M O ~ ~ • ttf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y` ~ O H N .U C ~ P ~cd~d ~ ~ ~ a O J U ~ o ~d Q~~i ~ ~a./.~? 'r a ¢ ~ t . n V J Y' t'S PL£N ~N ~ Y]W M]Aq L1~ ~ir,_ $ ~ Y!N Y 3 n ~ Y+' 3 e~`~` ~ti ~ ~ ~ M I i p li t s ND. ~ a t r i = y'li s. is ~ ~ ~Q OY wMt ~ ' . Odl1u a. $ ~p~t5?'~" c~'~~ g I i i a ' -oroa lura wurt ~ ~ N ~,e' . ate, ~ fll (r S'.N~r fIL ,.FJ O .h AlM~ woa ]ia.n]s 9 U ..~J J+ s Q ~~\l W ...7Y1]A~1' ~Y~I]... g W ~ P W " e'S / W OrOtl MC1SMDf ! ~ ' ~ ,b M S O U Ia. 0 n ~I OrOtl MOLSNd' ~ -Otl r!! L O ....OVW-Ori937o0Y °i OrOtl X1FS100tlG I O I Z U ' O ~ arou reams - _ U 1 O~oe ~-)rii 3J~nu ~ O~OU DOWG~Oal ' ' - ~ I OrW . T'M~ tl30rl~ I W ~ ~ ~ QI ~ x/1011 T'](~ W ~ I ff OIOtl O]M - OrOtl MOl1Yr7 ~ K I Q ~ Z - ~ - - _ - - ~ - - tlNtl ' i i Y ~ w W ~ f7~~ ti ' ~ / 7 Pp~ n M / ~ g K 6. 1 I S 6£ 1 S Sf 1 S 9£ 1 ~V.Nf100 3390H033~i0 J'~bo P & L Property Management, Inc. a.k.a. St. Lucie Square Bingo ~ JJ J. x p I Y >0 A I m f iJ I M ~ ~ iJ Goforth Rood o I r U I p, rJ l N n a a ~ 021 4 .7.07 ~ ; i ac 1 onol Z 1 e 1' 1.38 I ....1 87 y a m 2~ 1 ~ Hordee Avenue 3.02 1.42 1 1 1:77 , .2 0,64 1 -1~ q w a K • 1 a .2 1 Kittermon Rood 1 Kittermon .Rood 1 1 1 0.68 1 I 1 1.79 1 1 ~ 1 I i 1 O 1 i , 1 ~ Z .0.52 i ~ 1 1 r i g 1 I 1 ~ 1 ~ 3:59 3 , ~ ~ I 1 ~ 1 I 1 _ 1 1 i 8.99 ~ J 1 ~ Is I 0 1 0.87.- uj . r - ~ 1 ~ j 1:20 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 vi 1 ~ ' 1 Z 1 2.56 f r 0.39 0 1 i 1 i i 1 1 r ' ' U 1 I 1 8.471 ~ 126 1.03 0.42 Z 1 I ~ 1 1 ~--I---~ iN /JJ /J6 to ~ ~ 2 I 1 1 2.49 1 iJe 1 t 1 I ~ ` 1 I ' ~ ,JO ' 0.2 6.46 c J ~ y Willidrttsburg Woy I ~ I i r c u M ~ 0.1 s 0.66 ~ 1 > _ o _ _0.02 O UJb . T a I u .Y I I i MJ U O i f ~ 4 V I.1 ~L M C 1~ B r ~ /J ~ s r.s m 1 1 ' CU ~3-~~7 r , 500 boundary _ S~-.~~ ~ This pattern indicates subject parcel pis. Map prepared May 12, 2003 This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel ~...~.~~.~~~,a° ti°~~°~:°~ ~J YIbi11N40n poraM.~Y ml MMtltl bfuM r ~ MpY/ a~V ODllllWX. A Petition of P & L Property Management, Inc. a.k.a. St. Lucie Square Bingo for a Conditional Use to operate a Bingo Parlor within Building 9 of St. Lucie Square a ~ .N ri !6 I 3 I s xi m l m ' iJ I N i 4 I! Goforth Rood o I r~ I r. zs as a ~ ai I onol / W Z I K Lvlt. ~ L' tD 9 O I Hordee Avenue I ~ N I, ~ I p Q Kittermon Rood Kittermon Road I - ~ I I O I I Z ~ ~ I I ~ i i I II ~ I _ ' 3 Q, I I 6 I I o - - ~ I I ~ ~ I I I I I Z I t ~ ~ I I Z I~ I s I I ~ t I I I ~ ` 6 3 e y Williamsburg WOy e I ( I ,c ~ ~ s . - e p Nr 0 s ~ p . I a I I Y N, o I I I o ~ I I ~I : ! e +e C 0 µ ,n~N I N, u ~ I I I ~ a Mc m CU 03-007 GIS. { Thls pattern mdlcates subject parcel Map prepared May 12, 2003 ,I This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel N i :,tvnreon vim. ~ b na tt«,oea a, we ba+r ~ . i i P & L Property Management, Inc. a.k.a. St. Lucie Square Bingo Zonin a ~ L N .73 >6 A I I Y !0 tD I m 6 I I! w Goforth Rood a ~ a ~,R-1 u I r~~ a ~ R M- G conol iw Z L~ e m g • I Hordee Avenue -i 9 w I! 6 I w 2 Kitterm Rood Kittermon Rood I I I o I I RF z ~ ~ I I RS- I I I I I s ~ ! 6 I R M-~ I I I II I Z ~ o I c ( ~ I I , U I I I~ I ~ Z w I>s I>s IA ( s I I ,se Z I I s ~ ~ ! I I ! y y Williomsburg Woy I I ( ' .c U ~ > ~ ~ ? - - Y w! U ' O wI ~ w ~ ~ I ~ I I 0 = e 2 w! I I ~ - u • ws m C U 03-00 7 ~ This pattern indicates subject parcel pis Map prepared May 12, 200.3 This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel ~.,,,~.~~.~~~,a° ~J itlIXTYiM 0~~0• ~ M IW /tM 1W b IIY 4 ~ MAY/ EYICIfp 000M111f11- P & L Property Management, Inc. a.k.a. St. Lucie Square Bingo Land Use 4 ~ J7 33 >6 A I I ~ I Y D m I t1 i I.7 I N . II Goforth Rood o c l U I uI a a ac a RM ~U c . ; I onol / W Z I K ~~.~L ~ a m 9 r I tiordee Avenue I ' ~I U N 4 K IA Q Kitterm Road Kittermon Rood I I r- I I i i I I Z ~ ~ ~ I I I v ~ t ~ rn ( I ~ I I s ' s . I (n ~ ~ I I I j ~ ~ RMI I IPF 0 ~ I I I I Z s ~ I c I r ~ ~ v ~ I I 3 I Z I iJ3 /J6 /p -I s • ( I I IJQ Z I I ~ s ~ J I ( I ~ 6 s y Williomsburg Woy s I I I 7 N Q1 I y ~ ~ _ ' o C o _ _M. I_ ~ -I A ~ V I ~I I NJ ~ O O U s i ~ C I ( I Nr ~ N ~ .U 9 I I ~ M IJ~ ~ IJ Q, l MS 2C CU 03-007 ~ ~~s. This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared May 12, 2003 This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel ~.b° P & L Property Management, Inc. a.k.a. St. Lucie Square Bingo ~ . C, t = tip. ~;I „ ..,~r.% i~ i:. - illr:~.tf~ ~ Pte"' ~ ~ ~,•ry s~[1a. :~«:'-.gat I ~r ~ ,~.~a:~MSfla. \.811!1- I ~ I! i4 ( - i~ I _ 1: t, ,1 f ' ~1 it t :b .,F.~~'il ~ - G ~ 1 Sy 2 4 - , ~f~1: , ~ 'f , ~i. ~ ~ i~ - i I f ' ! ~~Jj t ' ill ~ _ ~ `,I t ~ a S I , ~ ~ ~ ~ i S+ Y r ' LL• ~ ' ~ r r ~ cu o3-00~ ~%i This pattern indicates subject parcel ~~s s ' ~ ' ~ ' - Map prepared May 12, 2003 This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel AGENDA -PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION • June 19, 2003 7:00 P.M. P&L PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (A/K/A St Lucie Square Bingo), has petitioned St. Lucie County fora Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Bingo Establishment within ~ the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 6664 South US 1, St. Lucie Square Shopping Ceizter. II Please note that all proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commisson/Local _ i ~ Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by f the Planning and Toning Commission/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or Izearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, ! he may need to ensure that a uerbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes: the ! testimony and evidence upon which he 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 I ! will be granted an opportunity to cross~exumine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. i Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to.all adjacent property owners I June 6, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Trbune,;newspupers of general circulation. in St. Lucie County, on June`4, 2003. ~ FilelVo. CU-03-007 .jti ~ I i ( I JL~E`~~G [30ARD OF COUNTY COMMUNITY CO?MMISSIONE'RS ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR June 6, 2003 `OR~O~ f In accordance with the . St. Lucie County ..Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that P&L PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (A/JK/f1 St. Lrccie Square Bingo) has petitioned St. Lucie County for a- Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Bingo Establishment within the .CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the following described property:. :Location: b664 South US 1, St. Lucie Square Shopping Center. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON.REQUEST The first public hearing on the pelrtion will be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soots hereafter as possible, on June 19, 2003, County Conunissiotter's Chambers, St. Lucie County Adnzirtistration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity o,lie heard at that time. Written comments received nadvance of the public hearing will also be considered. :Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by he 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 M provide written comments for the record. ~ The proceedings of the Planning and~Zoning Commission are etectronically recorded. If a person decides to ~ ~ appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect toany matter considered at ~ such meeting or hearing, lie will need a record of the.proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure I 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 Bearing will be sworn..n. Any party to the proceeding .will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If't 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;" i If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice- a-the new owner. Please call'772/462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer o: File Number CU-03-00?. - _ ; it Sincerely, ~ ST. LUCIE COUNTX PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I, Ed Merritt, Chairman JOHN D. DRUHN. Disrricr No.-1 DOUG COWARD. District No. 2 PAULArA. LEWISr District No. ~ ERANNIE HUKHINSON. Disrricr No. 4 • CLlrr UARNES, District No. 5 County Adminisrroror - Douglos M. Anderson ~ 23b0 Virginia Avenue fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590: Planning: (772) 462-2822 GIS/Technicol Services: (772) 462-1553. Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 F'ox: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (772) 4b2-1529 ~ Fax: {772).462-2132 www.cost-lucie.fl.us - - 1010 Lagel Notices 1070 Legal Notfcae G T ST. LUCIE COUNTY _ / ~~~fff PUNNING AND 1\ ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA lune19. 2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE § hereby given in cwdance with Section 11.00.03 0l me Sr. Wcie County Lond Developmem Code oM me provisions of me Sr. Lucie County Comprehemive Plan, the following aPPlicants hove requested that ero $1. Lvc a Covnry Planning and Zoning Comm~svon comider their follPwing regvetrs: 1. Pdl PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (A/KyA 5T. WCIE SQUARE BINGO), for a CondOionol Use Permit ro allow r she opaafion of o Bingo Etrablishmenl within in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning Oisbicl for the following described Properly; MODEL UND CO'$ S/D IN SEC IS 3640 BLK I THAI PART OF lOT$ 7 AND 8 IN $E I/4 MPDAFFROM NW COR Of SE 1/4 RUNS 89 56 27 E 78 FT TO E R/W OF US tti TH S000027EALG ER/VJ IS FT TONl10F LOT 7,TH CONT SELY ALG E R/W 212 FT TO POB,TH N B9 59 33 E 145.50 fT TO CURVE CONCAVE NW,R OF 10 FT,TH NELY ALG ARC 15.71 FT, TH N 00 00 27 W 756.05 F7 TO CURVE CONCAVE SW,R OF 25 fT,TH NWLY AlG ARC 39.24 fT TO 5 R/vJ U OF KITTERMAN RD,TH 5 89 56 27 E AlG S R/W LI 123.07 TO W R/W LI OF CANAL,TH S 00 03 03 W 128L25 FT TO S U OF - ~ LOT B ,TH N 89 55 49 w ALG S U 282.35 FT,TH N 00 ' 00 27 w I x1.56 FT,TH N 61 56 37 W 73.07 fT,TH 5 B9 59 37 w 168.81 fT TO CURVE CONCAVE $E,R OF 35 fi,TH SWLY ALG ARC 54.98 FT TO E R/W OF US #I,TH N 00 00 27 w ALG E R/W 922.02 FT TO POB-LESS FOl DESG PROP:FROM NW COR OF SE 1/I,TH $ 89 56 27 E 78 F7 TO F R/w OF US # I,TH 500 00 27 E ALG E R/W 257 FT, i e- N 89 59 33 E 30 fT TO POB,TH CONT N 89 59 33 E 125 FT,TH 5 00 00 27 E 1BO fT,TH S 89 59 33 W 125 FT TH N 00 00 27 W 180 FT TO POB AND lE$$ fOl DESG PROP:FROM NW COR OF SE 1/I,TH S B9 56 R/w 1319.150fT TO $O OFSLOT B,TH5895549EArteG S LI 551.79 FT TO $E COR Of LOT B,TH N 00 03 03 E - ALG E LI OF LOT 8 178.67 fT,TH N B9 56 57 W 15.58 FT TO POB,TH N 01 11 a3 E 225.40 FT,TH N BO Id 38 w 13.99 FT,tH 5 22 l a a5 w 116.10 fT,TH N 65 29 51 w 29.91 FT,TH 5 25 31 01 w 69.17 fT,TH $ 65 06 11 E 20.26 fi,iH S 24 27 51 w 66 FT,TH 5 63 55 30 E 29 FT,TH N 84 I l 27 E 92.70 fT TO POB (13.72 Aq (OR I $x5.7 n2) L«arion: 666a South U$ 1, SL Lucie Square Shopping Center. 2. WILLIAM D. MILLER, iw o Change in Zoning from the R $.4 (Residenial, Single-Family - 1 du/acre) Zoning Dit- rcia ro she RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-family • 5 de/acre) Zoning Divrnt for the following described property: ZO 35 4C SE 1; 4 OF NE 1/4 OF SE I/1-LESS N 235 FT OF W a6C fT AND lE$S E 40 fT-AND W 161.80 FT OF N269.4d F' OF NE I; a OF SE 1/4 Of SE I/a (7.3d AC) (OR 53a-505) - L«arion: Approximately 750 feet south of Consz Avenue, on the wen fide of South 25th Skeet. 3. EUGENE aND LESLIE DUNCAN, fw a Change to Zon- ing from the RS-a (Residentoi, Single-family - 4 du/pee) Zoning Dipricr ro the RM•5 (Residential, Muhiple-Family - 5 du/cruel Zoning D"anicr Iw the following described property: 20 35 a0 N 225 FT OF w 2x2.50 fT Of SE 1; 4 OF NE 1 Ja OF SE t 4 (1.25 Aq (OR 269.1999) locorion: App•oximarely 750 Peer south of Corlaz Avenue, on Me Wes: side of South 25th Street. a. CORA 2. cAMBERi, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-a (Retidemiol, $ingltFcmily - 4 dv/acre) Zoning Dis• nix ro nhe RM.S (Residential, Mulriple.FOmily . 5 du/acre) Zoning Disntcr for the following described property: 20 35 d0 BEG 242,5 FT E OF NW COR OF SE 1/4 OF NE1/40F SE I/a, iH RUNE217.5 FT, TH 5235 FT, TH w 435 fi, THN IO FT, TM E217,5 FT, THN225 FT TO POB (721(1.23 ACl (OR 222-7x41: 1069.1725) Locoron: Apwoxin. at<ly 750 feet south of Conez Avenue, on me West side of South 2Ah Snesr. 5. ALICIO PINA- fw a Change in Zoning ham Me AG-1 IAgricvlNral ~ 1 dv/oae) Zoning District to the R$•1 (Rest. denKOl, Single.family - 4 dv%oae) Zoning Difhie For the following described property: 14 3a 39 5 3'a OF SE I 'a OF NW 1/4 - LESS E 80 FT AND 5 60 FT -;27,28 ACI (OR 341-2903) l«wion: Norm side o/ lnddo Rood, approximately 2,000 feet eatr O' Eme.son Av<nve. 6. DALE mOSHER, for o Change in Zoning from the RS-3 IResiav!icl, Single-Family . 3 du/one) Zoning Dis• nix to the AR.1 (AgricvlWrol, Residential - 1 du/acre) • Zoning Difnia For the following detaibed property: - 30 35 aC n '2 OF E I /2 OF NE 1/1 OF NE 1 /4 -LE55 $ 400 FT - AND N 3x0 fT OF $ 1/2 OF W 1/2 OF E - - 1 /2 OF NE I ya Of NE t /a - LE55 N 110 PT OF E 171 FT OF w 186 FT -AND BEG AT PT ON N R/W - EDwAROS RO 20 fT W OF SE COR Of 5 1/2 OF W I/2 OF E 1; 2 OF NE 1/l OF NE 1/d RUN N TO E LI SD SEC 70 PD 20 FT W Of E Ll OF S 1/T OF W 1/Z OF E I/2 Of NE 1/a OF NE I!a AND 310 FT 5 Of 5 LI OF NE I/a OF NE I!a OF NE 1/4, iH RUN E ZO FT, TH 5 TO N R/W EDwARD$ R0, TH W TO POB (9.67 Aq (OR 1$26-10811 l«aron: x200 Edward. Rood. PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held in Commission Chambers, Roger Ponros Mrnex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fan Pierce, flw%do on tune 19, 2003, bcginning at 7:00 PA1. w os soon Mereoher os poxible. PURSUANT TO Seoron 286.0105, FI«ida Sbfvres, N o person decides ro appeal any decision nwda by o board; agency. « scion wids respect to otry manor consid• Bred na a menirg w hearing, M will need a record d dx «eedings, and that, fa suM pwpows, hs mar need ro - swa that o verbatim record of tM pr«eedings is mode, which r«wd inclvd.F m. eenimany one .wd.«e apon which the appeal is to be baled. PUNNING AND ZONING COMMI$$ION ST. WCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Ed Merrin, CHAIRMAN PUBLISH: June 4, 2003 2714310 4 f _ _ y~~' ti ' ~ f~ i . ~ ~ i.° M1; I c ~P K ~i . I C~ :t _'q~ ~ ii , ~ Fn, Plannin an g d Zoning Commission Review: 06/19/03 ~ ' ~ riLi ~ *"~~~:a~ Ffle Number RZ-03-023 p• i ~ MEMORANDUM r DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- TO: Planning and Zoning Commission I. FROM: Planning Manager. DATE: June 13, 2003 ~ ~ i SUBJECT: Application of Alicio Pina .fora Chan e ins Zonin from`the `AG-1 g g , (Agricultural 1 dulacre) Zoning; District to the RS~4 (Residential, Sin le- g Family'- 4 du/acre) Zoning District. LOCATION: No' rth side of I drio Road a r x' n , _ pp o imately 2,000 feet east of Emerson Avenue: E I _ X STING ZONING• - G 1 A ri A cultural 1 du/acre E: (g ) PROPOSED ZONING: RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) I FUTURE LAND'USE: RU (Residential Urban) i PARCEL SIZE: 27.28. acres. PROPOSED USE: Sin le-Fami) subdivision con ist - s ent with the RS 4 Zonin g Y g . . Distract I' PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A" -Section 3.01.03(J), RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) -contains. the designated uses, ' which ar ermitt e p _ ed b ri ht, ermitted as an "accesso Y g p ry use`, or permitted throw h the contlitional use rocess: An 9 p Y use desigrtiated as a Conditional Use" is required to un der o f ` urther review a d a r v g n pp o als. Any use not found within the zoning district regulations are prohibited uses for that .district, _ _ SURROUNDING ZONING: RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) to the east and northeast. AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) to the north, south, and west: I Institutional is located to 't e w t ( ) h es , south and further east. ,r ~x ~ ~ n r tM ~ i , :z a. _ , a, t' . r '~~,s" ~r 4 ~r, 1 r s h ~ E E -1~~ - June 1 2003 ~ Sub'ect: Alicio'Pin ~ . J ~ Page 2 ' RZ-03-023 r'` F,. ~ ,1. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Thee general existing use surrounding the property is ` residential and vacant undeveloped property. ;1`here is a ' small church :opposite ~the -subject property at the ' intersection of Seminole Road and (ndrio Road..- The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding } ~ ~ ~ , area is RU (Residential Urban) to the north, south,. west ' and east: P/F Publ' Facilities to th s ut (Historic) -lndrio Road Schoolhouse -and vacant GOM (Commercial) are looted at ~ the :intersection of Emerson Avenue and Ind io R ad t r 0 o the. west.' FIRS/EMS PROTECTION: Station #7 (4900 Ft. Pierce Boulevard),, is located a ~`r ximatel 0.75 mile td' "e easf ' Pp Q _ y th. . UTILITY'SERVICE: fihe subject property is within ;ahe Planned 5 year sewer area of the St. Lucie Count lJtilities De artment. Y, p TRANSPO TATI R ON IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way width for Indrio Road'in the. area II of the prgposed 're~bning is 60 feet. Additional right-of- way, approximately 60 feet will be required as part of ,any. future development. ' If SCHEDULED ..IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED:.. - Concurrent Deferral Affidavit Y STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST . LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning - Commission shall consider and make the following determinations. 1., Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. iucie County Land Development Code;' The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and specifically has met the standards of 11.06:03. June 13, 2003 Subject: Alicio Pina Page 3 RZ-03-023 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The request is compatible with the RU (Residential Urban) Future Land Use classification, which allows single-family dwellings up to 4 per acre and multiple-family dwelling. units up to 5 per acre. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed zoning is consistent with the future proposed and existing uses in the area. ,Several developments have been proposed for the Indrio Road corridor that have densities up to 5 dwellings per gross acre. Along established subdivision -Lakewood Park - has a density of approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. The developer of the subject property has discussed plans for a subdivision with a density of approximately 4 dwelling units per acre. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment, however, the Indrio Road corridor has been transforming into . ~ ~S 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amen nt woul~ d ult in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including, but not limited to: transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, .drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create`significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Water and sewer services are available to this site. Any development will need to demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities in the area to support such development. The proposed project would also be required to verify that any development would meet South. Florida Water Management District requirements for drainage. 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 future development of this site will be required to comply with all state and local environmental regulations. The site is currently an old grove and does not have a significant number of native vegetation and habitat on it. Sr ~ c 1rt I ~ . - t ' 4 f ' 'i June 13, 2003 Subject:, AlicioPin'a ~ Page 4 ; RZ-03-023. ~ ~c ~ 7.` Whether and the extent to which the proposed, amendment would result,in . ~ an orderly and logical. development pattern specifically identifying any # y ..negative affects of-such patterns; I The proposed amendment would result in an orderly. and logical development pattern for the longterm uses in the area. The subject property has a future land us e classification of Residential Urban whic allows for theRS-4 Z h onm District g and the uses associated with this desi nation. The stab~ect ro ert is bounded g 1 p P Y by •the Lakewood Park residential subdivision to the east and northeast; which h" as a'zon~n - dis - i g trio designation cf RS 4. The subject roe is ..:.within the 1 p p ' dY urban service boundary of;St. Lucie County. ~ ' 8.: Whether the' proposed amendment would be 'in conflict with the public • interest; and is.inharmony with the purpose andintent of this Code; . The proposed amendment is not in conflict with -the public iriterest and is in harmony with he purpose .arid intent of the St. Lucie CoU;nty. Land Developrrent ...Code. I ~ COMMENTS ~ The etitioner Alicio Pina has re es p , qu, ,ted this change,; m zoning from the AG-,1 I (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the` RS-4 (Residential, Single-Pamily 4 du/acre) Zoning District on property located on the north side of Indrio Road, approximately 2,000 feet east. of Emerson Av ' e nue in.order to develop the property for asingle-family development. The subject property has a :future land. use classification Cf Residential Urban` which ma allow he y. RS-4 Zoning District and the uses associated with this designation. The subject property .is bounded b the;Lakewood Park residential subdivision t ~'~i Y o the east. and northeast, which, has a zoning district designation of RS-4 and is within the urban service boundary of St. Lucie County. Adequate water and sewer services are available to the area': Several developments have been it proposed for the:Indrio Road Corridor that. h ve d a ensites up to 5 dwelling units' per gross acre. ~ The proposed density is compatible with these eXsting and proposed uses. Attached is a copy of Sections 3.01.03(J) - RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family- 4 du/ acre of t hrch d he St. Lucie Coun Land Develo meet Code w i tY p elineates the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses .allowed in this zoning district:. If a change in zoning is approved, the applicant, tiy,right, would be allowed o establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses,sectio An use; n y under the Accessory Uses section would be allowed onl. if _Y one or more of `the permitted. uses exist on the subject roe An ` use under the Cond' ` ' _ 1 p p nY. Y itronal, Uses section eauld 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 et f orth 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 PI n. a Staff is' recommendin that' ou forward this' etition to the B g Y p oard of County. i' mendation of a royal: Commissi oners with a rec om pp June 13, 2003 Subject: Alicio Pina Page 5 RZ-03-023 Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment hf cc: County Administrator County Attorney Alicio Pina David S. Knight, P.E. -Knight, McGuire Associates, Ina File wy ? 2 l ~ _ i 7 ~t' Su est ed motion ecom 9g to r mend approval/denial of this requested,change,in zonirtg,_ ~ MOTION TO APPROVE: F' ; AFT R E C ONSID ERING THE TESTIMQ Y ES NTED r N PR ~ ,..DURING THE. PUBLIC HEARING, . . INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF aEVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, (HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING A ND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COU TY N COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF ALICIO P~NA, FOR A CHANGE :IN ZONING FROM T`HE AG-1 I (AGRICULTURAL - 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RS-4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE- FAMILY - 4 DU/ACRE)ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE ; [CITE REASON[S] WHY -PLEASE BE SPECIFIC].: MOTIO III N 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. ZONLNG COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY:-BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF ALICIO PINA, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG~1 (AGRICULTURAL 1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RS-4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 4 DU/ACRE) ZO~lING DISTRICT, BECAUSE CITE`R - EASON S WH Y PLEASE BE SPECIFIC . [ [ l ] J k ~ ~ . £ A~ i £ l ~~i~- _ - - - 5e cti on 3 .0 1 .0 r 3 _ ~x t Zonin Dist r ncL g Use Re ulati 1 r ~ ns 0 9 d~ 'y , , , s. . `h i Y 3.01.03 .ZONING DISTRICTS ~t.~ ; ` `1H y,'` A: ~ AG-.1 AGRICULTUR/gL~~ r1 , 4 1. Pur o , se P r ~ •-k,. .4,~, I r The ur os e of i th s dis r'ct ' t i is P .P to provide and protect an environment suitable for.- productive commercial a ! rt g cu ture, to ether with such other us g es a s ma be necessa to and com atib Y le with rY . P ,productive agricultural surroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a.maximuri of one (1) dwelling unit er ross acre: Th r VViri each identif P 9 ~ pumber in folio , g ed use corresponds to the-SIG ~ ; code referenc e described in Sectton 3.01.02(6). The'tiumber 999 a lies td a se not ~ pp u defined urider the SIC code bit may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this `Code. ~ ' ~~I 2. Permitted Uses_ , , ~ ~ ~ i a. Agriculttral production -crops to,i b. A' ri cultural r" otl a io ' li _9 u n v _ t estock , P & animal. specialties ~oz~ c. - Agricultural services iot d.: Family day care homes, tsssi e. F mil e re i s denti h me y ,al o, s rovided that such- om'~ P h es shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing`such family residential home and provided'that '4 'the sppnsoring agency or 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:;tsss~ f. Fishing; hurltin & tra in os' 9 ~ PP_9t For s t 08 9• e t ry h: Kennels. toisz> i. Resear• ch F aciliti s i ; , , e , Noncommercial ts~3si Riding stables. tsssi k. Single-family detached dwellings. ~9ss~ ' 1 3. Lot:Size Requirements- Lot-size requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in Sectioh 7.04:00. 4. Dimensional Re ulations 9 Dimensional requirements shall be ih.accordance with Table 1 in Sectioh 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 I! a. Agricultural labor housing. ts9s~ ' Adopted August 1, ,1990 94 Revised Through 08/01/00 'i p ~'{{F; ~~i ~2.. ~ ~ r t' , .~7tir ,y, °3 't - r ~ Section 3.©1.03 : i ~ ~ Zoning District Use Regulations l~~ti,', . ~~F{{~ ~ r`i~ - b A' trc r ~ star a can de ui m en t aint f: na m e nce a 9 sei q P .t r c: Airports-and flying, landing, and takeoff fields. tase,t' ' Y d Famil residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of anothersuGh ~ family residential home. lass>: Tx.' e.' Farm ro d ct' p_ u swarehousing and storage. razz,~azzz~ f: Gasof ne service stations. ssa, , . _I t g Industnal wastewater disposal. tsss~ h.' Manufacturing: 1 ~ rrcult ( , A ural chem~ g, rcals tze>> . , (2) 'Food kindred products t2o~ ' 3 ` ~umbei' & wood rodtacts exce R _ pt furniture tz4~ i. Mining and guar in of nonmetalic minerals ex e t f ry 9 ue a c Is: t,. P Retarf rade: , (1) Farm equipment and related accessories. tssst (2) Apparel & accessory stores. t~s~ k. Sewage disposal subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.13. tssst I. - Telecommunication Towers -:subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 tsss> m. ` .Camps - sporting and `r'ecreational (o3z~ 8. Accessory Uses Accessory. uses are subject o the requirements of SeCtipn 8 00.00 n in Jude t a d c he following: ; ~ a. Mobile homessubject to the requirements of Ser~tiori 7.10.05. b. Retail trade and wholesale trade -subordinate to .the primary authorized use or activity. c. Guest house subject to the re Uirements of Section 7.1.0.04. sae' q t ~ I II', - Adopted August 1, 1990 9s Revised Through 08/01/00 ` Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations I J. RS-4 RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE-FAMILY - 4 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-family dwellings at a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per gross acre, together with such other uses as may be necessary for and compatible with low density residential surroundings. The number in following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference 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. tsss~ b. Family residential homes provided that such. homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or 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: tsss~ c. Single-family detached dwellings. tsss~ 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 Requirements Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. 6. Conditional Uses a. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1.000) feet of another such family residential home. tsssi b. Telecommunication towers -subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 tsss~ 7. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section~S:00.00., - t Adopted August 1, 1990 107 Revised Through 08/01/00 ti~ , c~ ~ ~ N .o z ~ o ~ ~ g~ pZt N `y` f N ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ Q N N ~ ~ - ~ P ~ rllU -M1MJ ~ \ \5 Lt ~M ~ 6~ 3 n / ~ ; ~ S~~ 0 \t~ ~ .u .a ? ~ : r p\ > ~ 9 W 0 N a ae w.nl Gunups. ~t ry ~ II - o . ~ to swwr' ~ a.~v~ Yi e~' ` - ~w~xc~is'~ aox lava wuvl a a?~. d _ 1 tt[ lv S'Y.v ttl 0 ib7 e ' OrOU 71b~13s 4 _ Le`~ Q Q q p W _ i W aoa wxsuar ' o m m- - 'r n n 3 - r ice,.. ~i, au ail 'bl ~ ~ ~ m / a n - m - 7~a OvOtl _ 1Mp11 1 ~ Z i / 01W N1~1Ln011Y o ~ ~ ~ ~ ortw NN1S O i moa s.\ nN.u O irrou xiove.ovl U o.ov I Q~ j /yam . ~ U ~ ~ 1.L ~ ~ W Z W O O ~ Otl ~ X1011 T'30 r • O L ~ _ m _ Nolan ~ • n Q . z o _ .z-~ z . ~ - - i - - i i it ~ / ~ W W / / Fyc. ~ n M r 0 ~ I S YL 1 S St 1 S 9t 1 ,U.NflO~ 3380H~33~10 o, ~ z ` a 4 ~ a fi F; u~ e - R - a a - ~ o ~ a p~onalnoe ao~aid >>o j ~ (_n ~ • • • c Yg i b • c ~ pry3 Y , i ~ ~ • i r G ? r O R ~ o • o ~ ~~p r ~ ~ o c . ~ ~ ~ < H~ g N ~ o " d ~ ~ ~Q~~p v E o a o ~ ~ . c a o ' tl ~ 1~~ Q U O. N L ~ ~~S ~ ~ 4 b w 1 ~ ' 0 p v-+ R p ~ e ~ k ~ q Q Pooa alou~was pooa I ww rr~-~~ S 'oN louo~ 'p 'W 'M 'd ~d S 'oN IouO~ -~`n-- I~ I~ 1 ( o o II 1 ~ ~ ,1, 0 o I N I 0 i - CA 'L I v c ~ c~S I c I - O N ~ I ( s= I - I I I i ~ ~ I LL ( ~ L N ~ ~ I i o cn I I I _ ~ ~ ~ ~ U II ~U Q Q`~ I N - Q :c ~ o I cn I I- I O 0.~-- N Q o anuany uos~aw3 , w 1~. r, r _.~,,.q,so-- Z ` e ~ o ~ ; a r ~ orc q- tl R - r ~ Y ~onalnog a~ id >>o j ~ 1 ~ • ~ , O r ~ T~ VV Q C p r c a r D: ~ < I pfi°~ v ~ r ~R ! r p N ~ b ~ ~ V ~ ~ e t - k~~ a c a e R q ~ ^ 0 ~ q q 0o a ou~wa _pooa I iw g ~oN louo~ 'D 'W 'M 'd 'd 5 'oN louo~ ~ ~i ~ CL ~ p ~ o .r~ ~ ~ O ~ - ~ o .U ~ ~ 1 - I ~ - Q 1 Q r ~ ~ Q ~ r a~ U - 1 ~ Q ~ I - ~ U f i ~ N C Q. - ~ Q' N - N ~ ~ ~ I X - o ~ _ N N, anuany uos~aw3 , u, I' O • ~ e M o V . z J~ ~ ~ R - 4 R - • q ~onalnog as ~d »o j i g6# • ` • • • ~y' ~b~ ~ V `S~ • • a • • cTi ~ • _ • o ~ `yj(x` ~ ~ L i • N O Y ~ Q ~ i y ° q a d o c~ v • E 1. E • c o o ° t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~B w f t~ q a g f : e ~ a a w 0 , R , A ^ t G ~ ~ M N pooa alou;was poo i unu S ~oN louo~ 'p 'W 'M'!'d'd g 'ON IouO~ t CLS i ~ ~ ~i i ~ 1 ~ li ~ U I ~ Q ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ \ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ - ~ a~ a~~ I~ = O o N J anuany uos~aw3 U w ~ ~ ~ ~l ~ e 4,~{ ~7U- x.. _ - '',si k u ~ , s *~i ~ ral.'..~~ it r ~tii~~ ~ F. w r,.~~{~r~~,~ ~ :.tm - .aaF i . -;Try y'. ~ n - 3 ~ ~ ~ v h - = t' y;1 n d v • V F qA 6 . _ I. ~ ~.fa Lt .~t ~ ~ ~~I ' - ~ ?F- ~ , ~4 . j - - - ~ .M~ „ - R~ n _ , , M. ~+T ; e 4 I U Q 1 ~ *i I ~ III (CS , I ; aY' fi U s ` - ~I - - ~ ~ g Q U ` ~I `V - - _ ~ ~ ~ o I r ti _ ~ ~ ift ~ ~ ~Y p- ~4}~ 3 ~ AG,ENDA - PLANNING S 7.ONING CO~tIMISSION !1" I ~ -nn,..~ ~ _ qtr ` ~ I Jrcne 19, 2003 ~ 1 ~,r ` ~ ~y : . ~ oo P. nI. '4 ' 'Sn 4 t III ALICIQ PINA, has petitioned St. Lucie County for' a_ Change in Zoning from the A(~-1 (Agricultural ~ 1 dulacre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acr~e) Zoning District for the following described property; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , . Locations North side of Indtio Road, approximately 2,000 feet east: of Emerson Avenue.. - i P lase e note t at a l h l ro e` s r p ceding befo e the .Planning and Zoning Commcssion/Local i Planning Agency are electronically 'recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made b y ~ the Plannin ar2d Zoni om i ' 'i g ng C m ssaon/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 he request of any patty to he . proceeding, individuals testifying during k' hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifyi~ig during a hearing upon request. Writtetz comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered:. Prior t o this ubl'c>h p t easing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent; property owners _ June 6 2003. Le al notice was ub ish g p l ed in The News and The i Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on June 4, 2003. File No. RZ» 03-023 C _ r ~ v ' ~ ~k 'u , ~ ,Y . ~,I [30AI~D OF BOUNTY ~ , . _ti - z{j COMMUNITY . cn~, COMMISSIONERS , ~k ` ~ { DEVELOPMENT '~i r : DIRECTOR ~w~ ~ORIOQ' Juice 6, 2003 ~ r` Iu accorda~~ce with the St. Lucie County I~uui De~~elopii>ent ('o<Ie, you.are hcrebti~ advised that ftLICIO t'; , PINA, has petitioned St. LueieCounty for a Change in "Lonin~ fromlhe AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) ~ ~ Zonin~~Dstrict to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family- 4 du/ricr~) Zonin~* I~ish~iet for~the followin described Property: 1 I LQCation North~~ide'of Indrio Road,approximatcly 2,0(}0 feet cast of Enicr.~n Avenue. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DC.SCFtll'TION IS AVAILAI3~,h, UPON RCQUF.S'I' ~i ~ The_first pr<blic hearing on the petilio~t ?vill beheld at 7:00 PAM., or as soot-r 1/iE~reafter as possible, on Jicne 19, 2003, G`ounly Commissioner's ChantLers, St. Lucie County Adfninish~ntion I3uildi?i~ Annex, 2300 Virgirticz Avenue,~FortPierce, Tlori~lq. AI( interested.persoY~s willbe-Ri~~en ern o- ortunit to"be heard ~~t c PP Y thaC`titiie..Writte><1 comments received in advance ofthe ublic hearing ~i~ill also he considered. ~ P ~ rUrttten comments to the ,Planning and zoning Commission should be received by .the County Plunilin Division at' 'i ~ least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing..., ~ ~ ~ County policy discourages communication with individual Planning ~rnd zoning Commission and County Commission on an case outside f h li Y o t e scheduled public hearing(s). '`You riay,speak at a public hearing; o~ provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning.and zoning Commission are. electronically recorded. If a person'"decides to , ap al an decision made b° the P nri' P~ ~ Y _ y la mg and Zoning,'Commssion with respect to~,any matter cotsidered at such nneetin or g hearing; he will need a reeord.of the proceedings. For sueh;purpose, he may need to ensure that~`a verbatim record ofahe roceedin `s:is m de ~whic p g ~ h record includes the testimony and e~ Jd~nee 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 o ortunit " to cross- PP: Y !i examine any mdivi<dual testifying duting: a hearing upon request: If it becomes necessary, a public hearin g may be continued' to adate-certain. A o n ne with a di sa ~ bilit re uirin ace , Y o odati n t mm o o a Y q g ttend this meeting,should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at east forty-eight (48) hours riot to the meetin at 772 462- P g 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 `772/462-f58~ if you have any questions, and,referto: File Number RZ-03-023. Sincerely, - - ST. LUCIE .COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING .COMMISSION C Ed Merritt, .Chairman i JOHN D. [3RUHN Disrrici No. 1 DOUG COWARD; District No. 2 • PAULA A. LEWIS, Darricr No: 3 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. D. rri r N - c o. 4 s CLIFF 4 N~' - ARNE3, Disrncr ~ .County Adminisrroror - Douglos M. Anderson 2300 Virginia. Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652. Administration: 772 462-1 9' - ( 5 0 annin ~ 77 Pl 2 462 2 _ g. ( ) 822 GIS/Technical Services (772) 462 1.553 Economic Development; (772).462-1550 Fax: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention:. (772).462-1529 Fax: (772).462-21.52. www.co.sr-lucie,fl:us ~ ~ ~ • ' ~ 1 ~r ~ i m .N N ~ tr ~c 'v~ oo ~ I ~o M 'o ~n° `~n y-, N rn o 00 •i~ o`r~rnoo~v,vtiNO:o...,~.o0w,rc~~~ ,-~o~N v •a• d M M' ~ ~ bb r1± -I o ~~o ~ N N N .~t r ~ ~ M M N b~ V1 YS;~N` N~ ti r+l N`~ N N -O~ N h! ' It: ~ ~,t ~ N N~ m~ :1 F~. r a ~ } 00 00, v'~ !n ~ V7 ~~i I d' N ~l ~ ~,`rl ~ iil ~i 'n N N _ f I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn rn rn o~:~ rn, o; ~'rn m 9~ 6~ ~ ~o~ rn 'o~ I ~ ~ ~ o~ r._ ~ ~ , I ' ~r ~ v ~t ~r ~tr N ~d~~ ~t~ rr , ~ ~r fr ,v+ ~ , rr rr fr rn ~ r* ~ , i jIN _ M M M M M M~M M MIC~IIM~ M~M~MIM~M' M ~'rI~MI«~ M_~f ~~N ~.M ~ flg ~I yl ~ I~r___ I i I I~ y I I II I I ~ ( i t I I J .I , ~ la`~al I' a~..a a'a'~ ~ a,~ ~~~~,al,~ ~~~ala~~~al~l_~ I .,a I ~M,, ~Iw,w,~Iw~w w~w~wlw w w w w w w~wlr~ w w wow wlwi,~+l~ wi ~ I O II I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~i a'~6t- ' II a>' a> ~ v a~ ~ 'a~ a~ l a~ a~ a~ I ~ v v v a, a~ a~ a~ a~ ' a~ v' a, a~ a~ ~I v II ~ r'f N' ; U; U V1.V U~ V' v v -U ~ cr v v v v u v u v v v v vi:~ `t~~ " I ~ ~ F-I I 3-, H i-1 H F-1 Lr H 1. N N ' _ 1-y 1, H 1-, Ir 4r !-y M 1-, N M ' ~ ~O. !)~yl ~I.~IN •NI N~ N ~<r N: N NNI.N( N N Q1 QJ 4~ N NI ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ;,0.rIL1r P~''Pr aka-~IapG.{~{~; 0.~ P-I'IGyIQ+~at~~11~~a F1. a ~±~I I~ ~ 1 r ~ ~~'~~(OI~o'O~o Olo:~olo~olalo:Ioiolo,o~o~q~olo o~~~o ~I~~MI~~~~i, _ a~ ~ V~Iw::jwlw~w~w~w"1~'-!f wlwi>'u,'r~: wlwtw~u;lw wl~w',wlw,w wl~{f~lt~ 3 - .f h. I u I " , .,I ~ ! It i ) f' I I ~ ~ Ij I` Ij ~ i; I 'CI ~ ,~bi I^d' ~NI a v I I ~ ~ .IQ+/I ai_,~ i~ t ~I ~~~'b 'C ~I'[71 I~ ~i ~(a ~~I ~i~'' I ~ - 1I b b~~v~ ~ a>~.'btOtb "C7 'L7 v Q~QA~ bibibib ~ ~ I I~ Io]R;~R: I'~ ~IRti•o~ICI:;~~;~u:j"~I I ~i a:'G: Ril~-i b~f~•~-~ N II ; ,I tMi of v,t. ;~'I.a~l I o'O• ~ ~ h"It=a1 ~ ~I of o o~ o of a~ r'll I I rn i ~ - ~I• INI N~I N N +'I ro ro ~4 I ru S'r h , _ I~ ~ a> I, SG , p ~ ro I ro ~ ~ f I ro ro ro a a~ ~ . , . I,k ~.,I ol~,~ ~n v~ v~ v~,~lbl~-~~~{ti v~~~ ~~~~~I~ ~ Z' r~ a: _o , u I,.. I ~10 O N N~V) oiO, ~O ~O CJ~O O~~ d~q d O~,g ?+i+0o"N II i ~I~lo,~~n~t~ t~.•...,Ioi•-~(O o~~ o v, o~ 0 000 oo~o0 00 ~oio~l n~~o CO I iF~I~P.{oolrL'^iN{Ni--+I'~IoolW~d°,It~1.oolv~I[~{oo~oo~00~,'00100~0o~"ooi~ N P-~ ~ I I I I I t- - ' I ~ r L1~•t' i -i t d , ij y1 Ui,~I I~j 4 1 I I¢; f ~"r; , ~ ~ ~ I , , d~.a:'-a ail ~ ~ H - t I•~ f.ol old! p~~, If ~ t ; ro ro., "v, l ~ I ~ . I ro I-' 'b ; ai- I t Iz wiv~iq,~t ~ !u:, ~ ti~wt a„I,-,,~ t Z_ ~ , , a~ ~ I ~ I ~~l I I ~ , I I r r a, a, iw , ql ' '4~~ i I. , tol o.~n , t ~ ~a o ~I ~I I ~i I'~ OI oI ~ i r' ; z~ x IC7~U~a~w ~C7 ~a. a'rx~ v) ~I i I f c~ ~ I L... i t ,i I. O i -w ~ - fro! N C i , ~i , 1. 1 N : C7 ~ ~ ~ ,,.y ~,~IQ o~ Idlt7~~ 'a a~ , ~ ~ b , ~ i o C> i i a , I ~ a~ C7 C7 C7 ~ a~ a~ • , .C .a ~ ~ ' `b'I 'C o a~ ~ ~ , cd ro ro l ~ ~ t, a'I .n v , ~ ~Z ~ w,w, ~ ~~I~i IUi~~A-itirU~• IW'~I~'ti tilti,C-1~Ca~w' d w o I ~ t I , ~ t t I H i 'U s~ C i G. Q , a , ro t z. o m. _ , I ro , ~~I , I f I ~ _ II ~ L„ ' ~ o'wl' i I ~ , r p 3~ ~ ~ I I ' A ~ ~ i I ' ~ , ~ , ) 1 ~ i ~ I i I ~ I ; i I ~ O irlil ~ ' ~ -t a~ ~'~I+'~~ a( ~La i ; m v~;•v~.mi ~ Ia a~ ~ , I 0 O i a: i a~,,~~ ~i Gs-G ~ ~ ~ q)~~~ ro(~ ~ 1 i ~ I b. t . I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'o t a I o r ~ ~I ~ ~ cet.~;~ ~;c~ai~'~~~I~' ;~{'34 ~~.~~0{0'S,'~I~~.~I~I,~ o o ~z'a1=U~f~iw~w~w c71x,~j~~>~t~~I~~~~,~rala~r~~w~alu:~v~~v~ v~ rnl v~ U ~ I ~ I ,I - P I - - - ~I4-~ .O ;~O!'~Yi~DIN ~O C~ MI~IMtOOII~IM O~(v'~'M'O~ N~NIOIhI~D~•--' t~ l~ ~G rt ow too oto~o~ o oLOIo g o 0 0 010(0 0'0 otq,o~o 0 0 I .,r lo'.~o q"goo~oloOOO~goglooololoooppoo_S I~"' vi IOjO OI~ O O~OIO1O O O O C po OiO;O!O`glglOld~O O O O i i, I Iq ar I O I N I,\D O .-r q j.M I O~ t~ 60 ~_O I V7 M I N , N ~ b N O O - I I ~ a "OiO•f'J C GIO p N N Nt~1O O d O :010 0 M O~ O 1 I j~~kl OfOIO~C O glOjq'OIOIq O O'O(OIO'O~OIO1O 01~~0 O O ,QO t~~+'b0 10{010,0 O O O g 0 O O O O Otq~O Oq O Oi0 IO O O it CI A • M 'I r" N"" I M M I M M M I^' ~ M I M I t+l N ~ ~ , M <7?' b It .`~.y MiM.O •=-~~M~•-'~jN OI~I+~:+jO1O ~-'^IO1O O~•-+.INININ~MIO ct M n ~ ~ ~.~N ~DM~•-+ M~ti' QOM Nt~0~~0 M,~O ~O ~O M'M,MIM,N'~D N ~_O N ~ CL ~ Ni ^'I `~•Ir/•I~',~i.--~. ~}'I'~ ."Iti tf' ^"I'~'I'a' ~I I~ OI... I1 ~ ~ I i O ~ ~ , O I O O I O , O O I 1 ~ , • p I I O A~ ~ M I M M I~I~~ M~ M' M M M M, M M M M! M. M I M! M M M G M M M• M M1 o~ ~ 1 ,1010 L~y1 •NoUS~L. ,1010 l~g~l NeNc~ ~ U ~ - nat i<. r`x>; . f ST. LUCIE COUNIV 1 - _ PIAIJNIIJG AND 1 k II ZONING COMMI$$ION f~41~ 4 1 PUAIIC HEARING- - AGENDA _ . Juke 14,1003 ~ ~~;r - y3 rt 10 WHOM li;r1 r,rJCfRrJ ~I hee f In ~ d < :•.,rh Sectpn I .110003 1 h~ f~ I 1 C ,n l 1Q Ipment,Code 'y~ I ^d M p 1 fh $1 1 ~k CW h <OmpeMnthn JX~~I PI Me 1011 iq PPI tl e9 I d Hwl dt• _ u L C ry PI 1"9 nd Zon rp C t o ont~d r , , i y , ne 1 Ipw ng rqq ~ t I P¢L PROPERTY Iris C-C ~fril (A/I('A $TC LUCIE ~ E" SOVA4E BINGOI, Fw a Cond Morph Uie.P<imn b'ollov .0 the op<raiwn of a B. ~ - IComma,oi' E blh he CG ~ t c 0 f e 1 09 D nct Io:, iAe follow _ - - d <r bed Progeny .'g ~ { ~ MODEL IAND.COS 5, U I~r SF I5 7,r~~ EiK+ THAI - PARi OF LOi$'7 AND d IN:$E I/4 MPDAF:FROM NW ,S ~ COR OF $E 1/+ RUN $ Q956 77 E t8 fT f0 f R/W OF _ ~ US al,iH 5 pp 00 77,E ALGE R/W IS FilON ll OF l0T 7,TH CONT SELY'AlG ~E.R/W 217 if i0 POB,TH N ~ - ~ I 09 59 7J E: 14$ 50 f I TO CURV( CONCAVE NW,R'OF - - - l r 10 Fi,TH NEIY:: ALG ARC 15:71 fT ~iH~N~00 00 77 W 15685 Fi tOCU4vE CONCAVE SW,R';OF 15 fi,TN , NWLY ALG ARL 3974~fT 10. $'Q/W (I OfKITifRMAN 4D,TH50956 ~7F AlGiR/W LI +Q00J 1OWR/W LI Of CANAL,i II 5 00 03 OJ W 17647tS fi TO S (1 OF LOi B ,ix N B9 55 +9 w'AlG S U 707 QS FT,Try N DO - ' 0077W1+154 FT iM N6a 5637 W7307:fTjM SB9 ~.59 3J W 160 BI Fi TO CURVE CONCAVE Sf,ft OF 35 Fi TH SWLY A{G ARC 5+98 FT TO ~ p/W Of US yI,TH N 00 00 77 w Y~IG E R/W 972 07 f f TO PQB~IES$ f0{ DESC PROP fROr.INWt=OR OF SE I%4,TM $;89,5677E I 76 fi TOER/W Of US tFI.iH15000077E AlGER/vJ - ' - - z.7 F7'n N B9 S9 3J E 30 fT~TO POB,TH ,CONT. N 09 59 E 115fT,iH S 00 00 77E 160 fT;THS 89 59 73 . . w 175 fi.iM N'b0 p0 77 w: X60 FT TO:FOBAND LESS fOL DESC PROP:FROM NW COR OF $E I/i;TH $ g9 SG "27 E 7B FF 70 ER W - - - F / 9 US g1,TH S:0000~7 AlG E E J</W 1319 I S FT i0 S 11 Of'LOT B,TN ~ B9 55 49 E ALG $ LI 551 79 F7TO SE COR OF'lpi B,TH N;00 07 63 E ALG E U Of (07 B 170 6~ f i;TH N B9 S4 ~57 W 15.56 f7 TO POB,TH IJ Ol I 1 +7 E225.~0 fT;TH-ri~BQ A6 3B H$7 21+,+S.W. 114:1 0 TT f H N d5 79 51 - ~ - _ ' W7991 fT;iH 5153101 w.69.17 fT;TM 5650611'.E - ~ ' 20.76 fr,iH S 7~ 27 5+ w d6 FT,TH S 67 55 30 E 79 - FT iH N Ba 11:77 E 97 70 FTTO POB {I3.77,.AC7 (OR ' - ISa S-17+21 - Locar on 666+Sovlh US I,$I: {use $quote Shopper Cen 7. WILLIAM D. MIIIER, for a Change !n Zo~l~g from the ' RS~+ R Iv-+dya -;,,g I h RM.$IRe dl hl,ol, Mylr Ole F/ ly) S, du/are) Zoe ng Onv c for the iylowingCncnbed Wppiny - '703540$E Ija OF NE I/+OF $E I/4.lES$N135 fT - ' OF W a6G Fi AND lE5$ E aOfT.ANb w 141.80 fi OF ~ ~ ~ - N269+a fi OfNE 1;40F ~E I /40F SE T;I (7.71 J,C1 (OR 53+.595) , - ~ - Loc A„pro lel 750 feel tovlh of n the W<t~ 1 C<}o( $ov~h 75ih Sheet, Con .r Avenue. - 3 EVGE NDi(SUE DUNCrtN I Chonze Zon ngh h Z$ I4 I d al, Sllyle F ly a.d /ocreJ Zoning D anh RM S IR id< lol, Muli pte~Fam ly. 5 du a< ei ton ng D tlr <I lar the lollow~ny detcnbed Drop<riy 10 75 a0 N 215 Fi Of w 7+7.50 Fi Of SE I,•4 OF NE I I OF SE I + 11 7$ AC) IOR 769.,1999) I _ A Imo ly 73o I r taro of Co'nei Awwe, oncrhe wet t,ce ol.Soulh 75th Srr r - ee . I CO Aa. R MBERi ( Ch. g Z h'g fom the m.l -1 9e y du /p<eZon. r 1 D't- rn ^9. r r ih o e M. S IR<-t d lMVlt~ple FomJy - 5 du/xre) Zonlrrg D to r For the follow :.9 detcr;bed yrppery; -2035 +0 dfG 7+7:5 FTE OF NW COR Of$E 1/+Of - ~ NEI/+OF 5E 1/4, iM RUN E117.S fT, TH$1J5 FT, iH - 'I W X35 fi, irl N 10 Fi, THE 117.5 fT, THN71Sf iTO - ROB (71111 27 ACI (OR 117.1 is 1: 1069.1725) _ I lo<ar~0 App 'Iely ]$0 feet t0ufh of COn i Avemre, on mew de of $o,nh lSm Se.r. 5. AlIClO PINA (or,p Change ~n ZOn'rg home,he AG~1 ' (Agncvl of..f.2u/pv lZonmq,Dltincl to tMR5.1(Reti. ` 'd nfol S- i i:mily dvr ov<I. ronmq D~tn;ct lw. Me ~ - f II w , 0 o ~ det cribcd in9 po ' pMy: - 14 J+7957 aOF. $E I'4 OfNW I/4 _lESS E.80 FT ' AND 5 60 F' _ 12).28 AC1 10R 311:2903) ~ . le<I cot o a1 d f I d o Road. aPpo+;mwelY 1.000 I 5'. DA LE .,SH-Ry Fr o tin o C a e n Zon lr 9 m rh ^S o 450 IR a S:~gl<-FOmny 3 dv/9cr<I. Lon~n D~t~ 9 . n io the Ae A r I ~ 11 cu r I ( u o R 9 •t dent I . a 1 d r m y, Zon ct) -ng.D.. rrhel II ~ 0 0 tle c itri' bed -"9 o p a< 3035 +OE ~~2 OfE I'70fN - - ' - E140fN / EI' + r ,.LESS 5400 fT-A~+D NJ40 fl QF$1/70F W1/7Off ' 1i70f NE 1;4 OF NE I/4-LE$$N 140 f10F E.171 fTOFW 166 F7''- ANOBEG AT PT pN N, R/W EDwAROS R670FTwOf SE COR OFS I/2.OF W12 - f O 1' E 1 f r T / O r t I + F- N O I+ E. / PUN N O ll /b E i $EQ TO PD 70 f2W OFEUOf_SJ/10F WI j70FE 1;1 dF NE 1 OF. Nf 1!+ AND 340 iT $ OF $ (I Of . NE 1/• OF NE I!4 OF NE I/+, TH qUN E 70FT; TH$ ' ' TO N R/w fD`iiARDS RD, TM wTO POB 19.67 ACI IOR 1516:10011 t«pian: aoo Ee.«d~ aoad.: PUBLIC HEAR G$ well W h•Id nCommrtt~on Chombert, R PO Trot An ?9H Mw,. 7300 v,rpigro.Awnw:[FOn:PiRae flwdo n o I Jvm 9 7 ..003 ~nn~ beg '^9 01 7:00 PsA. o. r .Loon Ma h i of Petiibl•:- Pl1RSUANi TG Ssct-qn 7860105, FlgridaSmryn,,.N of - Paton decdet rp a Ian PPeP y decltloh riiodf b o r boad, o9^`cT' wpm }Ppeci 10 on manes Y oniid. «ed ' of a mecr~~ w poceedl t a 9 Mor ip h .II rwetl o recore, of the . M dwr n9 la t«h Pw w M Po r!ar!rM b en tw• kqt abal~m rK d OI'th• pocard rq ;i etbG, whKh d -rKludet rh• a mony. ad vde Me ypon which rho oppeol n ro a boied PLANNING AND ZONING EOMMI I SS ON ST. LUCIE COUNTY,~fIORIDA ,CHAIRMAN PUBLISH: Lune a; 7007 771+710 3'~ i ~r ; _ r4 i ,'s r+rtl. rt. t.y ~ ` Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 06/19/03 v~ :ki d ~ '~3' File NumberRZ=03-024 ~ ~ G,.~ ~ ~ _ \~t + G°. MEMORANDUM y~~ ~r . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT " TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: ; Planning Manager , _ DATE -June;13, 2003' SUBJECT: Application pf Dale T. Mosher fora, Change in Zoning from the RS- 3 (Residential,, Single-Fami[y - 3 du/acre) Zoning District o the AR~ 1. (Agricultural, Residential --.;;1 du/acre).Zoning District, LOCATION: 4200 Edwards Road , EXISTING ZONING: RS-3 (Residential, Single-Famfly;~- 3 du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING: AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential ~ du/acre) ' FUTURE LAND USE; RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE. 9.67 acres PROPOSED USE; Greenhouses for a commercial plant nursery as an ac ess~- o o asingle=family residence PERMITTED USES: Attachment ``A" Section ~ 3.01:03:(E) AID-1 A ic~iltural, Residential - 1 du/acre) -contains the ( gr , designated uses, which are permitted by right; permitted `as an accessory; use,. or permitted through the conditional use process. Any use designated as a- "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further- " review and approvals. Any Use:. not found within 'the zoning district regulations -are prohibited uses for that district. SURROUNDING ZONING: RS-3 (Residential, Single.-Family - 3 du/acre) to the north, south, east, .and west. Further: to the west-.and a small area is AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 ~du/acre) Zoning to the south of the subject site. I~ + s t ~ CE . ~.ti ~ elf 75 ~ ~ ~ ~ i. ~,<<, k , h June 13, 2003 Subject: Dale, T. Mosher, Page 2 RZ=03-024 ~ ~a,' ~ a 7 ~ ~ ~ SURROUNDING LANb USES: The general existing use surrounding the property iS 4 ' .residential. 'x~' < . A. The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area.is RU(Residential Urban). II FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #1 (~4Q0 Rhode Island avenue), is located approximately 2' miles to the northeast... UTILITY-SERVICE: The -subject site~~is IQCate~ .within -the, Water and sewer facilities 'are in the Ft. <Fi~rce Utilities Authorii;y , FPUA ( TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS. .RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way width for Edwards Road is I~ 99 feet. The exis in ri ht-of-wa width for Ro ers g _g Y _ 9 , I Road is 30 feet. SCHEDULED: I IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concur~ency Deferral Affidavit. * I'~ I STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH 1N. SECTION 11.06.03 ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing :this :application for proposed rezoning„the, Planning and Zoning . . Commission shall consider and make the followin determmation$: ~ g ~ , 1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of'the St. Lucie County Land Deve opment Code; ' The proposed zoning district _is not. in conflict .with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and specifically has met the standards, of ~ ...11.06.03. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning frgm the IBS- II ~,I ' Fla 3x' $s . ~ `f 'y { I ~4R ~ ~ - 'i ~ ~ a ~a ' i~ d t 6 rr; i "June 13, 2Q03 .Subject: Dale T. Mosher h Page 3 RZ•03-024 ~ ,3 r i. , (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) zoning ,District to the "AR-1 ~t,} (AgYicultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning,D,istr~ct';in order to operate ~ commercial plant nursery as an accessory to.a 'single-fa"rriily residence. ~ , ~ti . 1 ,r 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the'St. Lucie County Comprehensive Phan; The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all elements of "the- St. Lucie County Comprehensive .Plan. The r',equest is compatible with the. RU (Residential'Urban)`"Future Land Use classification, which may allow the'AR-1 Zoning District. The RU Future.l.and Use classification allows- for a density up to 5 dwellings per, grps$ acre. The proposed Change in zoning woultl reduce the possibly density for the property from three tb one dwelling unit per acre. 3: Whether and the extent to whichthe proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed zoning is consistent with several of the existing uses in the ,area. The a~reasurrounding fh'e subject property is the loe~tionof several :non-conforming agricultural uses, such a~ old groves. 4. Whether there have been changed::- conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment, ;.however, the applicant would .like .to revive the rturse,ry that was' previously in operation at`this Site. r 5. Whether and the:" extent to.: which the.> proposed amendment would result'in demands' on public facilities, and whether onto the extent to which the probos~ed amendmentwould exceed the ,capacity ofi~such ~ public facilities, including, but not limited to: transportation-facilities,. sewage facilities; water supply, parks, drainage, schools, sold waste,. mass transit, and emergency medical facilities;.: The intended ruse of the. subject property for a comrriercial nursery is` not expected to create>significant additional demands on any public facilities in this a~`ea. Any development" will need to demonstrate -that there' are adequate public facilities in :the area to support such development. It is ;not expected that the proposed business would significantly increase the - :traffic along Edwards Road. June 13, 2003 Subject: Dale T. Mosher Page 4 RZ-03-024 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 future development of this site will be required to comply with all state and local environmental regulations. The site is currently vacant, but has served as a grove. The proposed use of the property as a nursery is consistent with uses on the property in the past. 7. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative affects of such patterns; The proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern for the long term uses in the area. The subject property has a future land use classification of Residential Urban, which allows for the AR-1 Zoning District and the uses associated with this designation. The subject property is within the urban service boundary of St. Lucie County and -the mixture of residential and agricultural uses in this area within the .Urban Service Area is .not entirely what is anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan, however, it is well established. The area may eventually convert exclusively to single-family uses as anticipated by the comprehensive plan, however, the area is currently a mixture of some residential uses and agricultural uses. 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 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, Dale T. Mosher, has requested this change in zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District on property located at 4200 Edwards Road in order to develop the property for greenhouses as an .accessory to asingle-family residence. _ ~ ~ 7' ~ ~ ~ 1 . li 'June 13,2003 ( Subject: Dale T'. Mosher ~ Page 5 Rz-03-024 The subject property is "'located in an area, ;which is generally' used for mixed ' ,residential and agricultural uses. Even though the property. is located within the urban service boundary and the Comprehensive Plan discourages the, location of productive ~ agricultural uses in the urban service boundary, several properties in the area have - been rezoned-to the AR-1 :Zoning District, which is primarily aresidental:-zoning district I~, designation. These rezonings have. been consistent with the overall existing: development pattern of the -area. Staff believes that the AR-1 {Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning ,District is a compatible zoning district designation for the subject property and the surrounding area. .Attached is a copy df Sections 3:01~03(E) -~AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre); of the} St: Lucie County ;Land `:Development Code, which delineates, he permitted, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in this zoning district. If a change in zoning ~is approved, the applicant; by right`, would be hallowed to 'establish any 'of ~tt~,~ 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 subject property: , Ariy use under the Conditional Uses section could only be allowed if it first receives -approval through the Board Qf County:Commissioners: II Staff ha rev'ewed this etition a d determined hat ' confor s to the standards ~ s i n It m p of :review as set forth in Section 11:06.03 of the St. Lucie` Count Land Develo ment y p Code and is not in conflict with the. goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie ~I Cou,rity Gomp~ehensive Plan, Staff'is recommending hat you forward this petition to the`-Board of CountyyCommissioners with a recommendation of approval Please contact this office if you have any questions on his matter.' Attachment hf , cc. ' County Administrator Coun Attorne tY Y Dale T, Mosher File _ - I i ~ ~ 1: ~ ~ }r Section 3.01.03 ~ ~ Zoning DistricCUse Regulations u~~ r ~ R S 3 RES ID _ ENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.- 3 ~ ' ~~d t ~I: 1. Purpose ,r ~ F+ The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-family : dwellings, at a maximufh density.of three (3) dwelling units per gross acre, toge(her with such other uses as may ~e neces$ary fgr'and compatible with lowdensit re iden4ial s S urroundi J y n s., The number it °O" following each idehtified use Corr s on 9 ~ p ds fo the SIC code reference described in Section f 3:01.Q2(B). The number 999 a ~ lien to " se pp, a u not defined under the SIC code but may be furth~i- defined in Section 2.00:00 of his code. 2. ~I P' er mitted Use s ~a Fa mil d a car y y , e homes. t9ssi , ~ b: Family residen#ial homes proyided,that such homes shall not be located within a radius f Q. .Dine thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family~residenti~al .home and, provided~that the sponsoring agency or pepartment of Health ahd Rehabilitative Services (Hf~S) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the tune of home occupancy that-the home Is licensed by MRS.`tsss~ ' c. Single-family detached dwellings. ts9s> 3. of Siz e Re h quii'ements' l II Lot. size requiremehts shall be in accordance with Section x:04.00. ~,i I , - 4: Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7:04.00. , _ ; 5. ~ Off-Street Pa'rKing Requirements Off-street :Parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. 6. Conditional U ses a. Family residential homes located within a radius of ohe thousand 1.000 feet of anot her uch ( ) I family residential home, ss9 t ~ b T elecommunication towers -stab' sect #o the standards of Section 7.10 .23 ess ~ , ~t ~ - 7. Accessory.'.Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00. I _ - Adopted August 1, 1990 106 Revised Through Ot3/01700 ~~i Section 3;01'.03 ; , `,a ' ~ Zoning District Use Regulations ' c~ ~ , ~ rr ~ E. AR-1 AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL - 1 +;r t; t 1. Purpose ~ ; yy~ _ The purpose of this district is to rovide and ' Y p protect an environment suitable for single-family dwellings at a maximum density bf one (1 ~ dwelling unit pecgross acre, together with sucfi'oth,er uses as maybe necessary for and compatible with very ow density rural residential surroundings,. The .number in "O" .following each. identified use corresponds to' the SIC code reference described in Section ~.01.U2(B). ,The number 999 applies to a' use not defined under the SiC, cgde but may be further defined in Section 2:00.00 ofi-this code. 2. Permitted Uses:- ~ a. Family day care homes: csssi 4.- Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of anotherexistirlg such familyresidential home and provided that 'the sponsoring-agency or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) noti~es the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed _by HRS.. csssF c. Single-family detached dwellings. ~sssF 3. Lot Size Requirements dot size requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in Section 7104:00, 4, Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with'Table 1 ih Section 7.04.00. 5• Off-street Parking Requirements Off-street parking requirements shall `be in accordance with:Section 7.06:00. 6. Conditional Uses a. Crop services {o~iF b. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thoUSand (1000) feet of another such family residential home. css9r c. Industrial wastewater disposal csss~ d. KEnnels -:completely enclosed. co~s2~ _ ,e. Landscaping & horticultural services co~eF a _ f. Retail: - - - ~(1.) Fruits and Vegetables, c~,3F - - g• Riding stables. nsss~ k h. Veterinary services. coy<~ i Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 ~sss~ 7. ' Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following:: Adopted August 1, 1990 101. Revised Through 08/01/00 ~ w ~ ~ ~ - e i~ €S Sechom3.01.03 t` Zoning bistrict Use Regulations i ~ ~ u a• ~ ricultur f r'r a ns e an dr 9 an ~ cites accesso to sin le=famil detached dw' I in t~ . , ~b; Arnmafs, sub'e ~ - 1 ct to the requirements of Section 7.10.03. `~sse> ~ ~~r c• Guest house subject to th,e.requirei~ents of~Section 7.10.04. tit ~ • ~ r :z d• Mobile Home Subject to the requirements'of Section~7.10.05. ee~~~ vr:. Retai ;and: h ~ , w of - esale trade subordinate to the rimy autho ize ~ tivi 6~- p ry r d use or ac cy. Y I t t i ~ ~ i - - k Adopted Au ust 1 1990 9 102 R evised T r ' hough 08/01/00 i Z O N ~ " O sE ~ O F F~ ~~M n, ~ V E N o~ ~ ~ c Q ~ ~ ~ Q N «,fia rj P ~.N _ ~ " IIWtl-F13M9 ~ Z ~'S L£ tN l~ ~ ffY y p ~,~W / ~ tOS~ ~ ~tLM'_ t~ _ . ~ 0 `Q-- f ~ j ~ ~ W O e3a.3ro Q Q _ Sl9 ~ 1 l kr 3~ i0~ ~uMv o _ }-at ~ M - fP W Q ~ -._a c; ~ a s"' ~ / 'x33w bb -l I ~ - 0 ~ r a ~0R19 N6rvS - 7 ~ N u _ ~1 e'x" ao v wo a r o °'~r3'- ~ g 1 p`._ .WW~3101~n35 _ e`.... ~ Jw i 1 4 Q h ~ a ~ 2l i i _ W W. 3~fi3ri WStl7.3"' _ / ...OiOtl NoistlfiOP ~ ~y'. V M ~ !A M r„~. - tfnW-1i61fMgF-_ _ _ N / ..~.I O lttl ~ ' z .i1~6tl- tiP031B071- O1 (l . - v ....ltl~7an / SMMtlB ~ v ; O U ~ ~ Q o - - - - - v I LL ~ O.W N, 3~Nrtl d~ i ~ ~ V - - ~ - s ~ ~ W Z w I Y as 7~gtOx i:3o ~ :i \ m ~ ~ _ wlw.3 ~ ~ I ff _ ..O.OU 033NS - _ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rA~ ts.) Z / _ - - ~ ~ tlNV - ~ i i i / ~ III'.. / W W / M / 88 ~ M / N ' _ K K / . f I ~I S 6£ 1 S Sf 1 S 9[ 1 1.1.Nf10~ 3380H~33N0 ~'to l I e r ~ , ~ , ~and~ use Dale T: Mo h r , ~ ~ r y c ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ i O _ ~ a t O ~ '.x b ~ R U o ~ a N S.L$'.D.D_ Conol , No: 39 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N:S.L.R.D.O. Conol s . r ~ 6~' ~ ~ ' Thousond .Pines Drive I e ~ u ~ rz i , J ' ~ Y b ~ P/F ~,-r I~ ti Edwards Road III i z 0 ~ N Pry _ ~ ~ _ s ~ RU 0 6 O 0' k e v G< e ~,de - t e~ N RS RZ 03-024 GIS 1~~~'~- r This pattern .indicates subject parcel Map Prepared May 30.2003 M.«,~. TIr mp W?pMJ OrMrr PYrc/V p~Pw~ ~'~1 X1M wrr Yn fr Eri nr0~ b ga10~ w Yq aL1~1 rtl W WM HP~N`?t ' . ~ Y nd Y4~dN b w r ~ O~artw~1. 1., .This .pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce ~ zon.n Dale T: Mo her ~ ;;fin 'i{ r O ~ ~r 'L ~ RS-O °a } o N A 1 Conol No: ~9 N S.L.R.D.p. N.S.L.R.0.D. Conol g.~y. 6'- - ~ Thousond Pines Orive a a IZ i S ~q 9 ~ / ~ ~ / \ ~ i ` ~ I~ i ` R-1 i i Fdwards Road Z I~ ~ ~ o J _ I N RS 3 _ _ A R-1 6 _ III Q: ~ k gee . M~~e G Z e~ RZ 03-024 GIB "~`~~~``r--~. This ...pattern ;ndicates subject parcel Map prepared May 30, 2003 ~.r .~+t ti. e.«....w w w~a w aow nirwt im .Darr -This pattern .indicates City of Ft. Pierce `+aR+~ awaa.,rro~.~«noa ~ar~.. r. r,y,tino,n ma:,r. I' ~ ~ A Petition of Dale T. Mosher fora Change in Zoning fra,~~ =~~SL 3' r(~i~sdential, Single ~ a ~amiiy~3 du~acre) Zoning Di~tnct tq. the AR-1 (Agri~u,ltur fC~~ht~ah~ du!acre) honing DistrJc~r 4 t ~ ~ ' Q r F S 7 tst~r. O .'C ~.(J t m ~ ~h O t •fr• ~ a F x N - ~ t, O Mf. r. O `v 0! _ N r'_ I ~ o 9 I No a Con N,S.L.R.D.D. N:S.L.R.D.D. .n I Go 0 ~ ~ s , / / r / - i / b Thousondr Pines Drive / ~ s i w t2~ ~ q ~ ~ ' ~ / i ~ , A ~ r r i ~ ~ ~ iH i r ~ s Rbdd~ w.a .d E o' Z 0 d o _ .N ~ _ ~ { _ j - is ' N S ~ V7 C5 i O 6. O Q: k ee ui ~ '\e C< M 0 N eq RZ 03-024 G I This pattern indicates sub'ect arcel J P 4L~/G?/L?/i n M re ared Ma 20b3 I aA A p Y n. m.o n.. o..~ ,onpi.a ~ a.+.~rw+ra ..a nw.w p•oo.~ «w. ww n.. e.., .ra w ao.+d. n...~.......+e .oor« ~ L--+-~J This pattern indicates City of Ft.Pierce ,.~,~~..~~~,r.,~~~....~,~„ N _ ..~,,ry t`: X J!. ~ `tilt ~,9' v • t u;.J „ Ry ~ '.f" ~.a aN ~~9 T * t t I ;v re,^ K¢t~ I L S: yf e i j ~ tt T ~ `(i g> •'w, i~`d.+% ~r~ 4~. .t t jfs G'r•'f ,'Jts.~ k~ I ~ ~ ,r r- 4 t > ~ ..c~z t fy p ~ - r } q .f * n. Hf~{>,p C ~ ~ r 'rt_ l ,:L rr ~ 3 i C' 9~J! _ z.T . n r .a r.- - s r ~ SV' % •~,J°a r ~ , r t ,af t r 7 k_ `T ..Ct dt r t.v r'°°`0 s r n a,r ,t,,. as tr r Y - ~ ~'f ,y~f I r ({~31. ~ ff f 7 f t', '.h ~7i-. ,~yi } ~~cf - v 9.- ~ .ria'f ~ a,w a,1y ~ 1; ~~c-(~ n t~ G<..~~ ~ T t ~l~ E~ tY y_ ~t 4' t r.~ ~ ,r}. ' 1~ t" t c~ - t o s its f 'vrx t7'' F i t C t i Y~ J' t t t b ~ I - C .FL Fk 3ail1 S \ t„ J I ~1` ~ r t uj~t,~ ' ~ + >°s Y ya yk, { r•~,x a ~ ~~F~~ ~at~~rt~,'~ L~Y'i `~~7u Irl s C A yt i, i~~< ~ A w l 1 ? v, >r x}.. n t 1{ 1 r .f f r t r~r 'p f t i ~ r`f't~l,~ v-.. F 4::~ r aJ "1 r r v~ 11 gvft p~°i~t ~C..qt f ~t l.~ ~-~Z fn oP'~4 .?t # .t f~. t_ ,tL t ~'a"F `'.,rµ Ilt .'r - wrf c~~t,{,rk a f2. i yi1 ..ilN;., `+p't a t,t.~ r c+1'v ft S•!C )t n~tt ? Ty L~- \7 :.tS ! y"~sry..Y'>'y'- ~ i ~aPt~ f f r..~n t ~ i E f _ tr ~w7r 't T! 4! -~,J~ a' b15A J' C.,, r Y. ~ t 1 ~ f`s( N.o .e ti~~ Ss~.~: 1 6 L- r y.ss~-li~w f .a } ..t° ~ ~1 ~.I+'s ~~t _4~ f )r~~Y i.,~ E'. {E~~ ~ j ? r r t1 h ~ } ;,'r~ t ,f'v ,A w F.. ( ~ ~ f y - ~ i a C r ((ti l ~ Y 4 y d ~ q ~ ~ l ' . ~.'~t l j 1 I - p. ~ k~.'r. S": f Y. r I 1 , O J ' i uyY~ SI / r t ~,Yv 'l t Kl~d It eY; 9 ~ ~a t 4= Y` ~9 ~ j ~ G I i ~i 3 r ~ ~v~ U 6 ol, .J } r 4 ,t 3 i S l b+~ k.,~ ! 7t r. ~q~2~ ~c.: ,s. R TI r J .4.t 7.}.i ~ ~ r-r v .t ,t d44 S t ~t ~~~.,p~(~~~~'4. ~ ~ ~ `G Iv f K } ~ ~v ~ (?4a ~.:wN aly~ \ c?,/r! ~ ~ oa r @ t.. t 111 I .!t r ()i~ \t} r \ s-.~7~5 ~ 'yy , ~}&&~rl i p p V~ r t v t , x r! ,t i / CC %tr t ~ v 4 Y, ~P i o r< 7 ~ ~ I & vh' . ~ T,' ! ~ .e trt+ ..a' "*r s' 6 Tr t: t S f ~ ? t Y Q.y t .s~. teFh:~ r -~3f~ j e v`~r'~'1 ti''t~ ~b~+~! y_*;aSL J,?rt ,f~,t,,r~ it'°5~i~ -3} ~ L..~ j~h~rt~=~ HS~~)rf... { ~i r . R,f ? ~ ik < a - i ht 3 x f Y i ' s b f.~'P } { ` }•S~ y, t 7 L,. ! Jc j y) ',o-,Y~~ r1~.t,~lt, 5<, yti ~X-hi } Z A .r Y } ~i t 1. 1: 1 A i ~ ."Y t` ~'.><~11'_r h e~. rt. e3 ~ n.-R..~.. 1 /W ^'Y & iNY 'd .''T r ,~z. •l'i A 6( 7 ~ 1 !~!~W } p~T" y 1 t d a -p ti E: p ~ 1 e IC R fe k... `fit a av CT ':.ry- ,rte SPai tr 'ir 1 r ~ tit per( 'p(` r 4~'a'r ~~`S• 1 ~~6.~"~~ r S,<t ' 1 ~ s'~.h<-.a~.e~s, -~.urt§sr ..ism tr ~4J i aj ~ `f i '1, t Ca ~ i~)~? } ~ i l ~ /a de r.~ - l IE ,q 'x°'f Y, ;,+.C .d~'k' `t r t s' ? tY t 7 p I II i~ ~ d~ J'k t~~ks t e l 1..!u~>y:rw..Lra t°r T } n t r a t tJ 1 a l t t k ~Y r L 1 ~ / (f t. t ,t~ J t - 7 l ar's+:: s- .QrY p'.) t~k3 t . t .ttJi tl, aR t tsi~ 4 ~ y f:i r ti ~y;,:?, ~ tt:., E,r t ~ 3~ 6r'&' rC clf° t><v. ~rx. -2 t'rttJ~yt ~\[Z ~ ~}G 4~-~ t4 ~y~r~. ~tJ6 t t~ I'~tit ~y Fn x +xrt ~~se>~, '.~~'v ~t.. >f K'+i~ ~J~ ~ rr 's rt'`~3~`\~+)r~-'~ t~~;(.dpi ~a4t•'ft'6s p~~ ~~1'~~~~.? ~l 1 !l1 CKK 't d ~ 'y. ,t >r t [ t t 4 111 + ~ 't'~~.6r~v43a~1~ e~'y. vb'..~ ~-'f~ 4 ,.i~ 'Y~, 14f%S' J sL~~+ r k{ ~,.aA. JF~1 16th;~ t a - v~ - t n. " P e t~rx ,ap f j i 4 II r ~ i rl a r i EL, `t_ r 1 E C ,y. t - P r ~ v...+a. ~•7 ~S y 7"`> I ~ . ~ Kb Y 9~ ~ v 1 ~ •S' i t ! t. t tv FoY ~i~'+ S,? ~ it j ~,vy<.> ~ t tl p ~ Z~ k ro t a ~ ~t 3~: ~ I"5F F ~ t~lt } ,r ft ~'~}f R*+F ~ f b ~ ~J'.~ } k~~ t~~Z 1 .Y a 1 `.e9t1 T,,a~ y..r v°l £ i ~~ti ~ ! 1 t o . y , ~ 4 " p .cy .ri W u k. s ~ xo - T ~fi~ b~..i ~.4 1 ~ ~ d.': ~ f) ~ s 7J ~ 3Y4,n w s, ,u e `Zr Axv:3~ C+ b tn.-st~ '%e~^I°at .hs 1 ~ v > s A 't„ a ' '7 i ~r 9~f ~ Y W- ~ ~ ~ 1 9 "~J h } y•~z ,~~,~1 ~~,i, y"~f,r ~ r r r ~ t" l { k 7 ! <t <L c k t ~ 4.` t 3 t/tj { t ~~:e fi`'r' ~1a5t,;r°~'6 l~ 1[ i t.; 1 k ~ w 6 ~ 2 ~t ~r ..t ~ t .E ~ 'W {q rt. ( rr 5 xLS ''4. ~1 c 'Lk~ ' ,~`dE ~ ~~~1 ~ fl''~ t 4.ra f!"i'fv :ft43"1~~' 1J S ~ ~ t ~ k i tilt' % 0 ~+t ~ 'G 'yt ~ !t ~ 1 i 1 ' d * a~?~ < t r~a~g tits ku ~~w E ~a'~~` t~''~s t"~~ : ~,.f° r t ~ t " } a d> d ~t~' ~ ~ 'y~,c^h~.,°ttr t~.~:! 1~:a~s`~~'P k }i ,I~} ` 'mss t f .rt t! ! ~ a I Y~..~ iJ'yY~,_ -Y~ '"q Yr [,4` ) 1 7 ~Y r 7 e _ ` ~ 1 t<f rt s 'i i ~~i'?~s 7 6FA~+/}~yi C ~ il. } ~ rt r ~ ! S t ~ z LC't ~Kt c`P ~~{S tk ~~J {f tt `"st~ {~,t ~y ~a,~-~~sa~' rf\ t2 yr,. y lf.', ;2, ~ '"~~w~ .4 4 ,Z, F~ k~~ ?f ~ 4.~ 3 ,_1G t! -.t n a I. ; ~ K'~ ~p C fy' E € ~ ' '4. 9 -..1 ' _ A'nP <ti i~~s t~ .z - ~k,le. _°l~( { t ~f 1 ~ yr 3- rr A. ~ r 45~ -r v ° - ! t"' - ~ ^ra''. s ~ m ;a Ra4F~~ rxtsrt' ?ri>c Y'r ~ _ " v ,r 1 ~ i~ tiri ~ » xa+tka ry r " <v f' ° r IG t Y r ' tr ~ t'r / s ~ ~ r t. s q t ~f C ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~A'e ~ t tl'-4. r1. , ',:'J j.:.:,,. R Ate v ~i K tr 4.~ t~+~c~. . ` ! . e ,l ,.~~A.+y rr ~ v ~.~"ty `b L t'~ h1i""v!t a,? s u ~ Al j - r~ ~ .:i:,, As , r. S,, ~ iiA~~~,,, it` n li r t ~ N ~ 1 I`` G L 1 §~sqq a' t u _ v~s .li V r^ t ° 1 s t~ t ) ~1 fi ~,''C'`x4,~1fy {'3,, q~4 K v~: C` <$~.,~~"`Re ) t r 4 ~ ~ rr r~ ~~'r.Y fi t.,~ 't t,. C < t 'fit °N 1 r ~ G,~~ ~ 54-.1'. (t C k Z. ~IA ~ t 19 ~ r `'ri~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~„f. '4 r.~ rt'1tT`~ >'ya d ~ y - L c~.'^D, . I(y~i~. ~ Y r r ~ t k r,. y 2 y k,l' ~ ~ dk: R"; ,J ~cp b iryf ~ n*~ -t i`8 ~b i ~r f i ~ - r } S t~. + ~~'~`tir ti;h r ~~t s ¢ ~ t iiy t°'rik ~I h~~ Y ~ r; .vt y_ 'A, h ~ -t ~ ~+~s't t € rl~~, r ,rT F _'`r 1k eC', Y - h~ '`t S r t 4 It ~ ~ ~t ^Ft x f 3°~ sY G~s~ ~ w P'~v z t`r' (E ~ .r : ~ l r a L I K j ~ ~~~~.fp~~". " ti~ 's` ~~)rd~~ ju ~r4P~ ~"a S 4 ~ a L5. ,•'~i J ,Z r ~ r 6 A ) is ~ k ~ r h, r •v^ s 1~~_ L;. ..fd~,yt+t.v.9*..~i. i4 a gt,7T >•.~u3 ( I ~ L _ r c f "r t k .j 1 r, ~ f ~ S ( ! P ~ ( Ir ~ ~ 2 f r 3 i ~TS~~ y,i` r ff ~ F ty v au 4 .t r S t '~t`J6 ~ ~ s ~ ~r . ~lyr 6 t3 9 ! v' a A t k .-'1~~ ~,;c ~'4~''f~,~' ~ s:tit si ca~Y t~ ti:~ 1~{$ a ~-Y"~ii 3r_-~i ~t__,c~ ~T~ ~ t ~ ~ ryv r v ~ e F t ; t f t > 4 t ~ f r ^y { t ~ .1 ti r t el Vie:, t 4 t 1S Y ~C~PPa y~lo-5ti, s~ r i~~c4~g r 1` v ,-r'r ~r ;y 9 ~ 6? - ~ _ ' ~ ~ ~ t ta~ It sv~ , I t 6 '}~c~7J !.i"' s" C•.~a~~ Fj'J _.7,C e ~'`tia .r t~' 1 Y::.i ~r,' h !y SF i.a, x f.r~ '"tai _1, s~ z~~ ~+~G'~` ~ [ r, :,t ~`~~r~_ a~~f t tr' S Y a~9 n~ ..1~ ` . X 2~ a _,14 j li , vk t ~ r \ 3 t` § i ~ ' L ~ r g t ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 11gy44 ` Y\~k~r 'a ~a" ~ ~ ~ i ~ 3 k • ~ 62-~n i I L;~~ r .CS. f l~l~_°i3 e...,,~t .~t c~ tai ~ f~ i t e',E S 1 ~ fs = 7`~,~,',"a.,~.+E-,>~.- _ .~•i 4~ws_a..o _ -xix:sc-~'. ~n ~ Y y~ c d ~n..:r4~ r ~r f ti - 'i rs x•aa~~ 'i s° ISir~~ts 7t V>s Y i-.~ ~~v.r~-4~ t~~ Srr a 1~r tt < 2 t v,. t,~.r r e ~ f t I f. q w 1 r ~23k~~-:tY~t~ ~ t~ >~~^•t r 3 tt { , r ~ ~ ~ . t < ~ f atz~°"t ` 1 ~ f ~ s ~ by,, v ew~t 1K~ '`ah~,~f" L ~ ~~~lk'~~ ~ ty 3 ~P f_~ 3 ~ l T ~ ~.t ~ Z 'trt ° F` `Yrw'v ~qq'Y $P~ '~'t~ ~~+~~~'r/''t*. ~°~•~'~J' < .Ji . ~r tra t ~ y ! ~ t ~ )r r ~ ~ {r r t \'~i c k, ti 7 Y i 9sr T-6'~ '`e ~~~~~LTat+_A"~ksr",'.~~"•h ~ it ~s`t~y}~rfls ~~t r s11 ,.g.} it t L" t Ft+~t Y.t r 1 r _ +~.^-S-. u.,xb+ a ~ rx ~r { 1 z ~ 4 , tt ~Nr t((yy,~t `7t _ 4~" isigpp~c+~~ j~° ' Z;~ryy~~' 6.~ 7~' ~i z ~T tI k y5 'T ~ y, `t m, e e 4,L 'v, F lS~<cAi 'K474V F 9 as ~ e ~ 1.~~J.pA r4'~~-~~~y ~Pt~lf~ t 1.~~3~ llo i.t~' w t°y~ vr, 1:~;. 'u 7~` J e~ , v t E r J~1 s c ~ Y t r ft~ ~ j'1 td`\ 1 576 i 1' ~C ~ 'f- ~ ~ ~ .y . F r a ~ g,~~3wt rz r ~ tea r j "+3 F I~ t 1.-., , e~ p'. 1 ti .4a- ~ ~Kt'li y~ ? ..R Y ~ ty J ~~~a.rbr P~ii! i }f St r 't t -V? t ? to i k ti e~t l r ~q1~ ~ ~~r svF r4t~_ r s•la" 5r~ f~~f ~i41L is ifrj t•r~,ti~ s~~ ~ "b > r .+f i~}~~ a.~ ;°3'~ - 'T~ Y 4 - rF ~t I~... T 1 4:` Y. )}j ~ ~a? y ~ to ~ r P e x11.1 a u d~ x I l k s 1 rr `f ~.T' t{ - i 3 5t r i r { .,.r ~ t ly C, C~ t s C t 'ti' t; ,'°'a+c t.7 s ~ ~ 1~ x T ~ ~ j (rfJri}t~/'' (y- f' )II' ` t'4 f ` m t 4 1 i. ~r#~rJ b ~ y yy:` Y~}w v~.d•,.a<...w. J ,t.riv~J'LA..bJ ~J~~~2~ --SS i'.:1:, ~ ~Y I Y>! i. t y~i ti r 5 < ~ ~,ytt , ~ r~ 'L ~ + rd ! ~ ,sue 4 °~t~ ~ t~ ti i. ih ~r~n Y` ~ h { ?x. 1•zt ~ ..,ti `gss' i a'n'a at f~~ t . :a "A. ryr~. .tP ,t : {~+as h'Y t .,Y..~'> '"c,. _ :~'r} h, y a o t k a"'art-v `Y S -vwW4,~ ~p.~~ \ `{c _s`, ~7 a. 'i' ;`.t, 1 j ~A _u' ~ ~J~~~ {r a~~:'t!'l`fv~~ ~ i.2J~:.fiV~°~J.t'.\ ` J .i~~,~ t,,. { ~ v . d 4 i v~~ls'" R u:. ¦ ® ® ~ o. • • ~ ~ ~ s a ~ z ~b~ ~ ~w ~'f a I , t._ , ~ I _ ~ _ AGENDA PLANNIn G & ZONING COMMISSION , y g~y~ F.f ~fJ :1~ i ~ t I T r 1 Jane 19, 2003 ~ ~tt°_ i.: ~r 7:00 P.M. ~•i , - DALE T. MO$HER, has petrtioned St. Lucre Counts for a Change in Zoning from the RS 3 (Residential, Single-b'amily - 3 dulacre) Zoning District to t{ie AR-1 ;(Agriculturdl, Residential - 1 " 4 drrlaci-e Zonin .District or the ollowin described- r'p e`r ) , ,.g f, f g P- ,P lY,, C Location: 4200 Edwards Road. e that all oceedi s r, t P Please riot r n be e e an i' an ni om 'ssi o l n d n C mr o ca h _ n Zo n1Lo l p_ f g g , Planning Agency 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 meetln or hearin he will eed i-ecoid o he roc ' di s 'ana~ a or such If g S~ n a f t , p ee ng , th t, f purposes, he mcty need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings. is made, which record includes'the, testimon and evidence a on'which the a eal is tobe based. U on the re "uest o an ar to the y P _ Pp: p ~ f yP h' proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in; Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examrne any-,individual testifying. during ahearing-upon - reduest. Written. comments received in advance. pf the public hearing will also be considered. ~ ~ _ i Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners ~ June 6, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, `uewspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on June 4, 2003. File Na. RZ,03-024 ~ JL~~ CMG QOARD OF COUNTY N ~ ti~ COMMUNITY _ COMMISSIONERS ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR June 6, 2003 ~OR1o~ In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that DALE T. MOSHER, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single- Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 4200 Edwards Road. 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 June 19, 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 becontinued 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 owner. Please ca11772/462-1582 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number RZ-03-024. Sincerely, ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ Ed Merritt, Chairman JOHN D. [3RUHN. Disrricr No. 1 DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No. 2 PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. Disrricr No. 4 CLIFF DARNES. Disrricr No. County Adminisrraror - Douglos M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Adminisrrorion: (772) 462-1590 • Plonning: (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. cost-lucie.fl. us t -~x~~ w~ r,- ~ _ ~ A V,1 V'1 Q "GG Vl~+,+ t.•t 6~0 0~0 Y1 N_. N r 1~ X11. ~ 00 ~ pG tom' Q~ .-N 0~0 ~A ~ -~A O~ h N ~~1,~ 7 ; M N ~ N ~w. ~O ~ O I O O M V1 N N O M p~ M O 'N ~ w. O~ o. b ~1 M, ~f) O~'O V') Vl N dQ .'ct !nrvl ~ ~n~~ ~n v) V'1 v7 41 ~ ~ v) O v) ~l1 ~n ~/1 ~n ~!1 M ~"i l ~ ~ ~ `r N v, c~ r,•, ~ I ~t' ~ I ~7' i v' I ~ 1 Y ~ . 1 M M ~ ~ <T ~J s, . . I' I oo : v bo 00 'vo <t oo v> ab oq oo I oo I oo i oo, 100100 .bo i oo v .v M ~t o0 00 00 0o bo ob ~ 1 darn--:rn~ m'O~'rnm rnm0~0~d\rntrn,rnrn , o~ Irnrn ~•rncho~rnQ`GfiOv 4~~ 00 d• U' 'V• -V ~ '~i' d' ~ ~ tl',I d' ~f' i ~ ' ~t v ~ ' V' ~t ~ <i• d' d•, ~~t ft V '~i• ~ ( ' I~ II N_ IM~V:~c'rl M ~ M M M M~MjM1M.,M f+1iMIM Mi -~M M _ M M M M M hl M t - i ~I ~ q~~ _ 'f~ _ ~ ~i~ , Iw;,_.~jaia w ~ `a~.a',.a w a .a a .~~.afa~.~Ia x a ~Iw_a a a,._.~~ 1I~1 ~l~:l~"f~'"'iwiW~ Lx,~~~~"l~w{G.~w.jx,w~w-r3..u.:w:w u.IL~.•w;wIw~~.~~'-~~~`-'~.w u.i ct. _LzS f~i . , f - - I i <~r i a~ ~ ~ v ~ a~; , a~ , a~ I a~ v .a> > v v ~ v , ~ ~ v ~ . ai • a~ a~ v; U a~ ~ a~ ~ ~ a~ 1 a~ o ~ ai i ~ I ~ ~ l a~ ai - a~ ~ ~ i 1' ~ P.7 Ui Nl dil U U~~, U~'UI U1 ~1 U H H M ti~ V tU, Ul wl wl~~..I U1 H1 ~ ~ U U FU..~ 1 ~ ~1 ~i~ ~iI ~ ~ v fit ~ v ~ v a~ ~ a~ a~ ro >vj v~ v v ~i ~ "'I f.. li - tIa o:a~a.a; ~~a ~~alv~;aja#'a''Ia;a~a;a, a !a a r~;a., a.~alala;'n:j o~alala. a a is: ia.. I' o o' ola'i o' o oI o; o o; ol~'o', o; o~ o o a o 0 0~ ol'0 0 of o;~~ o~ o' 01 0 0 0 0~ :~Urw,au.,w•wI[s.lwlwla„w~~w,wlw~w,r~. w r~.w w u, ww u..wlw w1w:z~w,w~u..I,u,au..~u:lrs.~ ` cll. a ro , I v >,j I~.,~~v ~~IaI n, via, r~iu~.r~,a:lr~ c~.. o'-v,vl o i I `cy~ Irx) o:~~ol~rsi uR:i ~i G ~;i?'~' ~1' •r'I G ~i,•~' F' A~ y m ~~-h m, m! Ora (]wiG: tU•,1 FU.,' c~~i?' ~ vSi ~ v, ~ I , m t-.. ro ~roj m q m ~ m ~ii~~~ v v v 'b 3 H ;~I ti 31.31 ~ R7 h' rosy ~I ,y`~,~ w,~ c F. N f vl O I N ~ F. k ~ I H I 1 F.., I-. , F. F. f.. t-.. r p,' i-. : ~ U: O~~ C U~ W~:~f Q' ~I ~.ro':O D ro, ro ro :cV ro ro'.~" U' N, N, ro•:ro V1~.p~ OI. ~.O Ui v' i, on ~ o I n ~ o on > ~ ° ~ o 00 3 0 0 ~ 3:`; 3 ; 3 ~ 3 3 3 ` v on co 00 ~ ~ 3~~=0 3 on onl i v, + v o~v, 1 ~v,-v~v~~ v v 9'' 41 0l vj a~ x I ~ , o ~ o ,_Ivl ( ~3 v v o(ol ~ ~rxj~~~:x~~.a wlwi~i~la!r~11~ ~ w~wjw w w wi~V~' x,xla:;CalA ~~w;~~ w x x - J bi O ~i'~OI~OI[`~•O O'r~~0~ .+p OfN~O~~ (r++.-~,O ?O N O-_~4 OIGj~'O)O OI"t N N M N t`j~~hl - 1: Z:r oo: ~O'O b~~o0~:0~ OBI^I(V ,~,~I'O.!q N;it ~O ~n;NiVI~V't,t~~~n N oOIvS~N~0I0 M 1~~0:~ ~ ,I.. 'O 10~0'M ~D'f!~;01~4,00 Qv,c4,'-. 1~`'tf5''IIM.;M ~ O_O10 O O~,iI~ 00 NLO,ch.M:~NI N r <T - - ~ i . .Q';MiN.~V"~A'tYiMtM-1:Mi~-','V'M d'.'~1': V''~cF 'ct:~:.~, M;.MiN,M, M~... O~ V 'i7..~ ~1'M N i ~ _ , 1 ' i i~ ~ I~ 133: ~ i ' ! I I ~ , ao: on ~ " I ~ Ti I ~ i i F-~ v ~ ~ , , ~ a~ ' a~ . ~b b , .c '.Q;¢ m i 8 c: it , ~1 ~ ~ i o i ~ i ~ ~ ro ; ' ~ ~ - I - I t crr : a~ . Q f I i : E~- f . rr ~a ro as ~ ~ a r,d,~~ ~ i?;~ ~ b'~'d~ ~~,,.a .a o w1~f'v' Icy ~=ro' ' t... G .fl ~I y • ~ , ~ ro F . G O . N ro ~I N I - ' t-r ~ ~ :b , U ro ai ro I F„ m ro ~ ro i ro , 1 O ro i ) I .c ; ~ ~ ~ : z,'ti ~sC1; m.a,~~ ~"C'a~c~ ~::;a U ~''w w w .~;~IaC_ ~tv=~i - on ~ .~E r. ~ ti, ro o o h a ro; ro 0 0 0 0 0: ro o, v, ro v I ~ i , 0 0 ~ N , ti ~ • o. 0.1 t.: v , Qi CYi 3~ ~ 1 ~ ;,o o ~3 a~~ ~ cal ! v " „aoi ~ 'v x, ~ a~i':¢, ai,~'1 ;b y_ 4Ci~ C i v . a~ • sv 3 , c~ ' ~ { a, ,c .a b I v ; ~ ro .d i F- H E~ v • C 1 00 • ai' y ~ is ~ ,-1L - G ~ ~ I F. ..C a• N fi .C U N ~ N ~ ' ~ ~ I > y .C ro; U.,~I y .fl ~C~~ d3 U ~O cy~- p -~1 C J_G Q.,U ' v eet , N ~ ti- ro ~ ro ! ro - ro ro ~ co' of O U ~ a~ ro O p ~ , a - ro ~ ~ I L - V' O L ~ _ I d - ~ i i !U ~ I .C V- - !rn ' ' I w , I C I I - - - I i I ~ I f! , ~ , , , N , d , ti > -~i, I ~ I rr - . 1.. I t v I ! i : _ 4-. - N ~ ' 1 O ~ ~ fQI I'.'-' II OA i 1 O ~ v, ~bi,sj, , i- I I U! W cd rn 0. • i ~i ~"i v bA , : i I U ~I ti i t, O ~ fi~ ~ a~:'CI ~jI U ~ ¢ ¢ .Y, ~CI,~Li'al y ~ 31 T "p ~ ~ ~ ro' co ~i ~ p ~i 3 U~ U of m~ *n y, ~I^I U > > co' p ~ t+', ; ca~i ~ ~ ° ~ I -O, ~I o~ p• ro, roi ro of o o, 01 o o ~ ti~ v ro o ~ ro! ~1 ro :c o 0 ~ ~ ,z ¢;¢;oa,'m"Iaa{v~v{vic~: ~'xix,a~~~~~~i~;~i~i~;~~~lz_;z zlO~o~~Ea xtx~v~, , ~ O ,~:Q\ M~~-!IOC NIA +')'O~Nj00 ,00'~DloOj hl I ~ ~'IMi v~IO~INjI~, (N O~ N ~I~O O~ vl pp IiU,~„ O O O O O ~OO O O'.O O;Oi~.0~0~ ,O O 010' ; O O O OHO O O O~ ~ , o, IO 010(0 g,o Oi0 pplplo.g,o.~o 010- pp of i I~ ~ o O O ono O O o ?O n0!~I;Q!O,O,Q 0.1_01010'0 S~p;0~0!OlO,0i0 O%O,g,O1S!OIO q_ O O 09 O 0.10: y d' N ' M , ~Y N V7 O : I N ~ M t o0 N N ' ~V N '~t i M.; M N I O tV M. M_ ~D I ~ ~O O'pp pp~~-- O O,' O `r'O O~OjO OFO O O O OIOIp10 N O O O O O CS Icy 10~0'O'010~0 OIO,S p' S O Or0:0 O OIp 01010 O OI ~O O O O OIO SO ii ~ ~~JOippOI O'O Qj'OiOIO,Q Oj0'Or0!'Oi0i.0 Oi!.OIOiOiS O OISIO O Q O O O~ OO, E N O~Migl~f c.~ N N O ~'.M O O '~;d•'~t NI '•--'i S g it+:G. AI,...' N10' 1.-, OIMiN OJ '.O~O,'ct•i~'; ...I_^.N M ~I r, ,I-`•I(Vlv't~~[Vll~--' v'fl N~!c'~ i~ vl, I.- iN~ ~i~~-M v'~ ~ ~ <t' o0s,o0~oo0~~O,o;cSolo,oro~o~oloa~;o,oolo~'o~aao0o0o010•! I II ~ ~Rt M~NMIr-jM~M M NINIM~M MIMIM M; M'MIM M1NiM~M M=~--~I~--~iN M M M M M M MI^~ 'U' V' ! tt ~ 'd' V' , d' d' d' V' ~t V' V' V' V' ; ft ' cr ~t , V' . tt ' V d' ~ V I V i V' I d' Wit' 'd' 'd' 'd' 'd' ~f ~f V i ~ i , '1D.~~ ~E" N:.N, N~Nj,N NIN-N!N;N. N N1N N~N:NININ NINN N N;N~N N NN N N N N NIN: I - - - 1 - - J~___ - ~ - - - t ~ .t m , , ~~a~ II cn od S ' rn i a m ~ ',I . ~ N~ v; ~Mi ~ ~ qty ~ ~ r lip ~ ~;v~~ w ~wiw f,;,, h. I r I i N. ~c,i ~ ~i ~~y i ~ a"' n7 a; ; ~ I i ~w~~~~~~~ ~ z I i i,G~ ~ i ' I jl 'H+b I ~'d NI~+~i- 3 u 11. LNG o"Hj.~li ~~I ~wj I ' ~i v i ~ ~l ~ ,M OiO~ I ,I ''O - ,I - ~ i - i I 'I - ~ ~ I ji I L I i i ?i`,d i '"'i ..c i I ~ ~ji i I ~'z `c.~ { ~ . 'c !;I t' . ~ i I~,I 67 fT N I~'+'7 i ~ , , ~ , w.. c~ I o I I' ~ I ~~~Z r W ca , a I 2 I ~ ~ ~ ! •i ~ I r ~ ' o.. j~ j f ~ I' - I I~ ~ ~ I a ~f _p;~~ z~ ! i v G E ,o ~j E , L r' ~ O' i~N~ fY. ~ i' C i .N ~ U ~ ~ i i z ti ' - U a c~ L r P bA'. I i I-. „ a i O L _ , , i C) y r 1 .C G ~i V _ t, A vi - A. - i I~+ 'p •y~ V II C '.1G j' li u ~ ~ ~ h. i i~ F ~L~ i ..O i u O 'i C7 , ~ a~ A ,Ulwl, 0 IA w ~ i o li 6> I. N'~ C 1 ;I ~;.C. Yi F+. O ~C ,l 'O I~ , i~ ~ ~ n-... , li . j H "tOiO Oil ~ - C ~OO, O' E ~ ~~'~oio~0il ~i~ ~ AID lNI; ~ ~ rv j ~a _ I I ,~rn ofrnl? 1 . ~ I '.1010 L~p~( ryytr~~f "~010'QpJll Notlus p I: - SP ANNItJG ANA ' ~ ` f ~o-l • ~ ~ Y~ ZOMNQ.COMM1541ON PURIIC HEARING ~ ti4s r ~ ' iJ r - I E C 3, r, lane 19, 7007 1-- ~ ' j 1 / I I 1 tv7 WHOM li' 1 t_ _ rJCCFI-1 ~ - ~ ~ i~~ ST r+'~ OTICE htt by 9 n j y~.yh 5 t F , y ! -rlnn r 10003 1 of L C 'rI I ~d 0 .pinery Code - / ` rd M a ~ I M SI L C ~ C lrnpeMryrv ~ M / 11 nv Pr h a .d d~ xr. st. aq~44r _ ~ n c n FI o9 + ~ ~ c m;rrwA cenrw« r I 1 PGL PROPE I ~ r n~~E tFrJl (A; I;; h S7 LUCIE ~ $OUARf eING 1. "i , i Ir - e C . ~ inn to of b.+ r nc~;opNOi _ , 4' ~/o Errot I rlr.il; `r~11- nin the CG ' Coin I n~r- 1 GI' 7.-,,, •I fa, eol, C i,~cr I« iM lollbwmq a<rtr Md aoP<ny - i 1r r ~ ~ ~ k~ ' mODEL lAN0.C05 $/D IN SEC I$ J6AOBLK ! TH/sT ` PART OF lOTS 7 ANO 8 IN $E 1/1 MPDAf,fRQM NW ) _ COR Of SE 1/i AVN S~g9 56 27 E 70 F7 TO E R/W qF I - y I.US FF1,iHS00. 0027,E AlG,E R/W IStf }~(ONII Of - 1077,iH COI•iT $EIY,AIG Ec/W 712 f1 TO fOB,Ti1N ~ R, yr', 895937E'I/S SOfi~TO CURVE CONCAt''E NVVR Of ~ + ;+nr~:.~ • 10 FY,TH NEIY'ALG A~'C 15:71 Fl, TH N 6p W 27 W ;°J . 15605 Ft. t0 YURVE CONfnvF Sw,R.OF 25 F1,tH ' ~ NwIY AlG ARC 3921 fT~.iO S R/W U QR'KIIYERAUN V ' -RD,iH S 89 56'27 E AlQ $'R%W LI 12~ O7;Tp W R/V7ll _ Of CANAL THS W OJ 03 W 128.25 fi~TO $ U OF ~ ,lOi B,TH rv ~B9 ¢5 l9,w AlG S ll 202 J$'.Fi YH IJ 90 0027W Ix1.5.fT H' - 6 1 N i 1.56'31, 4 W:73. ~7 f H . JT S - 4 60.A1 Fi TO CURVE CONCAVEI$f.R CH 35 f1,iH 5wlY AlQ ARC 5198 fi TOER/w Of US FF I,YH N 00 00 27.WALG E R/W;9~~ 02 fT TO POB~lE55 f0(, ~DESC PROP FROM NW COR,OF SE I/I,TH 569 ¢6}7E , 70 FT 70 E R/tN Of US ji l,jH$~00 00 27 E'nCfG E R/'.}' ~%7 iT.TH N B9 59 33 E 30 fT:TO P08 TH fONTN B9 - ' ! 59 33 E 125 fT,TH $ j10 pp 27,E 1 BO FT TH'$ 09 59 97 - wl25 ft,tH`FJ'0000~27W- - ...189 Fi TO POB AND lE S _ r $ FOl DESCPROR:fROM W- - ~ _ 7 N ,COR OF SE I/IYH 50956 2 E78 FT 70ER/w OF•U$;p1,iH S0000$LE ALGF . 'R/W'1319.15 fT TO$H-F ~ - - O LO B.iH 5,69' - , - . 551 I E 9. ri 5 ll 551.79 Fi-f0 $ECOR:OF' ~ t 'lC' , ld B,YH-[J ,00.03.07 E • ~ . . ~ AIG. I E t Of OT B 17867~Fi;~H N 89:$6'-57 W 1 5 8 FT .S T P O OB iH N 01 I1 a3 E 225!0 FT H'N` ! h .L_,, 80 638' W13.99 Fi,iH 21a Z S 15tvtl l:IOT FT, NN6529 SI ~ W2991'Fi,TM$25310I'W 6917 fY,iH~$'.(5 Ob 11€ 20 T6 f? TH S 21 27 $a w 46'fT,TH $ 63 55 30 E ~9 Ft;TM N BII I ~7 E 0270 fT TO POR (13.77 ACIEOR 1515 17121 Lo< ton. 646} Sovth V$ I,.St. lvice _oq~~me $hopprry Ccn 2. WILLIAM D MILLER f Cho 9 ~~.,y h m fM 1 R5. IR d al, (gI F ;ly t ! d / cl Zon Ois. I >.Iq IM RM.S.(y d l I. M~Ir d F .'I i du - 2m q D v:p For rAe lollor Ce urbed /oQ'<) ( y.. h 20.3510 Sf I,'1'OF NE 1/! Of• SE I/i-LESS N X35 fT ' OF w 160 FT,AND IFSS E l0 FT.AND ~^{-161.BafT,Qf - ' ^+26911 FT OF NE I/10F SE.I/!OF $E,1/a (7,31 AC) ~ r ' IOR 531.505; .«o P o molely 750 fcet jquth of Con1k Avenue, ~n the Wesr s , de oTSovlh 25th $rc<et 3. EUGENE AND LESLIE DUNCAN for o~Chonge In Zon. ' . ~eq 1 M 5:1 (R sidenliol; Sl~le.family.~; dv/Duel ' Zon' 9 D o kw RM 5 IR d< t I MIiple:FOm'ly • s d~/ottel idnipq o;no-;N ro:-16< rono..r~~.beett;bed - - xdy a ..7 2G,3510N225~FT OFw 2a250 fi Of$EI/l OF NE - - 1; 10F- 11 SE l I'.25 ACI R 260.19 (Q 99: 1 ncrh< Wa.'s.de oFSoWh715Dth $kee61.~ of CorrFi Avenw, r 1. CGRA 3 ,AMBER? for a Chc~ge rn Zonrng ham the ~5-a 1R d cl, Sn I f I - r~i*r th i. ' 9 Y d / ).Zpnlrg D't. o 5 R er d<nr of-M i ~ ~ le f ,t Zonn Oesr' for u! P Om y, dv/«r<~ 9 n iM1<lotto.v ngdesurbed pro ~ - . 20 35 10 dEG 212.5 fT E OF NW COR OF SE I/a Of NE I/1 OF SE 1/~, ,TH RUNE 217;5 FT, TH,j 235 fi, TH W.105fi, iHN10 Fi, iHE217:5 fi; iH N'225 Fi TO - POB (711 H 23 nCl(OR 212.1111: 1069.1725) r l« AP mor ly 7~0 f<er~ovM of Corfex Averrw n rh 0 eW st s,de of$o- vM 25rn $n ee 5. ALICIO P:NA for h n o C a q< .n Zon~n h en 9 o fht AG.1 rA I ral.; gncu tv dv /Due Zon D. me r' ' .derv al $ q. F ml y_ d ."9 1 tMRS.I (Rnr. a , 1 ! uel Zon .p O'tnlcr dre . f II 0 o i "9 d<tic/bed property:-' _ ' I 1131395: 10F SE 1/10F NW 1/a-IESS'E-BO FT AND $60 fT-127.28 Aq 10R J11~2903) - _ aro N d `dl Ind o 4ootl, opwox;mor<Iy.2.000 6. DALE 7 G$HER, f Change Z from the ~ 453 IR 2 I, $~"yl F IY 3 d / tt) Zoninp Dis •r;o to M A4:. (Aq I wal; Res;denl;ol - 1: dv/ou<) - - Zon~nq D-srr.a la y;e lotk.v, - d•itr;bed rp - pr9~aerryt i 303510E' 10F.~1/20F NE.i/l Of NE I/1 -,LESS _ _ 511M f1-ANDN310,fT OFSIjp Of W,1/Z QFE - ' I/20F rvf 1.10FNE 1/a-IESSN 110 FTOfE 171. fi OF. W 1@6 fT - ANO BEG -AY PT ON NR/W i EDWARDS Rp 20 FT W OF SE COROF $ 1/2 OF,W 1/2 _ - OF EI/20f NEl/(OF NE I/l,itUplN YOE 1 ~ - . -LSD SE T P C O O f 70 TWOfEUOF S.1/Z OFW IJZ OfE f;7dF NE T7I pF NE 1/a ANO JIO ft;S Of3 LI Of NE 1/a.Of NE 1/! Of NE 1/a; TFI kUN E FT" 20 TH S TO N R/W f DWARp$ PD, TH w TO POB (9.67 ACJ (Ok ,1516:1081)... - l«ot_;on: a200 Ed..ordr Rood - PURIIC HEA41 IGSv;ll b• h•Id In Commrttron Chomb«s, Roper Po ros Ann•R .2700 v pnb Averw•;Fort Plerc~, fla:do on Iv"• 19, 2003. bey;nninq of 7:00 71A, or Leon. rh•rwh•. of pouibk. PUR$UAN7 i0 S<own 2860105,Florw/o $tatyhe, ito pers6od•ud•sro acP.al ony decifad mode by abo«d, - e9mcy,«com,ryigod ;.ah raP«elo ony rmn«tatad «W at u m.«.~i,q « M«rnq, M ~lu',;•ed o r.<6rd d-IM p«•edinps: cnd tho( f« arch pvr A. Po rrw need b Y wr• dwt avabal~m record of rh•'poo•edirgi ii risod~, ..F,Kh ,.c«a ;n<wdn the F.almo"y and ~.Iders~ ,;pe„ .rnKn m..oPp.ai., to be be(•d. IIANNI NG AND.ZONING COMMI$$ION - III S?IUCIE COUNTY, FlOR10A /$/Ed MVrin, CHAIRMAN I PVBl15H: Fvoe 2003 - 7711]10 I .j ' _ ~ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: June 19, 2003 .,.._ti.~ _Il ~ ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Community Development Director DATE: June 10, 2003 . SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance 03-023, amending the County's Educational Impact Fee Schedules, to be effective October 1, 2003. Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 03-023, which would propose to amend the County's current Educational Impact Fee Schedules, effective October 1, 2003. On August 5, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted Ordinance 88-16, imposing an Educational Facilities Impact Fee in St. Lucie County. In 1993, 1995 and 1996, subsequent amendments were made to the various sections of this impact fee ordinance. However, the current assessment rate of $800/ per single-family unit has not been adjusted since a reduction to the base fee was made in 1996 as result of several locally approved voter initiatives for capital construction. As recently as the Year 2000, consideration was given to adjusting these fees, however, no action was taken on a series of proposed amendments in deference to the School Boards desire to pursue an alternative capital funding source that was ultimately approved to meet anticipated future capital needs. In 1988, when the Educational Facilities Impact Fee were first imposed, the $800 assessment was artificially lowered to that rate in order to meet local community concerns. Due to recent State funding cutbacks, it is necessary to consider raising this fee to the indicated $2,380. The current fee of $800 is less than half of the Statewide average. However, if the new fee were approved, the County would be in the upper percentile for educational facility impact fees in the State. Educational facilities impact fees, a/Wa school impact fees, across the State have been the subject of much discussion and many are experiencing or are proposed to be increased, some rather dramatically. Lake County recently approved an educational impact fee of just over $4,000 for asingle-family home. Orange County's (Orlando) is currently considering a substantial raise to its single-family fee of $2,828. However, it is important to note that the amount that an impact fee may be raised is directly dependent upon the level of State and local revenues that are earmarked for capital construction. One reason for the rapid rate of increase in impact fees across the State is that the while the State has reduced its funding commitment for new school capital costs, and the basic cost to provide a school and the necessary student work stations, has increased substantially, many local communities have not, or cannot, adjust their local taxing structures to meet the costs to the community. The projected costs of providing public educational facilities per student are in St. Lucie County are estimated to be $14,000 per student station. Broken down through the formulas provided in June 10, 2003 Subject: Draft Ordinance 03-023/ Educational Impact Fees Page 2 the attached memorandum, our consultants have determined that St. Lucie County will be short approximately $2,380, per single family home, in meeting our facility obligations to address new community growth. Noting the above, staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance . 03-023 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. DJM/ 0323aMEME011(H) cc: County Attorney Asst. Director of Community Development Planning Manager Educational Impact Fee Update ('repared for St. Lucie County By James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. June 2003 St Lucie County has been collecting public educational impact fees since 1988. In 1994 the educational fees were updated. The public educational impact of residential units is set out in Tables 1. Table 1 also sets out the historic, present and projected public school enrollment in St. Lucie County. The present impact fees are: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES ST. LUCIE COUNTY Sin le Famil $800 Multi-Famil $608 Mobile Home & Recreational Vehicle $182 HoteVMotel 0 Other Residential $800 2002 FLORIDA AVERAGE IMPACT FEES BY TYPE OF UNIT Single Multi Maximum $2,828 $2,081 Minimum $348 $66 Averse $1,712 $905 Median $1,607 $760 Sam le size 17 16 St. Lucie's existin fee is excluded from this summa St. Lucie's educational impact fee runs approximately one-half of that of other Florida jurisdictions. .Educational or school impact fees have been experiencing rapid increases. Lake County is presently considering an educational impact fee of over $4,000 for asingle-family home. - ~ Orange CoLtnty's single family fee of $2,828, is presently under study for a possible increase. The reasons for the increases in educational facilities impact fees are, first, reduced state .funding for new school construction, second, increased cost for new schools and, third, a "taping ouY' of Certificates of Participation.' All of these conditions exist in St. Lucie County. ' Certificates of Participation, commonly referred to as "COPs,"are debt instruments that are paid for out of the authorized 2 mill Capital Improvement Tax (CITax). School boards are limited in the amount of CITax that hey can commit to pay COPs. St. Lucie County Page 1 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 From 1980 to 85 the ratio of public school students to households declines sharply. Since 1985 -and going to 2004 -the ratio of student to households has been remarkably stable. Table 1 shows the relationship of all households to enrollment and Table 2 shows what a new dwelling unit will add to school enrollment. TABLE 1 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND POPULATION ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA YEAR POPULATION ENROLLMENT HOUSEHOLDS STUDENTS PER HH • 1980 87,182 14,606 32,506 0.449 1985 115,949 16,598 44,858 0.370 1990 150,171 21,144 58,174 0.363 1991 158,173 21,926 61,467 0.357 . 1992 163,060 22,540 63,556 0.355 1993 167,735 23,649 65,574 0.361 1994 172,790 25,040 67,752 0.370 1995 176,229 25,930 69,307 0.374 1996 180,497 26,537 71,198 0.373 _ 1997 184,633 27,250 73,048 0.373 1998 187,492 27,845 74,401 0.374 1999 190,349 28,498 75,761 0.376 2000 192,695 28,650 76,924 0.372 2001 200,018 29,114 79,700 0.365 2002 205,420 30,070 82,100 0.366 2003* 208,000 31,057 83,800 0.371 2004" 212,500 32,181 86,000 0.374 Pro'ected Table 2 shows the public educational impact by dwelling unit type after adjustment for those developments that are age restricted. The method used to make this adjustment is set out in the attached appendix. TABLE 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY UNIT TYPE ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2003 DWELLING TYPE - -STUDENTS PER UNIT - - AlI Units Non-Age Restricted - Sin le Famil 0.358 0.360 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 0.082 0.197 Multi-Famil 1-2 Stories 0.263 0.282 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 0.263 0.282 St. Lucie County Page 2 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 f,, TABLE 2 (cont.) PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY UNIT TYPE ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2003 DWELLING TYPE - -STUDENTS PER UNIT - - All Units Non-Age Restricted Hotel/Motel -Room 0.000 0.000 Bed & Breakfast -Room 0.000 0.000 All Other Residential 0.358 0.360 SOURCE: Table 2 and Appendix. The projected costs of providing public educational facilities per student are estimated in Table 3. The costs shown in Table 3 are those experienced in St. Lucie County with recent school construction projects. The per student cost of ancillary facilities are also included. • These facilities include administrative buildings, maintenance facilities and school buses. The costs shown in Table 3 are divided among the various revenue sources as shown in Table 4. However, the cost of interest was not included in Table 3, and it is necessary to consider this important cost. Table 4 (following) shows that there are no anticipated debt issuances thus there will be no interest cost for new facilities to be constructed to 2008. TABLE 3 WEIGHTED STUDENT STATION COST ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2003 ELEMENTARY; Cost $10,020,668 Year Com leted 1998 2003 Cost $11,219,459 Ca acit 896 Cost er Student $11,184 MIDDLE Cost $16,723,389 Year Com leted 1998 2003 Cost $18,724,040 Ca acit 1,383 Cost er Student $12,092 HIGH; Cost $31,956,502 Year Com leted - 1998 2003 Cost - - - $35,779,519 Ca acit 2,124 Cost er Student $15,045 St. Lucie County Page 3 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 f TABLE 3 (cont) WEIGHTED STUDENT STATION COST ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2003 ST. LUCIE ENROLLMENT BY LEVEL AND COST; ELEMENTARY 49.1 % $11,184 MIDDLE 24.2% $12,092 HIGH 26.1 % $15,045 WEIGHTED COST PER STUDENT $12,351 CENTRAL FACILITIES Buses 377 $65,699 $24,768,535 Buildin s: ESE Center $621,520 Means Center $1,824,880 Admin Annex, 310 Preston Ct. $1,495,680 Admin -Delaware Ave $4,083,920 South Trans and Maint. Com lex $8,602,160 New Admin - Vir inia Av. $7,734,505 Contents $2,436,267 Land tba Value of central, ancilla & trans ort facilities $51,567,467 Enrollment 30,070 Cost erStudent $1,715 TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $1a,oss SOURCE: St. Lucie County School Board, March 5, 2003. St. Lucie County Page 4 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 ` ~ l o a r O~ M N 0 0 0 0 00 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tt 'd' Efl Cn 00 00 69 d9 69 t0 I~ M d' t0 ER EA EA 64 EA In EA M ° r er 00 tp (O O b9 O ~ O 00 n M n M M M O M r r M M M } ~ f0 'ct ~ ~ ~ FA O MEf~ 69 EA ~ ~3 O E M f~ O O O O N 1~ M ~h O O O O O _O O '~t N fA M (O to EA F9 fA ~ O d' M N 69 ER lfl ff? EA Efl M 00 ~ 00 CO V ~ ~ O d9 00 f~ In r C r 0 0 N O M ~ O N (00 M O e r r N r O r LL (f} fA fA lfl NEA ffl NEf3 69 Q Ln r Z O O aD O O O O~~ r ~Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ ~ 0) ~ 69 M 00 M fA to 69 to N M M 'ci' fA 69 lfl EA Efl r Gf} In O ° 00 1~ fD nN (O O EA r f~ 00 ~ O N f`C J ~ 0~ 0 t0 ~ f00 M o0D N r~ M CL ~ - Q ~ r 0 0 r r lp O (O O ~ O ~ r N ~ d4 N ~ d 6f} fA EA ER ~ E~ a U J O 01 In f~ O O O r d' 'cr N N O O O O O O O N O Q Uj M M O EA fA ffl f~ f~ (O M O fA ER 6F? fA ffl r fA O In ° Z 00 O to '~t 00 O fA ~ t~ C`~ ~ ~ Z COd. ~ ~ M ~ M ~ N ~ ~ M 'CI' f- ~ ~ r O (p f~ O O O O tF W Q Q ~ ~ ER EA fA - V V r 0 O (O J } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U Q°wW ~ ~ u- J O O t0 d' O O O 0~ r 0 N O O O O O O O N O Q Efl M O I~ ffl E!3 EA r 00 M In d9 EA 69 EA fA r EA f0 r 00 O N O f~ r 69 (O i~ M O W N O ~ oN0 000 000, ~ M 'OV_ O '0V_ oM0 M U 69 EA Ef} r ~ a0 r Cn uS - O t}L ~ ~ E» ~ V O 0 N~ 0 0 0~ r r In f~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ O ~ EA M 0 N d> EA b9 to M O 00 'ct EA fA fA fA 69 EA ~ O ° CD O O) 00 O) O fA 00 I~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ .d- trA C00 M t00 M ~ O W M N LJ. d _ - a - ~ _ ~ M N ~ U O 'p m y N _7 ~ ~ ~ O VJ C V.. ~ C ~ (d ~ Y U V. ~ N ~ N C ~ td d W ~ c m x cyv ~ a o m o v~ U ~ E V W fn Z~ O~ (n LL J y J cX0 p T li ~ J p~ U c0 fq N Q 0) m CO ~ J C ~ Q m O O y o o m c c° V cXa a~ m m r ~ c o a~ ~ ~ o OI-ooww ~~~F-zwinO~o ~a ~ooc,, ~ ~E-zc~ ~ N(AUUa.aUwc~ JUUUCnC'3N- cn w o O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N b4 69 lfl 69 b9 69 ~ fA EA ~ 69 Q O O ~ M <t' O 6N9 ~ EA ~ In O N O O O O O O O O O 'd' O o°°_ cvo v} v; ~ ~ v> ~ n ~ v3 ~ ~ O O N GOO ~ d~ N CA f~ 69 E9 ~ 69 LL Q T Z O N O O O O O O O O O ~t O G) ~ 00 ~ b9 69 fA (fl EA Efl ^ 69 EA M EA t~ c~C LL ~O ~ ~ O O ~ GOO ~ ~ Q In '`t N CA ~ ~ ~ E9 a ~ ~ ~ a U O N O o O O O O o O O ~ o Z I"' 00 ~ ffl d> 69 b9 69 ~ fA lfl ~ fA Z ~ O N f0 tt !t' ~ O ~ N OMi EF3 .W.i U U ~ ~ ~ Q wv ~ LL J O CV O O O O O O O O O d' O 0 OO ~ ffl 69 E9 69 b9 fH ~ U? 69 ~ EA LJ.I ~ ~ dO„ N ~ GOD„ M E9 LL ~ bO4 ~ N U o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ oo ~ va v3 ~ E9 v~ ~ ^ ~ E» ~ M O N (O ~ O ~ ~ N ~ O tV ~ ~ Il.. ~ U N G) C ~ ~ _ o ~ p U N _1 ~ L ~ _ _ ~ .Z 0 ~ M U) ~ P7 C ~ ~ ~ .fl p ~ ~ w D O G) N J cd a c0 N ~ a) p p ^ c m U G) 7 ~ ~ ~C O N ^ ^ N m ~ j U ~c0 ~ J ~ Q N N N N O ~ ~ Q- i ~ 0. V G) ^ RJ X ~ O G) ~ -p ~ Z L7 j ~ yam. ~ ~ ~ O N J a C U LL N CO ~ llJ ~j N N p p (n d p ~ C O Z V m clS U _N O l0 ~ O ~ U ~ N m U m ~ U~ L U U ~ ~U U W N d ~ U Z ~ L7 F+ 'D W The local educational facility costs, including interest, will be paid by a combination of appropriations from the State of Florida, the annual Capital Improvement Tax (CIT), district borrowing and impact fees. Table 5 sets out that mix of capital funding. The State funding shown in Table 5 is very low. This reflects the anticipation of few state dollars for St. Lucie County. TABLE 5 STATE CREDIT CALCULATION Net State Ca ital Fundin $7,010,678 ' Per Year $1,402,136 Avera a Enrollment 33,080 Per Student $42.39 Cost of Mone 4.30% Years 25.00 State Credit er Student $642 Table 5a shows the history of state funding for school construction. This decline TABLE 5a HISTORY OF STATE CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATIONS FY Net State Capital Enrollment State Funds Funds er student 1992 $9,680,156 25,666 $377.16 . 1993 $4,920,198 26;872 $183.10 1994 $3,529,002 27,206 $129.71 1995 $3,529,544 27,993 $126.09 1996 $2,449,833 28,764 $85.17 1997 $3,364,373 27,845 $120.82 1998 $11,295,924 28,498 $396.37 1999 $27,466,124 28,650 $958.66 2000 $1,460,097 29,114 $50.15 2001 $1,841,788 30,070 $61.25 2002 $2,650,931 31,057 $85.36 2003 $969,744 32,181 $30.13 2004 $1,058 874 33,064 $32.03 2005 $1,160,627 34,051 $34.08 2006 $1,170,502 35,047 $33.40 SOURCE: St. Lucie County School District.. - empirically demonstrates the point make above, which is graphically shown below. The large allocation received in 1998 and 1999 were the "Classrooms First" funds, a program that has not been repeated. St. Lucie County Page i Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 STATE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING • PER STUDENT ST LUCIE COUNTY 1992 - 2007 $1,000.00 $800.00 $600.00 $400.00 $200.00 - - - 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 TABLE 5B INTEREST COST ST LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOLS COST % OF REVISED TOTAL Facilit Cost er Student $14,066 100.00% Financed b Debt . $0 0.00% Interest Cost $0 0.00% Revised Total Cost $14,066 100.00% Paid b The State $642 4.56% Interest Rate on Local Debt 4.30% Period Years 25 Revised Local Cost Inctudin Interest $13,424 95.44% New development will financially contribute to the costs of school capital improvements. Therefore it is necessary to consider what portion of capital costs may be expected to be borne by the funding sources.set out in Table 4. New development will be assessed property taxes by the School Dis#rict. There will be two relevant taxes; the Capital Improvement Tax (CIT) and bond debt service taxes. Table 6 sets out the parameters used to project the portion of school costs that new development will bare. Table 6 also uses these parameters to calculate offsets to gross capital costs that reflect what new development may be expected to pay. The percentage of Capital Improvement Taxes going to capital is the Net C.I.T. in Table 4 divided by the Total C.I.T. in the same Table. The Capital Millage is the C.I.T. Millage multiplied by the % Capital plus the G.O.B. Millage. In addition to general obligation bonds, the St. Lucie County Page 8 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 school system has outstanding debt serviced by a sales tax. This source is included in Table 4 and also included in the offset. TABLE 6 EDUCATIONAL CREDIT CALCULATIONS • ST LUCIE COUNTY YEAR CIT MILEAGE % CAPITAL EFFECTIVE CIT GOB RATE MILEAGE 2003 $2.000 29.64% $0.593 $0.330 2004 $2.000 31.69% $0.634 $0.330 2005 $2.000 33.68% $0.674 $0.300 2006 $2.000 35.61 % $0.712 $0.300 2007 $2.000 37.49% $0.750 $0.290 AVERAGE '03-07 $0.672 $0.310 RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE VALUE Millions $5,098.7 ENROLLMENT 27,845 RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE VALUE PER STUDENT $183,109 CAPITAL MILEAGE RATE CIT Per $1,000 $0.672 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS PER STUDENT $123.14 DISCOUNT RATE 4.3% DISCOUNT PERIOD Years 25 PRESENT VALUE OF CIT PER STUDENT $1,864.12 GOB MILEAGE RATE $0.310 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS PER STUDENT $56.76 INTEREST RATE 4.30% AVERAGE LIFE OF BONDS Years 14.50 PRESENT VALUE OF GOB PER STUDENT $603.15 PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE GOB TAXES PER STUDENT $2,467.28 ANNUAL SALES TAXES PER STUDENT FOR SCHOOL CAPITAL $243.09 INTEREST RATE ON SALES TAX BONDS 4.3% REMAINING LIFE OF BONDS Years 28 PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE SALES TAXES PER STUDENT $3,914.10 PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE TAXES PER STUDENT $6,381.38 SOURCE: St. Lucie County School District, March 2003. St. Lucie County Page 9 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 TABLE 7 PAST CREDIT CALCULATION ST LUCIE COUNTY 2001-2002 2002-2003 TOTAL ACTUAL BUDGET Federal $190,679 $190,680 $381,359 0.1% Federal throu h State $763,517 $746,436 $1,509,952 0.5% State $94,348,537 $101,212,363 $195,560,899 60.5% Local $56,388,669 $60,554,874 $116,943,543 36.2% Transfers-In $4,577,678 $4,499,668 $9,077,346 2.8% TOTAL $156,269,080 $167,204,020 $323,473,100 100.0% Percent of Pro ert Tax Revenue From Vacant Land 8.9% - Past Pa merit Credit 3.2% Source: Terms Accounting Reports The formula for the School Impact Fee is: FACILITIES COST PER STUDENT = COST OF NEW SCHOOL CAPITAL FACILITIES /STUDENT CAPACITY LOCAL COST =COST PER STUDENT * STATE PARTICIPATION REVISED TOTAL COST =COST PER STUDENT + DEBT LOCAL COST " PV OF INTEREST) REVISED LOCAL COST =REVISED TOTAL COST -((COST PER FACILITIES - STATE PARTICIPATION)) NET LOCAL COST PER STUDENT = REVISED LOCAL COST - OFFSETS FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROPERTY TAXES PER STUDENT OFFSET FOR PAST PAYMENT = 3.2% OF LOCAL COST OFFSET FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAXES = $6,381 PER STUDENT NET COST PER RESIDENCE =NET LOCAL COST PER STUDENT STUDENT OCCUPANCY PER UNIT St. Lucie County Page 10 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 Table 8 contains the results of applying the parameters set out above to this formula. TABLE 8 EDUCATIONAL IMPACT ST LUCIE COUNTY UNIT TYPE OCCUPA TOTAL STATE LOCAL LOCAL NET NCY COST CREDIT COST CREDIT COST Sin le Famil 0.360 $5,063 $231 $4,832 $2,452 $2,380 Mobile Home/ Rec. Vehicle Parkonl 0.197 $2,774 $127 $2,647 $1,343 $1,304 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 0.282 $3,973 $181 $3,792 $1,924 $1,868 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 0.282 $3,973 $181 $3,792 $1,924 $1,868 Hotel/Motel -Room 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bed & Breakfast -Room 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All Other Residential 0.360 $5,063 $231 $4,832 $2,452 $2,380 These net cost calculations are substantially more that those of the existing fees. The educational impact fee was calculated in 1999. At that time the decision was made not to charge the full fee. Nevertheless, the 1999 calculations show: EDUCATIONAL IMPACT 1999 . ST LUCIE COUNTY UNIT TYPE OCCUPA TOTAL STATE LOCAL LOCAL NET NCY COST CREDIT COST CREDIT COST Sin le Famil 0.36.3 $5,027 $826 $4,201 $2,742 $1,459 Mobile Home/ Rec. Vehicle Park onl 0.084 $1,163 $191 $972 $635 $338 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 0.267 $3,699 $608 $3,092 $2,018 $1,074 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 0.267 $3,699 $608 $3,092 $2,018 $1,074 Hotel/Motel -Room 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bed & Breakfast -Room 0.000 ~ ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All Other Residential 0.363 $5,027 $826 $4,201 $2,742 $1,459 - ~ CHANGES 1999 - 2003 TOTAL COST 0.71 STATE CREDIT -72.03% LOCAL COST 15.00% LOCAL CREDIT -10.60% NET COST 63.13% St. Lucie County Page 11 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 Between 1999 and 2003 - • School construction cost increased by 0.71 • State construction allocations decreased by 72% • Local cost increased by 15% • The local credit decreased by 10.6% • The net cost increased by 63.1 Had state funding remained as it had been as of 1999, the net cost schedule would be: 2003 With 1999 Constant 2003 State Aid Sin le Famil $1,459 $1,804 $2,380 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $338 $1,241 $1,304 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories $1,074 $1,455 $1,868 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Stor $1,074 $1,455 $1,868 Hotel/Motel -Room $0 $0 $0 Bed & Breakfast -Room $0 $0 $0 All Other Residential $1,459 $1,804 $2,380 Impact Fee Summary: EDUCATION IMPACT FEES ST. LUCIE COUNTY 2000, 2003 & % CHANGE 2003 % Change Current proposed from current Sin le Famil $800 $2,380 298% Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $182 $1,304 716% Multi-Famil $608 $1,868 307% Hotel/Motel -Room $0 $0 Bed & Breakfast -Room $0 $0 All Other Residential $800 $2,380 298% St. Lucie County Page 12 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 t APPENDIX St. Lucie County has a number of age-restricted developments. It is presumed hat there will be more age-restricted units in the future. Age-restricted, units could not have an impact on pubic school enrollment. The standard methodology for calculating school impact multipliers, i.e. the number of additional enrollees resulting for the addition of one dwelling unit, is to examine census data. However, census data no not report whether the residence is age-restricted. A study was conducted in St. Lucie County to determine what ' portion of residential dwellings were age-restricted and then to adjust the school enrollment multipliers so that they reflect the impact characteristics of non-age-restricted units. Table Al shows the age-restricted developments and the number and type of restricted units that existed in 1995. - •TABLE Al AGE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENTS & UNITS ST LUCIE COUNTY 1995 DEVELOPMENT UNITS TYPE S anish Lakes-Fairwa s 1,072 MHP ' S anish Lakes-C.C. 1,300 MHP Orchard Acres 78 MHP Tall Pines 287 MHP Whis erin Creek 246 MHP Colon Club 60 MHP Rid ecrest 162 MHP Rid ecrest-South 0 MHP Golden Ponds 379 MHP Pleasure Cove 209 MHP Plantation Manor 376 MHP S anish Lakes 1,387 MHP S anish Lakes-Riverfront 621 MHP La Buona Vita 188 MHP Savanna Club 479 MHP S anish Lakes 740 MHP Hi h Point 812 MF The Savannah's 362 MF - - _ The Grove 144 MF - - - - Palm Grove 73 SF-D Kin s Isle 250 SF-D TOTAL 9,224 There were 9,224 age-restricted units. The age-restricted and the total number of units in 1995 are shown in Table A2. St. Lucie County Page 13 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 TABLE A2 AGE RESTRICTED UNITS/ NON-RESTRICTED UNITS ST LUCIE COUNTY 1995 RESTRICTED TOTAL NOT RESTRICTED Sin le Famil 322 51,152 50,830 Mobile Home 7,584 12,993 5,409 Multi Famil 1,318 19,228 17,910 TOTAL 7,906 83,374 75,468 Table A3 adjusts the school impact multipliers to the ratio of school enrollees from non- age-restricted units and then updates those ratios to 2003. TABLE A3 NOT AGE NOT AGE STUDENTS PROJECTED UNITS NOT STUDENTS DWELLING TYPE pER UNIT STUDENTS RESTRICTED RESTRICTED pER UNIT RESTRICTED PER UNIT PER UNIT 1995 1995 2003 2003 Sin le Famil 0.364 18,619 50,830 0.366 0.358 0.360 Mobile Home/ Rec. Vehicle 0.035 455 5,409 0.084 0.082 0.197 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 0.251 4,826 17,910 0.269 0.263 0.282 Multi-Family 1 & 2 Sto 0.251 0.269 0.263 0.282 Hotel/Motel -Room 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 All Other Residential 0.364 0.366 0.358 0.360 TOTALS 23,900 74,150 1995 enrollment 25,930 1998 enrollment 27,845 2000 enrollment 28,650 2002 enrollment 30,070 2003 enrollment 31,057 Household size base ear 2.543 Household size tar et ear 2.483 St. Lucie County Page 14 Educational Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 1 ORDINANCE NO. 03-023 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING, ARTICLE V, CHAPTER 1-6.5, 5 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE, ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE 6 AND COMPILED LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 1-6.5-53(9), RULES OF 7 CONSTRUCTION, TO PROVIDE FOR CLARIFICATION OF CORRECT 8 TEXT REFERENCE; AMENDING SECTION 1-6.5-56, FEE SCHEDULE, 9 TO INCREASE THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES TO> BE 10 ASSESSED; AMENDING SECTION 1.6:5.-57 PAYMENT Of FEES; 11 CREDITS, AMENDING PARAGRAPH (D) TO REFLECT CORRECT 12 STATUTORY CITATIONS AND BY CREATING PARAGRAPH (F) 13 DESCRIBING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE' PAYMENT OF THE 14 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE''PRIOR TO»THE'ISSUANCE OF 15 ANY BUILDING PERMITS; AMENDING SECTION 1-65-58, USE OF 16 FUNDS, TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE>~FEE TO BE>RETAINED BY 17 THE COLLECTING UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT; AMENDING 18 SECTION 1-6.5-59 BY CHANGING THE AMOUNT THE FEE THAT MAY 19 BE RETAINED BY A UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE SCHOOL 20 BOARD IN THE EVENT OF REFUND REQUEST; AMENDING SECTION 21 1-6.5-61, REVIEW, BY;AMENDING THE LANGUAGE GOVERNING THE 22 SCHEDULE OF REVIEW FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 23 AND CREATING SECTION 1`.6.5-62, APPEALS; PROVIDING FOR 24 CONfLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND 25 APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF 26 STATE; PROVIDING FOR <EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR 27 ADOPTION; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. 28 29 3 0 WHEREAS, the Board of'County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the 31 following determinations: 32 3 3 1. On August 5,1988, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, 3 4 adopted Ordinance 88-16, imposing an educational facilities impact fee in St. Lucie 3 5 County. 36 Underline is for addition 6Frike-~Hrengh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 1 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft ff1 Print Date: 05/30/03 C 1 2. On February 16, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, 2 Florida, adopted Ordinance 93-003, amending the educational facilities impact fee 3 ordinance to account for certain editorial and legislative reference changes. 4 5 3. On September 5, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, 6 Florida, adopted Ordinance 95-22, amending the fee schedule for imposing an 7 educational facilities impact fee in St. Lucie County. 8 9 4. On October 15, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, 1 o Florida, adopted Ordinance 96-026, amending the fee schedule for imposing an 11 educational facilities impact fee in St. Lucie County. 12 13 5. On June 19, 2003, the Local Planning Agency/St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning 14 Commission held a public hearing on the proposed'ordinance after publishing two 15 notices in The Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune a# east ten (10) days prior to the 16 hearing and recommended that the proposed ordinance be adopted as drafted. 17 18 6. On July 15, 2003, this Board held its first public hearing on the proposed ordinance, 19 after publishing a notice of such;hearing in The Tribune and the Port St. Lucie News 2 0 on July 1, 2003. 21 22 7. On August 19, 2003, this :Board held its second public hearing on the proposed 2 3 ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in The Tribune and the Port St. 2 4 Lucie News on August 5, 2003. 25 2 6 8. The Board of County Commissioners has reviewed and accepted a Technical 2 7 Memorandum on an Update of Educational Facilities Impact Fees for St. Lucie County, . 2 8 dated June 2003, prepared by James Nicholas, PhD. 29 3 0 9. Thee proposed amendments to Article V, Educational Facilities Impact Fees are 31 consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the St. Lucie 3 2 County Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the health, safety, and public 3 3 welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. 34 35 ~ - 3 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie 3 7 County, Florida: 38 Underline is for addition Shake-~edgh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 2 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft q1 Print Date: 05/30/03 ( ~ 1 PART A. 2 3 Article V, Chapter 1-6.5, Sections 1-6.5-51 through 1-6.5-61, of the St. Lucie County Code 4 and Compiled Law is amended to read as follows: 5 6 7 ARTICLE V. 8 9 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 10 11 12 Section 1-6.5-51. Short title, authority, andapplicability. 13 14 (a) This article shall be known and may be cited'as the "educational facilities impact fee 15 ordinance". 16 17 (b) The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to adopt this article pursuant to 18 Article VIII of the Constitution of'the State of Florida, and Chapter 125 and sections 19 163.3201, 2~~9; 1013.36 and 1013.33 ~ of the Florida Statutes. 20 21 (c) This article shall apply to all areas of St. Lucie County in a manner consistent with the 2 2 opinion of the Florida Supreme Courtin St. Johns County v. Northeast Florida Builders 2 3 Association, Inc. 583., So. 2nd 635 (Fla. 1991). 24 25 Section 1-6.5-52. ::Intents and purposes. 26 2 7 (a) This article is intended to .implement and be consistent with the St. Lucie County 2 8 Comprehensive Plan. 29 3 0 (b) The purpose of this-article is to regulate the use and development of land so as to 31 assure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital 3 2 expenditures necessary to provide educational facilities as contemplated by the St. 3 3 Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. _ 34 _ - 3 5 (c) This article is intended to implement the policies established in Section z-35-t98, 3 6 1013.33 Florida Statutes. 37 Underline isfor addition 6tr+keFlxeegH is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 3 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #t Print Date: 05/30/03 1 (d) The Florida Legislature through the enactment of Section 163.3202, Local Government 2 Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and Section 3 380.06(16) of the Environmental Land and Water Management Act, Florida Statutes 4 Chapters 163 and 380, respectively, has sought to encourage local governments to 5 enact impact fees as a part of their land development regulation program. 6 7 8 Section 1-6.5-53. Rules of construction. 9 10 (a) The provisions of this article shall be liberally construed so as to carry out effectively 11 its purpose in the interest of the public health;:: afety.'>and welfare. 12 13 (b) For the purposes of administration and enforcement of-this article, unless otherwise 14 stated in this article, the following rules of construction-shall apply to the text of this 15 article: 16 17 (1) Incase of any difference cf meaning or implication:>between the text of this 18 article and anycaption, illustration, summary table,;or illustrative table, the text 19 shall control 20 21 (2) The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary; the word "may" 2 2 permissive. 23 2 4 (3) Words used in the present tense shall include the future; the masculine gender 25 shall include the:#eminine and neuter and vice versa; and words used in the 2 6 singular number shall include the plural, and the plural the singular, unless the 2 7 ;context clearly indicates the contrary. 28 2 9 (4) The phrase "used for" includes "arranged for," "designed for," "maintained for," 3 0 or "occupied for." 31 32 (5) The word "person" includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an 3 3 incorporated association, or any other similar entity. 34 3 5 (6) Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a regulation involves two 3 6 (2) or more items, conditions, provisions, or events connected by the 37 conjunction "and," "or," or "either or,"the conjunction shall be interpreted as 3 8 follows: Underline is for addition 6trike-~lerengh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 4 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #1 Print Date: 05/30/03 1 . 2 (i) "And" indicates that all the connected terms, conditions, provisions, or 3 events shall apply. 4 5 (ii) "Or" indicates thatthe connected items, conditions, provisions, or events 6 may apply singly or in any combination. 7 8 (iii) "Either or"indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions, 9 or events shall apply singly but not in combination: 10 11 (7) The word "includes" shall not limit a term to the specific example but is tended 12 to extend its meaning to ali other instances or circumstances of like kind or 13 character. 14 15 (8) "County administrator" means the county administrator and/or the county or 16 municipal official he/she may designate to carry out'the administration of this 17 article. 18 19 (9) The land use types listed<in section 1-6.5-56 shall have the same meaning as 2 o under the county ~ land development regulations. - 21 22 23 Section 1-6.5-54. Definitions. 24 2 5 Capital costs of educational facilities are expenditures for the acquisition of fixed assets or 2 6 additions to -fixed assets' and expenditures for site acquisition, construction design, site 2 7 development, necessary off-site improvements, and equipment. 28 2 9 A feepayeris a person commencing a land development activity by applying for the issuance 3 0 of a building permit to construct a residential unit or by applying for an electrical permit for a 31 mobile home or recreational vehicle. 32 3 3 Residential unit is any building or structure or portion thereof, or any mobile home or 3 4 recreational vehicle, that is designed for or used for residential purposed by a single 3 5 housekeeping unit. _ _ _ - 36 37 38 Underline is for addition is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 5 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #1 Print Date: 05/30/03 1 Section 1.6.5-55. Imposition. 2 3 Any person, after the effective date of this article, seeks to make any improvement to land by 4 applying for a building permit for a residential unit or an electrical permit for a mobile home 5 or recreational vehicle used for residential purposes shall be required to pay an educational 6 facilities impact fee in the amount set forth in this article. No such building or electrical permit 7 shall be issued and until the educational facilities impact fee hereby imposed has been paid 8 pursuant to section 1-6.5-57 of this article. 9 10 11 Section 1-6.5-56. Fee schedule. 12 13 The amount of the fee shall be determined by the following fee schedule. 14 15 ees~ 16 1 ~ Schedule of Educational Facilities Impact Fees 18 fl~et~y~rrt Impact Fee 19 Land Use Type ; ei~ er Unit 20 21 Single Family $?9G~ $899 2 380 22 Multi-Family ~ 1868 2 3 Mobile Homes/ flecreational Vehicles 2 4 (MHP/RV parks only) ~ 1 304 2 5 HateHfd~eteF $9 $8 2 6 Other Residential. " " $96~ $899 2 380 29 If the type of residential development activity for which a building permit is applied is not 3 o specified on the above fee schedule, the county administrator shall use the fee applicable to 31 the most nearly c_o_mparable type of land use on the above fee schedule. 32 _ - _ 33 - 34 35 Underline is for addition 6#ike-~edgh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 6 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #1 Print Date: 05/30/03 1 Section 1-6.5-57. Payment of fees; credits. 2 3 (a) The person applying for the issuance of a building permit or an electrical permit for a 4 mobile home or recreational vehicle shall pay the fee to the County Administrator prior 5 to the issuance of a building permit or an electrical permit for mobile home or 6 recreational vehicle. 8 (b) In lieu of or part of an educational impact fee payable pursuant o this article, the 9 School Board may accept an offer of a feepayer to dedicate or convey land to the 1 o School Board for School sites. If the School Board accepts such an offer, it shall so 11 inform the County Administrator, who shall credit the amount indicated by the: School 12 Board against the sum otherwise due. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this 13 section, the fee or portion thereof satisfied by the dedication or conveyance shall be 14 deemed paid when the dedication or conveyance has occurred pursuant to the 15 following procedure: 16 17 (1) The delivery to the School Boardof a title insurance commitment, to insure the 18 property in a sum to be agreed upon by he Board. 19 2 0 (2) The delivery to the Board of a deed, with sufficient funds to pay all costs of 21 transfer of title including recording. 22 2 3 (3) The escrow of taxes forthe current year, pursuant to Section 196.265, Florida 2 4 Statutes, as the same may be amended, or the payment of the taxes for the 2 5 year. 26 2 ~ (4) The<issuance of a title`<insurance policy subsequent to recording of the deed 2 8 and escrow of taxes. 29 3 0 (c) Notwithstanding the procedure set forth in subsection (b) of this section, the 31 educational impact fee credit allowed for property that is the subject of an impact fee 3 2 agreement between the School Board and the feepayer or the feepayer's predecessor 3 3 ~ in interest shall be determined as provided in such agreement. 34 35 (d) Pursuant to Section 380.06(16)1 Florida Statutes, the value of educational capital 3 6 facilities required pursuant to acounty -orcity-approved development order shall. be 3 ~ credited against the educational facilities impact fee. 38 Underline is for addition 6h+ke~hren ftH is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 7 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #1 Print Date: 05/30/03 1 (e) Credit for contributions, payments, construction or dedications of the educational 2 facilities impact fee shall not be transferable as a credit against other impact fees for 3 purposes other than for educational facilities. No credit shall exceed the amount due 4 for the educational facilities impact fee. 5 6 ,(f~ If educational facilities impact fees are owed, no development permits of any type max 7 be issued for the building or structure in question while the::fee:remains unpaid. The 8 County Administratorrnay authorize the initiatiorrof any action as permitted by law or 9 equity to collect the unpaid fees. 10 11 12 Section 1-6.5-58. Use of funds. 13 14 (a) The funds collected bythe county and municipalities located therein shall be remitted 15 at least monthlyto the St. Lucie County School Board. The collecting governmental unit 16 shall be entitled to retain up to but not more than #f~ee-{3} fou r.: 4 percent of the funds 17 collected to compensate them for the administrative expenses of collecting and 18 administering the educational facilities impact fee ordinance. 19 2 0 (b) The remaining funds collected and transmitted to the' School Board shall be spent 21 solely to meet the educational facilities necessitated by new development. 22 2 3 (c) The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners and the School Board will enter 2 4 appropriate interlocal agreements betweenoramong themselves and the governing 2 5 bodies of the municipalities in the County to provide forthe collection of fees imposed 2 6 and to ensure proper use: of the funds collected pursuant to this article. 27 28 29 Section 1-65-59. Refund' of fees paid. 30 31 (a) If a building permit-or electrical permit expires, then the feepayer, his heirs, 3 2 successors, or assigns shall be entitled to a refund of the impact fee paid as a 3 3 condition for its issuance, except that the School Board of the county shall retain #t~ree 34 {3-} four 4 per cent of the fee to offset the cost of refunding, and the collecting 3 5 governmental unit shall retain #~rree-(3} four 4 per cent of the fe_e to compensate fog 3 6 the cost of collection and administration. 37 3 8 (b) Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the calendar quarter immediately Underline is for addition 6Hike-~hretrgh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 8 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #1 Print Date: 05/30/03 ~ ~ 1 following ten (10) years from the date the educational impact fee payment was 2 received shall, upon application of the current owner within one hundred eighty (180) 3 days of the expiration of the ten-year period, be refunded to the current owner by the . 4 School Board of the county with interest at the rate of six (6) per cent annum. 5 6 7 Section 1-6.5-60. Exemptions. 8 9 (a) The following shall be exempted from payment of the educational facilities impact fee: 10 11 (1) Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building where no additional. 12 residential unit is created and where the::use is not changed. 13 14 (2) The construction of accessory buildings ar tructures. 15 16 (3) The replacement of a residential land use unit witha new unit of the same type 17 and use. 18 19 (4) The construction of adult''facilities or residential structures in which minors 2 0 cannot reside because of enforceable land use restrictions. 21 2 2 An exemption must be claimed by the feepayer at the time of the issuance of a building . 2 3 permit or electrical permit: Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed waived by 2 4 the feepayer. 25 26 2 7 Section 1-6.5-61. Review 28 2 9 ~ The educational,facilities impact fee shall be adjusted by the county administrator in 3 0 April of each calendar year. Unless otherwise directed by the Board of County 31 Commissioners, ank adjustments to the educational facilities impact fee made 3 2 pursuant to this section shall be based on the methodology described in paragraph (b) 3 3 of this section and shall be effective the first Monday in October of each calender year. 34 _ _ 35 ~ The base for computing the adjustment is the Consumer Price Index -All Urban 3 5 Consumers (base year 1995 =100) for the United States. published by the United 37 StatesDepartmentof Labor Statistics (the Index), that is published forJanuary2003 38 -(the Beginning Indexl. If the Index published nearest-the Adjustment Date (the Underline is for addition 6hike-~reugh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 9 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Drak #1 Print Date: 05/30/03 1 Extension Date) has increased over the Beginning Index, the fee forthe following year 2 (until the next Fee Adjustment) shall be set by multiplying the appropriate fee set forth 3 in the schedule above by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Extension I ndex and 4 the denominator of which is the Beginning Index. 5 6 If the Index is changed so that the base year differs. the Index shall be converted in 7 accordance with the conversion factor published by the United States Department of 8 Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the Index is discontinued or revised, such other 9 government Index or comeutation with which<it is replaced-shall be used in order to 10 obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the Index had not been 11 discontinued or revised. . 12 _ 13 ,(d 14 15 16 17 The Board of County Commissioners and'>the School Board shall review the 18 educational facilities impact fee at least once every five (5) years from the effective 19 date of Ordinance 03-023 (October 1. 2003; 20 21 2 2 Section 1-6.5-62. Appeals 23 24 ~ Any decision made by the county administrator in the course of administering the 2 5 provisions of this article may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners by 2 6 filing>a petition of appeal within thirt~r (30) calendar days of the date of the rendition of 2 7 the decision. 28 2 9 The Board: of County Commissioners shall review the petition at a public meeting 3 0 within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of appeal of said decision. The petitioner 31 shall be provided reasonable notice of the time, date, and place of the public meeting 32 by certified mail, return receipt requested, and invited to attend. Testimony at the 3 3 public meeting_shall be limited to ten (10) minutes perside, unless an extension. of tim_ e 3 4 is granted by the Board. The Board's decision shall be final for the purpose of 3 5 administrative appeals. 36 37 The Board of County Commissioners shall revoke the decision of the county 3 8 administrator only if there is competent, substantial evidence in the record that the Underline is for addition alrike~redg!? Is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 10 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #1 Print Date: 05/30/03 1 decision fails to comply with this article. 2 3 4 5 6 PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. 7 8 Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to: unincorporated axeas of St. Lucie 9 County, County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this 10 ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance o the extent of such conflict. 11 12 13 PART C. SEVERABILITY. . 14 15 If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, 16 inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If 17 this ordinance or any provision thereof shaA be held to be.inapplicable to any person, property, 18 or circumstance, such holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or 19 circumstance. 20 21 22 PART D. APPLICABILITY:OF ORDINANCE. 23 24 This ordinance shall be applicable throughout St:-Lucie County's jurisdiction, including the 2 5 incorporated areas even in -:the absence of interlocal agreements with the affected 2 6 municipalities. 27 28 29 PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 30 31 The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the 32 Bureau of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, 3 3 Florida 32304. 34 - - - 35 _ _ _ 36 37 Underfine is for addition 6Mike~MrengFt is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 11 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #1 Print Date: 05/30/03 1 PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. 2 3 The Amendments contained in this Ordinance, except Section 1-6.5-56, Fee schedule ;shall 4 become effective upon the filing with the Department of State. 5 6 The Amendment to Section 1-6.5-56, Fee schedule, shall become effective October 1, 2003. 7 8 9 PART G. ADOPTION. 10 11 After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance:was as follows: 12 13 Chairman Cliff Barnes - XXX 14 15 Vice Chairman Paula Lewis XXX 16 17 Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX 18 19 Commissioner John D. Bruhn '.XXX 20 21 Commissioner Doug Coward XXX 22 23 2 4 PART H. CODIFICATION. 25 2 6 Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled 2 7 Laws, and the word "ordinance":maybe changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate 2 8 word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such 2 9 intention; provided, however, that parts B through H shall not be codified. 30 31 32 PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this th day of August, 2003. 33 34 _ _ ~ _ 35 _ _ _ - 36 37 38 Underline is for addition 6tr+ke FtxengH is for deletion Ordinance 03-023a Page 12 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #t Print Date: 05/30/03 t ~1 _ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: June 19, 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT fit' : ~~r,~M'" MEMORANDUM TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Community Development Director DATE: June 10, 2003 SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance 03-024, amending the County's FIRE/EMS Protection Impact Fee Schedules, to be effective October 1, 2003. Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 03-024, which would propose to amend the County's current FIRE/EMS Protection Impact Fee, effective October 1, 2003. On May 9, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted Ordinance 00-003, imposing aFIRE/EMS Protection Impact Fee in St. Lucie County. This fee was established in response to the rapid rate of growth in the County, which has resulted in equally rapid growth in the need for fire protection and emergency rescue service. In St. Lucie County fire and rescue services are provided by a special district, the St. Lucie County Fire District. This independent taxing district, provides service to both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County. St. Lucie's existing FIRE/EMS Protection Impact Fee is above the State average for single family residential and near the State average for other land uses. Note may be taken of the fact that many Florida jurisdictions impose a Public Safety impact fee that includes fire, rescue or EMS and police. The comparison data listed in the attached summary report are only for fire or fire/rescue impact fees. As part of the original impact fee adoption ordinance for Fire/EMS services, an annual adjustment factor was added to the base fee schedule. The adjustments to these fees are designed to keep these fees as close to current costs as possible. The following table summarizes the status of these impact fees since they were adopted in May, 2000. FIRE & RESCUE IMPACT FEES ST. LUCIE COUNTY 2000, 2003 & % CHANGE 2000 2002 2003 % Change Ori inal CPI ad'usted Pro osed from 2000 Sin le Famil $258 $280 $288 11.8% Multi-Famil $133 $144 $148 11.8% General Indust er 1,000 FTz $ 94 $102 $104 11.8% General Office er 1,000 FT2 $112 $122 $125 11.8% General Retail er 1,000 FTZ $125 $136 $140 11.8% Revised facility costs were provided by the Fire District and based upon those costs, the County's Impact Fee consultants have revised the FIRE/EMS Protection Impact Fee as shown in Draft Ordinance 03-024. June 10, 2003 Subject: Draft Ordinance 03-023/ Page 2 FIRE/EMS Protection Impact Fee Noting .the above, and based upon the attached consultant report on the proposed adjustment to the County's FIRE/EMS Protection Impact Fee, staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-024 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. DJM/ 0324aMEME011(H) cc: County Attorney Asst. Director of Community Development Planning Manager Fire & Rescue Impact Fee Update Prepared for St. Lucie County By James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. June 2003 St Lucie County has been collecting fire and rescue impact fee since 2000. The existing fire and rescue impact for various types of developments are set out in Tables 1. FIRE & RESCUE IMPACT FEES ST. LUCIE COUNTY as ado ted in 2000 Sin le Famil $258 Multi-Famil $133 General Indust er 1,000 FT2 $ 94 General Office er 1,000 FT2 $112 General Retail er 1,000 FT2 $125 2002 FLORIDA AVERAGE FIRE IMPACT FEES RESIDENTIAL - -GENERAL - - Sin le Multi Indust Office Retail Each Dwellin Per 1,000 Ft FIRE & RESCUE Maximum $536 $266 $320 $599 $551 Minimum $31 $23 $4 $19 $5 Avera a $167 $111 $78 $155 $178 Median $129 $96 $41 $87 $125 Sam le Size 27 28 25 27 27 St. Lucie's existing fire impact fee is above average for single family residential and near average for other land uses. Note may be taken of the fact that many Florida jurisdictions impose a Public Safety impact fee that includes fire, rescue or ems and police. The data listed above are only fire or fire and rescue impact fees. The rapid growth of the County has resulted in equally rapid growth in the need for fire protection and emergency. rescue service. In St. Lucie County fire and rescue services are provided by a special district, the St. Lucie County Fire District. This taxing district provides service to both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County. Table 1 sets out the fire/rescue parameters used and Table 3 shows the needs and costs by land use type. In Table 21, the cost of fire/rescue protection is determined based upon the expected calls for service per unit per year. These call generation rates are based upon a statistical review of fire/rescue calls and. are set out in "Palm Beach County Fire- Rescue Call Load," for fiscal year 1997-98 and are shown in Table 1. This Palm Beach St. Lucie County Page 1 Fire & Rescue Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 County study was conducted for the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County and is believed to be applicable to the rate of service calls for St. Lucie County. TABLE 1 FIRE/RESCUE CALLS FOR SERVICE ST LUCIE COUNTY SOURCE OF FIRElRESCUE CALLS: LAND USE CALLS PER UNIT Sin le Famil Detached 0.30590 Sin le Famil Attached 0.30590 Multi-Famil 0.15730 Mobile Home 0.08542 Hotel/Motel er Room 0.23640 Retail er 1,000 FT2 0.14860 Office er1,000 FT2 0.13290 Stora a er 1,000 FT2 0.03390 Indust er 1,000 FT2 0.11100 Nursin Home/ACLF 1.40 SOURCE: Palm Beach County Fire Department, "Palm Beach County Fire-Rescue Call Load," FY 1997-98. The formula for calculating the fire/rescue impact fee is: COST PER UNIT =CAPITAL COST PER CALL x CALLS PER UNIT OFFSETS =COST PER CALL .25 NET COST =COST PER UNIT -OFFSETS. There is no existing indebtedness for the fire district. All costs are on apay-as-you-go basis. As with other pay-as-you-go items, a general fund offset of 25% is incorporated into the calculations. TABLE 2 FIRE/RESCUE PARAMETERS ST LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT STANDARD: Res onse Time of 7.21 Minutes INVENTORY OF FACILITIES: No. ~ UNIT COST CAPITAL VALUE - Stations 15 $1,400,000 $21,000,000 En fines 16 $300,000 $4,800,000 Qunits S $650,000 $3,250,000 Ladder Trucks 0 $1,000,000 $0 . Brush Trucks 11 $95,000 $1,045,000 Tankers 4 $150,000 $600,000 St. Lucie County Page 2 Fire & Rescue Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 TABLE 2 (cont) FIRE/RESCUE PARAMETERS ST LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT INVENTORY OF FACILITIES: No. UNIT COST CAPITAL VALUE Rescue Vehicles 20 $200,000 $4,000,000 HAZMAT Unit 1 $475,000 $475,000 Other Vehicles: Battalion Chief's 4 $54,000 $216,000 Safet Officer 3 $35,000 $105,000 Administration 6 $20,000 $120,000 Fire Prevention 7 $20,000 $140,000 Trainin -Van 1 $35,000 $35,000 Purchasin 2 $35,000 $70,000 Fire/Rescue Ca ital Investments $35,856,000 Po ulation Served 241,221 Total Ca ital Cost Per Ca ita $148.64 Total Calls for Service 28,536 Total Ca ital Cost Per Call $1,257 SOURCE: St. Lucie County Fire Rescue, 2003. NOTE: Capital cost per call is used to establish the Fire/Rescue impact fee. St. Lucie County Page 3 Fire & Rescue Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 TABLE 3 FIRE PROTECTION NEEDS AND COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE ST LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT CALLS FOR COST NET LAND USE TYPE UNIT SERVICE PER UNIT CREDITS COST RESIDENTIAL Sin le Famil 0.306 $384.37 $96.09 $288.28 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 0.085 $107.33 $26.83 $80.50 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories . 0.157 $197.65 $49.41 $148.24 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Sto 0.157 $197.65 $49.41 $148.24 Hotel/Motel -Room 0.236 $297.04 $74.26 $222.78 Bed & Breakfast -Room 0.236 $297.04 $74.26 $222.78 All Other Residential 0.306 $384.37 $96.09 $288.28 OFFICE-AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT2: Medical Office 0.133 $166.99 $41.75 $125.24 Other Office 0.133 $166.99 $41.75 $125.24 INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 FT2: Warehouse 0.034 $42.60 $10.65 $31.95 Truck Terminal 0.034 $42.60 $10.65 $31.95 Generallndustrial 0.111 $139.47 $34.87 $104.60 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 Recreation Facilit all Per 1,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 Golf Course Per Acre 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 School -Middle/Hi h Per 1,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 Da Care Per 1,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 Libra Per 1,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 RETAIL PER 1,000 FT2: Under 100,000 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 100,000-399,999 FT2 0.149 $186.72 $46.68 $140.04 400,000 & Over 0.149 $186.72 - $46.68 $140.04 - - _ St. Lucie County Page 4 Fire & Rescue Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 The 2000 Fire/Rescue Impact Fee, the 2002 CPI adjusted Fire/Rescue Impact Fee and updated fire & rescue net costs, the basis for the revised Fire/Rescue Impact Fee, are shown below. Net costs have increased by 11.8% over the three year period. FIRE & RESCUE IMPACT FEES ST. LUCIE COUNTY 2000, 2003 & % CHANGE 2000 2002 2003 % Change Ori final CPI adjusted Pro osed from 2000 Sin le Famil $258 $280 $288 11.8% Multi-Famil $133 $144 $148 11.8% General Indust er 1,000 FTz $ 94 $102 $104 11.8% General Office er 1,000 FTz $112 $122 $125 11.8% General Retail er 1,000 FT2 $125 $136 $140 11.8% St. Lucie County Page 5 Fire & Rescue Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 ~ 1 ORDINANCE NO. 03-024 2 3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING, ARTICLE V, CHAPTER 1-7.9, FIRE/EMS 4 IMPACT FEE, ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE AND COMPILED LAWS BY 5 AMENDING SECTION 1-7.9-06, COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF 6 FIRE/EMS PROTECTION IMPACT FEE TO INCREASE.. THE FEE, 7 PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR 8 SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH 9 THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE; 10 PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. _ . 11 12 WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie, County Florida has made the 13 following determinations: 14 15 1. The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes that land;development shall not 16 be permitted unless adequate capital facilities-.exist or are assured; and i7 18 2. The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes that land development shall 19 bear a proportionate share of the cost of the provision of the new or expanded capital 2 o facilities required by such development; and 21 2 2 3. Policy 11.1.2.4 of the St.' Lucie County Comprehensive Plan recognizes the obligation 2 3 of future development in the community to be responsible for paying 100% of its capital 24 facility/improvement impacts; and 25 26 4. The Florida Legislature through-the enactment of Section 163.3202(3), Florida 27 Statutes, has sought to encourage local governments to enact impact fees as land 2 8 development regulations; and 29 3 0 5. On , 2000, theBoard of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, 31 adopted Ordinance 00- , imposing a Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee in St. Lucie 3 2 County. 33 3 4 6. The St. Lucie County Fire District has determined the property tax revenue generated _ 35 by new development has not been adequate to support the Fire/EMS Protection 3 6 Facilities necessary to ensure that current Fire/EMS facilities levels of service can be 37 provided concurrent with the occupancy of the new development. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition 6ttike~hrettgFt is for deletion Ordinance #03-024a Page 1 Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/23/03 1 2 3 7. On June 19, 2003, the Local Planning Agency/St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning 4 Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance after publishing two 5 notices in The Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune at least ten (10) days prior to the 6 hearing and recommended that the proposed ordinance be,adopted as drafted. 7 8 8. On July 15, 2003, this Board held its first publichearing on the proposed ordinance, 9 after publishing a notice of such hearing in The Tribune and the PortSt. Lucie News 10 on July 1, 2003. . 11 12 9. On August 19, 2003, this Board held its second public hearing on the proposed 13 ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing'in The Tribune and the Port St. 14 Lucie News on August 5, 2003. 15 16 10. The Board of County Commissioners has -reviewed and accepted a Technical 17 Memorandum on an Update of Fire/EMS Protection I mpact Fee for St. Lucie County, 18 dated June, 2003, prepared by James Nicholas,, PhD. 19 2 0 11. The proposed amendments to Article I, Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee are consistent 21 with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and'standards of the St. Lucie County 2 2 Comprehensive Plan and is in the best'interest of the health, safety, and public welfare 23 of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. 24 25 2 6 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie 27 County: 28 29 3 0 Part A. ARTICLE I "FIRE/EMS PROTECTION IMPACT FEE" OF CHAPTER 1-7.9 31 (FIRE PROTECTION) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF ST. LUCIE 32 COUNTY, FLORIDA, IS CREATED AS FOLLOWS: 33 34 _ ARTICLE I _ 35 - 36 FIRE/EMS PROTECTION IMPACT FEE 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition S~iiee-~+rretlgh is for deletion Ordinance #03-024a Page 2 Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/23/03 1 Section 1-7.9-06. Computation of the Amount of Fire/EMS Protection 2 Impact Fee. 3 4 A. At the option of the feepayer, the amount of the fee may be determined by the following 5 fee schedule: 6 7 8 9 10 FIRE/EMS PROTECTION IMPACT-FEE 11 COUNTYWIDE ASSESSMENT LAND;USETYPE: UNIT OF MEASURE IMPACT FEE 14 ke-0ser +ee-ereF fee as of iA~b},~06 4Af0i/6{+ 10/01/03• RESIDENTIAL 17 SINGLE FAMILY PER UNIT $jz9 $i?58 $288 18 MOBILE HOME/RV ~rrttvaan~o~ PER UNIT $36 -$~2 $81 19 MULTI-FAMILY (All types) PER UNIT $6~ $#33 $148 2 0 HOTEUMOTEL PER ROOM $~69 -$#99 $223 BED & BREAKFAST RESIDENCE ~r169 '"°"'~"°E~`"w""~~"`E`"'"`""""`•""' PER ROOM $499 $223 ~~~o~~~~~~~~ 2 4 ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL PER UNIT -$P5'8 $288 25 2 6 OFFICE & FINANCIAL' 2 7 MEDICAL OFFICE PER 1000 FTZ '656 $4#2 $125 2 8 OTHER OFFICE PER 1000 FTZ $56 $4#£' $125 RETAIL TRADE 31 UNDER 100,000 FTZ PER 1000 FTZ $S3 $1-25 $140 3 2 100,000 - 399,000 FTZ PER 1000 FTZ $63 $~5 $140 3 3 400,000 FTZ aril over PER 1000 FTZ '663 $425 $140 34 3 5 GASOLINE SERVICES 3 6 SERVICE STATION PER PUMP STAT '663 $#95 $140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition Strike-~hrer~gh is for deletion Ordinance #03-024a Page 3 Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/23/03 FIRE/EMS PROTECTION IMPACT FEE 'COUNTYWIDE' ASSESSMENT LAND USE-TYPE UNIT OF MEASURE IMPACT FEE - teteo-e4 (eeas of Wires ~erotre~ - !~aovos• 2 INDUSTRIAL 3 WAREHOUSE PER 1000 FTZ $#5 -9'x29. $32 4 TRUCK TERMINAL PER 1000 FTz $r}5 -$99 $32 - • 5 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL PER 1000 FTZ ' 9~' -$94 $1.05 7 INSTITUTIONAL 8 SCHOOL -ELEM. PER 1000 FTZ $63 5 $140 9 SCHOOL - MIDDI:E/HIGH PER 1000 FTz'- $63 ' -$#25 $140 10 DAY CARE CENTER PER 1000 FTZ $63 -9~5 $140 11 FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION 'PER 1000 FT2 $63 -$hz5 $140 12 HOSPITAL PER BED 9as3' -$~5 $140 13 NURSING HOME PER BED $63 -$#ES $140 14 LIBRARY PER 1000 FTZ '$63 -$#E5 $140 RECREATIONAL 17 PARK (CITY/COUNTY/STATE); PER ACRE $63 -$#z5 $140 18 RECREATION FACILITY - ~~s PER PKG SPACE $63 ~5 $140 19 GOLF COURSE PER HOLE $63 -$#z5 $140 NOTE: ' . The fee schedule shown in this Table is subject to annual revision based upon the provisions of Section 1-7.9-17 of this Article. 22 2 3 If the type of development activity for which a building permit, electrical permit for a 2 4 mobile home: park or recreational vehicle park is applied for is not specified on the 2 5 above fee.schedule, the County Administrator shall use the fee applicable to the most _ - _ 2 6 nearly comparable type of land use on the above fee schedule. 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition S~ike~ttreagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-024a Page 4 Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/23/03 1 B. The person applying for the issuance of a building permit or and electrical permit for 2 a mobile home park or recreational vehicle park may, at his option, submit evidence 3 to the County Administrator indicating that the fees set out in paragraph A above are 4 not appropriate for his particular development. Based upon convincing and competent 5 evidence, the County Administrator may adjust the fee to that appropriate for the 6 particular development. 7 8 9 10 PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.. 11 12 Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of"St. Lucie 13 County, County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this 14 ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. 15 16 17 PART C. SEVERABILITY. 18 1`9 If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or' declared to be unconstitutional, 2 0 inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affecf the remaining portions of this ordinance. If 21 this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be' held to be inapplicable to any person, property, 2 2 or circumstance, such holding shall-not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or 23 circumstance. 24 25 2 6 PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. 27 2 8 This ordinance shall'be applicable throughout St. Lucie County's jurisdiction, including the 29 incorporated areas .even. in the absence of interlocal agreements with the affected 3 o municipalities. 31 32 33 PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 3 4- - - 3 5 -The Clerk be and`s`hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the 3 6 Bureau of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, 37 Florida 32304. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition r.,trtke-i-hredgh is for deletion Ordinance #03-024a Page 5 Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/23/03 t 1 2 3 PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. 4 5 This Ordinance shall take effect October 1, 2003. 6 7 8 PART G. ADOPTION. 9 10 After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance' was as follows: 11 12 Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX 13 14 Vice Chairman Paula Lewis XXX 15 16 Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX 17 18 Commissioner John D. Bruhn XXX 19 2 0 Commissioner Doug Coward XXX 21 22 2 3 PART H. CODIFICATION. 24 2 5 Provisions of#his ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled 2 6 Laws, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate 2 7 word, and the ections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such 2 8 intention; provided, however, that parts B through H shall not be codified. 29 30 31 32 PASSED AND DULY.ENACTED this t" day of August, 2003. 33 34 35 36 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition S#ileei~trengh is for deletion Ordinance #03-024a Page 6 Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/23/03 1 2 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 5 6 7 8 BY: 9 DEPUTY CLERK CHAIRMAN- 10 11 12 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND 14 CORRECTNESS: 15 16 17 18 19 COUNTY ATTORNEY 20 21 22 23 - 24 25 26 2 7 OR03-024a(IMPACT2003) 2 8 DJM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition ~ike~YtreagFr is for deletion Ordinance #03-024a Page 7 Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 05/23/03 _ _ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: June 19, 2003 ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM . TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Community Development Director DATE: June 10, 2003 SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance 03-025, creating a Countywide Law Enforcement Impact Fee, to be effective October 1, 2003. Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 03-025, which would propose to create a Countywide Law Enforcement Impact Fee, effective October 1, 2003. The St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department provides Countywide law enforcement, court security and correctional security throughout St. Lucie County pursuant to the authority granted under the Florida Constitution. The imposition of a Countywide Impact Fee .for law enforcement services would assist the Sheriff in meeting its countywide obligations to provide effective law enforcement services. Noting the above, and based upon the attached consultant report on the proposed creation of a County's Law Enforcement Impact Fee, staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-025 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. DJM! 0325aMEME011(H) ca County Attorney Asst. Director of Community Development Planning Manager ' Law Enforcement Impact Fee Prepared for St. Lucie County BY James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. June 2003 St Lucie County has not been collecting law enforcement impact fees. The typical law enforcement impact fees around the State of Florida are: 2002 FLORIDA AVERAGE LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES ' RESIDENTIAL - -GENERAL - - Sin le Multi Industr Office Retail L~ (,J h Q~ Each Dwellin Per 1,000 Ft Maximum $246 $246 $312 $1.,326 $1,092 Minimum $31 $15 $4 $17 $5 Avera a $86 $75 $61 $155 $189 Median $78 $68 $37 $60 $142 Sam le Size 20 20 19 19 19 St Lucie ro osed $169 $151 $49 $162 $606 The law enforcement net cost, which is the maximum possible fee, calculated for St. Lucie County is above the state average for all land uses. Note may be taken of the fact that many Florida jurisdictions impose a Public Safety impact fee that includes fire, rescue or EMS and police or law enforcement. The data listed above are only law enforcement impact fees. While the St. Lucie County Law Enforcement Impact Fees proposed are above the Statewide average, they are below the highest. The rapid growth of the County has resulted in equally rapid growth in the need for law enforcement services. In St. Lucie County, law enforcement is provided countywide by the St. Lucie County Sheriff. Table 1 sets out the law enforcement parameters used and Table 3 shows the needs and costs by land use type. In Table 2, the cost of law enforcement on a basis of_per sworn officer, per capita and per call for service. Cost per capita will be used TABLE 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT PARAMETERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY STANDARDS: 2003 Sworn Personnel 413 Per 1,000 Po ulation 1.71 Calls for Service 175,000 St. Lucie County Page 1 Law Enforcement Impact Fee 2003 Draft #1 TABLE 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT PARAMETERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY Re lacement cost of: Buildin s, includin land $37,000,000 E ui ment & Vehicles $15,000,000 Total $52,000,000 Cost er Sworn Personnel $125,908 Cost er Ca ita $215.50 Cost er Call for Service $297.14 SOURCE: St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office, May 2003. The formula for calculating the law enforcement impact fee is: COST PER UNIT =CAPITAL COST PER CAPITA x FUNCTIONAL POPULATION OFFSETS =COST PER UNIT * .25 NET COST =COST PER UNIT -OFFSETS. There is no existing indebtedness for the law enforcement. All costs are on a pay-as-you- go basis. As with other pay-as-you-go items, an offset of 25% is incorporated into the calculations. TABLE 2 SOURCE OF CALLS ST LUCIE COUNTY 2000* 2001 2002 Total Calls 167,321 176,362 172,202 Attributable to: Residences 91,801 96,762 94,479 Per Residence 1.006 1.022 0.973 Businesses 75,519 79,600 77,723 SOURCE: St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office, May 2003. St. Lucie County Page 2 Law Enforcement Impact Fee 2003 Draft #1 TABLE 3 LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE ST. LUCIE COUNTY PERSONS TIME COST OFF- NET PER UNIT ADJUSTMENT PER UNIT SET COST LAND USE TYPE UNIT Sin le Famil 2.617 40.00% $225.58 $56.40 $169.19 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 1.714 40.00% $147.74 $36.94 $110.81 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 2.334 40.00% $201.19 $50.30 $150.89 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Stor 2.334 40.00% $201.19 $50.30 $150.89 Hotel/Motel -Room 1.750 40.00% $150.85 $37.71 $113.14 Bed & Breakfast -Room 1.750 40.00% $150.85 $37.71 $113.14 All Other Residential 2.617 40.00% $225.58 $56.40 $169.19 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT2: Medical Office 32.760 4.89% $345.56 $86.39 $259.17 Other Office 7.320 13.69% $215.88 $53.97 $161.91 INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 FT2: Warehouse 2.928 6.53% $41.23 $10.31 $30.92 Truck Terminal 5.910 6.50% $82.80 $20.70 $62.10 GeneralIndustrial 3.258 9.37% $65.79 $16.45 $49.34 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 1.368 11.99% $35.34 $8.84 $26.51 Recreation Facility (all) Per 1,000 FT2 1.860 11.02% $44.18 $11.04 $33.13 Golf Course Per Acre 3.024 13.88% $90.44 $22.61 $67.83 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 7.218 17.97% $279.59 $69.90 $209.69 School -Middle/High Per 1,000 FT2 7.152 11.99% $184.76 $46.19 $138.57 Da Care Per 1,000 FT2 47.556 1.73% $177.75 $44.44 $133.31 Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT2 5.466 14.69% $173.07 $43.27 $129.80 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 10.068 8.54% $185.24 $46.31 $138.93 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 2.232 22.63% $108.84 $27.21 $81.63 Libra Per 1,000 FT2 32.400 4.49% $313.82 $78.45 $235.36 RETAIL PER 1,000 FT2: Under 100,000 FT2 49.200 7.63% $808.56 $202.14 $606.42 100,000-399,999 FT2 30.360 14.22% $930.05 $232.51 $697.53 400,000 & Over 21.000 14.98% $677.92 $169.48 $508.44 St. Lucie County Page 3 Law Enforcement Impact Fee 2003 Draft #1 The calculations herein utilize a "functional population." This concept allocates people's time to the various places that they may be expected to be found. The following table shows the number of people that are expected to be at a particular site. The number of FUNCTIONAL POPULATION PARAMETERS ST LUCIE COUNTY LAND USE TYPE (UNIT) PERSONS DAYS PER UNIT PER WEEK Sin le Famil 2.617 7.0 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 1.714 7.0 Multi-Famil 3 + Stories 2.334 7.0 Multi-Famil 1 & 2 Stor 2.334 7.0 Hotel/Motel -Room 1.750 7.0 Bed & Breakfast 1.750 7.0 All Other Residential 2.617 7.0 HOURS PER DAY NO. PER DAY TRIP DAYS NON-RESIDENTIAL: EMPLOYEE VISITOR EMPLOYEE VISITOR RATE PER WEEK VEHICLE OCCUPANCY 1.20 Persons Per Vehicle OFFICE AND FINANCIAL PER 1,000 FT2: Medical Office 8 0.50 5.00 27.76 54.60 5 Other Office 8 0.50 4.00 3.32 12.20 5 INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 FT2: Warehouse 8 1.00 0.50 2.43 ~ 4.88 5 Truck Terminal 8 1.00 1.00 4.91 9.85 5 Generallndustrial 8 1.00 1.00 2.26 5.43 5 GASOLINE SERVICES: Service Station Per Position 8 1.00 1.00 100.14 168.56 5 RECREATIONAL: Park Public Per Acre 8 2.00 0.20 1.17 2.28 7 Recreation Facility (all) Per 1,000 FT2 8 2.00 0.20 1.66 3.10 7 Golf Course Per Acre 8 3.00 0.20 2.82 5.04 7 INSTITUTIONAL: School -Elem. Per 1,000 FT2 8 6.00 0.14 7.08 12.03 5 School -Middle/High Per 1,000 FT2 8 4.00 0.05 7.10 11.92 5 Da Care Per 1,000 FT2 8 0.08 2.00 45.56 79.26 7 Fraternal Or .Per 1,000 FT2 8 2.20 1.25 4.22 9.11 7 Hos ital Per 1,000 FT2 8 0.08 2.50 7.57 16.78 7 Nursin Home Per 1,000 FT2 8 0.17 1.50 0.73 3.72 7 Libra Per 1,000 FT2 8 0.50 2.50 29.90 54.00 7 RETAIL PER 1,000 FT2: Under 100,000 FT2 8 1.50 2.50 46.70 82.00 7 100,000-399,999 FT2 8 3.00 2.50 27.86 50.60 7 400,000 & Over 8 3.00 2.50 18.50 35.00 7 people expected are derived from the number of vehicular trips to and from a particular site. The number of trips is divided by two, to correct for double counting, and then St. Lucie County Page 4 Law Enforcement Impact Fee 2003 Draft #1 multiplied by number of persons per vehicle to get total persons present. People are divided between employees and visitors. Employees are allocated 8 hours per day and visitors are assigned various times depending on the nature of the site. The total numberof person-hours per week on site are divided by the total number of weekly person-hours of those people to get the percentage allocation. For example: A general industrial site has 5.43 vehicular trips per day. Divided by 2 and then multiplied by 1.2 persons per vehicle results in 3.26 persons on site each day. There are 1 employees per 1,000 feet or floor area and 2.26 visitors. Employees will spend 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 40 person-hours per 1,000 feet. Visitors will spend 1 hour per visitor or 2.36 hours per day, 5 days per week for a total visitor hours of 11.29. Total person hours are 3,26 persons times 24 hours per day times 7 days per week or 547.34 hours. Total hours are site are 40 employee hours and 11.29 visitor hours - 51.29 person-hours per 1,000 feet per week. This is 9.37% of the total weekly hours of the 3.26 persons. There are 3.26 persons present per 1,000 feet. These people spend 9.37% of their time at the industrial site per week. This results in a function population of 0.31 persons per 1,000 feet of general industrial floor area. St. Lucie County Page 5 Law Enforcement Impact Fee 2003 Draft #1 ( ~ 1 ORDINANCE NO. 03-025 2 3 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF THE USE AND 4 DEVELOPMENT OF LAND IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 5 PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF SECTION 1-18-03 THROUGH 1-18- 6 00 OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES 7 ESTABLISHING A LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE ON LAND 8 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY; CREATING 9 SECTION 1-18-03, PROVIDING FOR A SHORT TITLE, AUTHQ:RITY AND 10 APPLICABILITY OF THE ORDINANCE; BY.CREATING SECTION" 1-18- . 11 04, PROVIDING FOR THE INTENT AND PURPOSES; CREATING 12 SECTION 1-18-05, PROVIDING RULES`.' '!OF CONSTRUCTION; 13 CREATING SECTION 1-18-06, PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; CREATING 14 SECTION 1-18-07, PROVIDING FOR .THE IMPOSITION OF LAW 15 ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE; CREATING SECTION 1-18-08, 16 .PROVIDING FOR COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE LAW 17 ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE; CREATING SECTION 1-18-09, 18 PROVIDING FOR PAYMENTOF FEES; BYCREATING`SECTION 1-18-10, 19 PROVIDING FOR CREDITS;-CREATING SECTION1-18-11, PROVIDING 20 FOR INDEPENDENT PROPERTY APPRAISALS; CREATING SECTION 21 1-18-12, PROVIDING FOR PROPERTY: REVIEW APPRAISALS; 22 CREATING SECTION 1-18-13, .PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF A 23 LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE DISTRICT; CREATING SECTION 1- 24 1.8-14, PROVIDING -FOR THE' ESTABLISHMENT OF LAW 25 ENFORCEMENT IMPACT-FEE TRUST FUNDS; CREATING SECTION 1- 26 18-15, PROVIDING FOR THE USE OF FUNDS; CREATING SECTION 1- 27 18-16, PROVIDING FOR REFUND OF FEES PAID; CREATING SECTION 28 1-18-17, PROVIDING FOR'EXEMPTIONS; CREATING SECTION 1-18-18, 29 PROVIDING FOR APPEALS; CREATING SECTION 1-18-19, PROVIDING 30 -FOR REVIEW AND'AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENT OF FEES; PROVIDING 31 FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; 32 PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE 33 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; - - 34 PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. 35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition St~iVice-~h~eagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 1 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County Florida has made the 2 following determinations: 3 4 1. The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes that land development shall not 5 be permitted unless adequate capital facilities exist or are assured; and 6 7 2. The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes that land development shall 8 bear a proportionate share of the cost of the provision of the new or expanded capital 9 facilities required by such development; and 10 11 3. Policy 11.1.2.4 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan recognizes the :obligation _ 12 of future development in the community to be responsible for paying 100°!0 of its capital 13 facility/improvement impacts; and 14 15 4. The Florida Legislature through the enactment of _Section 163.3202(3), Florida 16 Statutes, has sought to encourage local governments to enact impact fees as land 17 development regulations; and 18 19 5. The St. Lucie County Sheriff has requested the Board ofCounty Commissioners to 2 0 adopt a Law Enforcement Impact Fee to be paid by new development and to be 21 earmarked for Law Enforcement Capital Improvements. 22 2 3 6. The St. Lucie County Sheriff has determined the property tax revenue generated by 2 4 new development have not been adequate to support the Law Enforcement Facilities 2 5 necessary to ensure that currenf Law Enforcement facilities levels of service can be 2 6 provided concurrent with the occupancy of the new development. 27 2 8 7. On June :19,;2003, the Local Planning Agency/St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning 29 Commission: held a public'hearing on the proposed ordinance after publishing two 3 o notices in The Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune at least ten (10) days prior to the 31 hearing and recommended that the proposed ordinance be adopted as drafted. 32 3 3 8. On July 15, 2003, this Board held its first public hearing on the proposed ordinance, 3 4 after publishing a notice of such hearing in The Tribune and the Port St. Lucie News 35 - on July 1, 2D63. - _ 36 - _ _ _ 3 7 9. On August 19, 2003, this Board held its second public hearing on the proposed 3 s ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in The Tribune and the Port St. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition SMike-~hrer~gh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 2 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 Lucie News on August 5, 2003. 2 3 10. The Board of County Commissioners has reviewed and accepted a Technical 4 Memorandum on the development of a Law Enforcement Impact Fee for St. Lucie 5 County, dated June, 2003, prepared by James Nicholas, PhD. 6 7 8 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie 9 County: 10 11 Part A. "LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE" OF CHAPTER 1-1$ (SHERfFF) OF 12 THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IS 13 CREATED AS FOLLOWS: 14 15 16 LAW ENFORCEMENT`,IMPACT FEE_ 17 18 19 Section 1-18-03. Short Title: Authority, and Applicability. 20 21 A. This ordinance shall be knowrnand may be cited.as the "Law Enforcement Impact Fee 2 2 Ordinance". 23 2 4 B. The Board of County:Cornmissioners of St.'Lucie County has the authorityto adopt this 25 Ordinance pursuant to Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Florida and to 2 6 Chapter 125 and Sections 163.3201 and 163.32020 Florida Statutes. 27 2 8 C. The St. Lucie County Sheriffs. Department provides Countywide law enforcement. court 2 9 security'artd'correctionalsecurity throughout St. Lucie County pursuant to the authority 3 0 granted and requiredunder of the Florida Constitution. 31 3 2 D. St. Lucie County_must collect Law Enforcement Impact Fees in orderto provide the St. 3 3 Lucie County Sheriff with funds to adequatelyprovide law enforcement services for all 3 4 St. Lucie County residents, including residents of the cities. Development within the - - _ 3 5 cities impacts the Sheriffs capital needs. ~ ~ - 36 3 7 E. This'article shall apply to all areas of St. Lucie County. even in the absence of interlocal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition Strike=Fhretrght is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 3 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 t 1 agreements with the affected municipalities. 2 3 4 Section 1-18-04. Intents and Purposes. 5 6 A. This chapter is intended to implement and be consistent with the Goals,:Objectives and 7 Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. 8 9 B. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the use"and development of land so as to 1o assure that new development bears a proportionate share of the .cost of capital 11 expenditures necessary to provide law enforcement protection and services in St. 12 Lucie County. 13 14 C. The Florida Legislature through the enactment of Section 163.3202, Local Government 15 Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regtalation Act and Section 16 380.06(16,~of the Environmental Land and Water ManagementAct. Florida Statutes 17 Chapters 163 and 380, respectively, has sought to encourage local governments to 18 enact impact fees as a part of their land development regulation program. 19 2~ 21 Section 1-18-05. Rules of Consteuction. 22 2 3 A. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be liberally construed so as to effectively carry 24 out its~urpose in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. 25 2 6 B. For he=purposes-of administration and enforcement of this Ordinance, unless 27 otherwise stated in thisOrdinance. the following rules of construction shall applytothe 2 8 text of this ordinance: 29 3 0 1 - 1n case of any difference of meaning_or implication between the text of this 31 article and any caption, illustration, summary table, or illustrative table, the text 3 2 shall control. 33 3 4 2 The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary; the word "may" is 3 5 - permissive. - 36 _ 3 7 3 Words used in the eresent tense shall include the future: and words used in the 3 8 - singular number shall include the plural. and the plural the singular, unless the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition Strtil~e-~hrea~h is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 4 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 context clearly indicates the contrary. 2 3 4 The phrase "used for" includes "arranged for." "designed for," "maintained for." 4 or "occupied for." 5 6 5 The word "person" includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an 7 incorporated association, or any other similar entity. 8 9 6 Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a regulation involves two` 10 (2) or more items, conditions, provisions, or events connected by the 11 conjunction "and," "or" or "either...or." the conjunction shall be interpreted as 12 follows: 13 14 a. "And" indicates that all the connected erms, conditions, provisions or 15 events shall apply. 1~6 17 b. "Or" indicatesthattheconnected'items, conditionsprovisionsorevents 18 may apply singly or in any combination. 1~9 2 0 c. "Either ...or" indicates that the connected.items, conditions, provisions 21 or events shall ap~l,v singly but not `in combination. 22 2 3 7 The word "includes" shall not limit a term to the specific example but is intended 2 4 to extend its meaning to aII -other instances or circumstances of like kind or 2 5 character. 26 27 8 "County Administrator"meanstheCountyAdministratororwhoeverhe/shemay 2 8 designate to care rout he administration of this ordinance. 29 3 0 9 `Unless the.context clearly indicates to the contrary, all land use terminology in 31 this article shall have the same meaning as it has in the St. Lucie County Land 32 Development Code. 33 34 35 Section 1-18-06. Definitions. _ 36 3 7 A. A "capital improvement" includes, but is not limited to. site planning, land acquisition. 3 8 site improvements, buildings, motor vehicles. personal equipment and Underline is for addition 6tr+ke~hfettgFr is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 5 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 . 1 communications facilities with a useful life of two or more xears, but excludes 2 maintenance and operation. 3 4 B. A "feepayer" is a person commencing a land development activity by applying for the 5 issuance of a building permit or electrical permit for a mobile home park or 6 recreational vehicle park or for a type of land development activitxspecified in Section 7 1-18-08 of this Ordinance. 8 9 1o Section 1-18-07. Imposition of Law Enforcement Impact Fee. : 11 12 A. Any person who, after the effective date of this ordinance. seeks to develop land by 13 applying for the issuance of abuilding-permit for one of the land use types specified 14 in Section 1-18-08 of this Ordinance or an electrical permit for a mobile home park or 15 recreational vehicle park shall be required to pay a Law Enforcement Impact Fee in the 16 manner and amount set forth in this Ordinance. Nothinq'in this article shall be deemed 17 to eliminate the requirements of Section 11.02.07 of the St:` Lucie County Land 18 Development Code. 19 2 0 B. No buildinq_permit for any land use types specified in Section 1-18-08 of this 21 ordinance nonelectrical permit for a mobile home park or recreational vehicle park 2 2 shall be issued unless and un#il the Law Enforcement Impact Fee hereby required has 2 3 been paid as provided in Section 1-18-09 of this Ordinance. 24 25 2 6 Section 1 ~18'-08. Computation of -the Amount of Law Enforcement Impact 2 7 Fee. 28 2 9 A. At the option of the feepayer, the amount of the fee may be determined by the following 3 0 fee-schedule: 31 32 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition ~trikeii~etigf3 is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 6 Law Enforcement Impact Fee - Oraft #1 PRINT GATE: 06/01/03 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT-FEE 2 COUNTYWIDE'ASSESSMENT 3 LAND USE TYPE UNITOFMEASURE IMPACT FEE 6 roe as or r aovo3 RESIDENTIAL 9 SINGLE FAMILY PER UNIT $169 10 MOBILE HOME/RV (MHP/RV Park Only) PER UNIT $111 • 11 MULTI-FAMILY (All types) PER UNIT `$151 12 HOTEUMOTEL 'PER ROOM $113 BED & BREAKFAST RESIDENCE $113 (DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. SINGLE FAMILY UNR FEE MUST PER ROOM ALSO 8E ASSESSED FOR.THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF USE. 16 ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL PER UNIT $169 18 OFFICE & FINANCIAL 19 MEDICAL OFFICE PER 1000. FTZ $259 2 0 OTHER OFFICE PER 1000 FTZ $162 RETAIL TRADE 2 3 UNDER 100,000 FTZ PER 1000 FTz $606 2 4 100,000 - 399,000 FTz PER 1000 FTz $698 2 5 400,000 FTZ' and over PER 1000 FTZ $598 2 6 2 7 'GASOLINE SERVICES 2 8 SERVICE STATION PER PUMP STAT INDUSTRIAL 31 'WAREHOUSE PER 1000 FTZ $31 3 2 TRUCK TERMINAL. - PER 1000 FTZ $62 3 3 I GENERAL INDUSTRIAL PER 1000 FTZ $49 INSTITUTIONAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition Stf+ke-Th~gh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 7 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 LAW ENFORCEMENT.IMPACT FEE COUNTYWIDE ASSESSMENT LAND USE TYPE UNIT OF MEASURE IMPACT FEE- rae as of taovos 1 SCHOOL -ELEM. PER 1000 FTZ $210 2 SCHOOL - MIDDLE/HIGH PER 1000 FTZ i$139 3 DAY CARE CENTER PER 100Q:FT2 $133 4 FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION PER 1000 FTZ $63 5 HOSPITAL 'PER!BED $63 6 NURSING HOME PER BED $63 7 LIBRARY PER 1000 FT2 $63 RECREATIONAL 10 PARK (CITY/COUNTY/STATE) PER ACRE $63 11 RECREATION FACILITY-~rPES PERT KGSPACE $63 12 GOLF COURSE PER HOLE $63 13 MOVIE THEATER PER SEAT NOTE: The fee schedule shown in this Table Is subject to annual revision based upon the provisions of Section 1-18-19 of this Article. _ 16 17 If the,type of development-:activity for which a building permit., electrical permit for a 18 mobile home park or recreational vehicle park is applied for is not specified on the 19 above fee schedule,. the Count Administratorshall use the fee applicable to the most 2 o nearer comparable type of land use on the above fee schedule. 21 2 2 B. The person appL~cLfor the issuance of a buildingpermit or and electrical permit for 2 3 a mobile home park or recreational vehicle park may, at his option, submit evidence 2 4 to the County Administrator indicating that the fees set out in paragraph A above are 2 5 not appropriate for his particular development. Based upon convincing and competent- 2 6 evidence, the County Administrator may adjust the fee to that- appropriate for the 2 7 particular development. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition Stt<ike-~hrengh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 8 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 F 1 2 Section 1-18-09. Payment of Fee. 3 4 A. The feepayer shall pay the fee to the County Administrator at any time prior to the 5 issuance of a buildinq_permit or electrical permit for a recreational vehicle park or 6 mobile home park. 7 8 B. In lieu of all or dart of the Law Enforcement Impact Fee, the Board of County 9 Commissioners may accept the offer by a developer to construct, dedicate or acquire 1 o property or equipment forthe purpose of meetin a capital public building needs of the 11 St. Lucie County Sheriff that is consistent with fhe County's`Comprehensive Plan or the . 12 adopted comprehensive plan of Ft. Pierce. Port St. Lucie or St. Lucie Village. 13 14 In the event the developer proposes to dedicate or acquire unimproved property or 15 equipment, the provisions of Section 1-18-1O(E)(3) shall apply. The portion of the fee 16 represented by the property dedications or acquisitions shall be deemed paid only 17 when the dedicated or acquired pro~erty'is officially accopted by the County or other 18 appropriate governmental entity 19 2 0 If Law Enforcement Impact Fees are owed, no development permits of anxtype may 21 be issued for the building or structure:in question while the fee remains unpaid. The 2 2 County Administrator may authorize the initiation of any action as permitted by law or 23 equity to collect the unpaid fees. 24 25 26 Section 1-18-10. Credits. 27 2 8 A. Sco e. 29 3 0 Any person who: shall commence any Law Enforcement impact generating land 31 .development activity ma~apply for a credit against the required Law Enforcement 3 2 Impact Fee forankcontribution,construction, ordedication of land or equipment made 3 3 by such person or predecessor in interest that is accepted and received by St. Lucie 3 4 County for LawEnforcement purposes. pursuant to this section. Consistent with the 3 5 standards of this section, an application may be made for credit for any contribution., 3 6 construction ordedication made in St. Lucie County as required by a development 3 7 order issued by St. Lucie County, the City of Fort Pierce, the City of Port St. Lucie. or - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition SMike~hreagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 9 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 St. Lucie Village pursuant to its local development regulations or Section 380.06, 2 Florida Statutes, or any additional development condition imposed by the Florida Land 3 and Water Adjudicatory Commission on a development of regional impact to the extent 4 the contribution, payment, construction or dedication meets the same needs as the 5 Law Enforcement Impact Fee. 6 7 B. General 8 9 Any person desiring_a Law Enforcement Impact Fee credit, whoproposes to make anv 1 o contribution, construction or dedication of a Law Enforcemenffacility or equipment.that 11 is consistent with both the County's Comprehensive Plan and the County Sheriffs 12 Department Capital Improvement Program, shall: first obtain from the Board of County 13 Commissioners an approval that theproposed contribution, construction or dedication 14 is considered to be eligible for a Law Enforcement Impact Fee credit. The Board of 15 County Commissioners shall consult with the St. Lucie County Sheriff prior to making 16 any final determination that the proposed contribution; construction or dedication is 17 considered to be eligible for a Law .Enforcement Impact Fee credit. Upon. the 18 determination by the Board that the.proposedcontribution, construction or dedication 19 is eligible for a Law Enforcement Impact Fee credit; he final amount of the credit shall 2 o be determined upon the submission of a request.#or Law Enforcement Impact Fee 21 credit and the entering into of a formal Law Enforcement Impact Fee credit agreement. 22 • 23 C. .Relationship of Law Enforcement Impact Fee to developments of regional impact. 24 25 Pursuant to Section 380.06(16. Florida Statutes. the value of Law Enforcement 2 6 facilities and/orother Law-Enforcement capitallmprovements required pursuant to a 2 7 County or Gity approved: Development Order, except those deemed site-related, shall 2 8 be credited against the Law' Enforcement Impact Fee. 29 30 D. General standards for issuing Law Enforcement Impact Fee credits. 31 32 ":Prior to the issuance'of anv credits against the Law Enforcement Impact Fee, the 3 3 person who made the contribution. payment, construction or dedication of Law 3 4 Enforcement facilities or equipment shall enter into an Impact Fee Credit Agreement 3 5 - with the Board of County Commissioners. The following provisions are the general 3 6 'rules for. the award of credit, s~plemented and provided in this section: 37 3 8 1. Credit for contributions, payments, construction or dedications of the Law - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition . St~fl~e~reagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 10 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 Enforcement Impact Fee shall not be transferrable as a credit against other 2 Impact Fees imposed for purposes other than Law Enforcement. 3 4 2. If allowed by the Credit Agreement, credits max be assigned to successors in 5 interest provided the County receives a copy of the written agreement signed 6 by both the assignor and the assignee that has been recorded in the Public 7 Records. of St. Lucie County, Florida. 8 9 3. No credit shall exceed the amount due :for the Law .Enforcement Im act Fee - _ 10 11 4. No credit shall be given for Law .Enforcement facilities and equipment 12 dedicated or constructed before Jul~1, 2003: 13 14 E. Specific standards. 15 16 Credits against Law Enforcement Impact Fees otherwise,_payableshall be allowed only 17 under the following conditions: 18 19 1. Law Enforcement need. 20 21 The contribution. payment, construction or dedication shall meet a Law 2 2 Enforcement capital need identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan, the 23 St. Lucie County Sheriffs Capital Improvement Program or in the adopted 2 4 comprehensive plan of Ft:'Pierce, Port St. Lucie or St. Lucie Village. No credit 2 5 ' shall be given-for capital improvements that do not meet a Law Enforcement 2 6 capital need' identified in County's Comprehensive Plan, the Sheriffs 2 ~ Department Capital improvement Program or in the adopted comprehensive 2 8 -plan of Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie or St. Lucie Village. 29 3 0 2. -Law Enforcement property dedication. 31 32 Credit for.the dedication of property for Law Enforcement purposes shall be 3 3 valued atone hundred twentx,~120~per cent of the most recent assessed value 3 4 by the county property appraiser plus the reasonable cost, as determined by the - 3 5 County Administrator, of any survey, closing costs or title information provided 3 6 by .the feepaver to the countx_at the request of the county. Credit for the 3 ~ dedication of property shall be provided when the property has been conveyed 3 8 at no charge to, and accepted by the St. Lucie County in a manner satisfactory - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition ~~atigh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 11 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 to the County. 2 3 If the feepayer shall opt not to have the property dedication credit determined 4 asset out above. then the amount of credit shall be determined by the Board 5 of County Commissioners based on an Independent Property Appraisal. as 6 described in section 1-18-11 of this article, prepared. by an individual both a 7 member of the Appraisal Institute ~MAI) and a state certifiied general appraiser 8 acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. that is paid for by the 9 feepayer. At the option of the Board, the Board -may: request a review 1o appraisal, as described in section 1-18-12 of this article provided that in the 11 event the value established by the independent appraisal exceeds one hundred 12 twenty (120) per cent of the assessed value: by more than twenty-five (25~per 13 cent, the Board shall request a reviewa~praisal. 14 15 In the event the Board determines to request a review appraisal and the 16 determination of the value is the same or greater than. value determined by the 17 independent appraiser, then the County shall bear'the cost of the review 18 appraisal. If the determination of the value by the review appraiser is less than 19 the value determined bkthe'independentappraiser::-then the feepayershall day 2 0 for the cost of the. review appraisal. Any independent or review appraisal 21 submitted pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to review of methodology 22 and technical accuracy at the'discretionof the County Administrator. 23 2 4 In th_e event a property owner determines to donate, and the County determines 2 5 ao accept, nonsite related proparty for any planned nonexisting Law 2 6 Enforcement facility or expansion of an existing Impact -Fee eligible public 27 building or facilit~r o the County in advance of any application for final 2 8 development order approval, the Board of County Commissioners shall reserve 29 .the determination of'value of the credit for the dedicated property until the 3 0 property owner, or his assians, seeks a final development order approval for 31 the remainderof;the propertyfrom which the dedicated pro~ertywas provided. 3 2 All property'dedication credits shall be determined at the time contracts are let 3 3 for the construction/expansion of the eligible facility or at the time a Final 3 4 Development Order approval is granted, whichever occurs first. No property 3 5 dedication credit request may include the consideration of any enhancement - - 3 6 to the value of property being dedicated as a result of the new or expanded 3 7 public building construction. No property dedication credit request may include 3 8 the consideration of any enhancement to the value of the property being Underline is for addition 6~e~gh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 12 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 ~ f 1 dedicated as result of the overall project development. 2 3 4. Application procedure. 4 5 Applicants for credit for construction of nonsite related Law Enforcement. 6 buildings, facilities or equipment shall submit documentation of the actual 7 engineering, construction or acquisition costs to the CountkAdministrator or s his designee.. The County Administrator or tiffs designee shall determine credit 9 for Law Enforcement construction based upon these costs or• upon alternative 1 o engineering and construction cost estimates if the County Administrator or fis 11 designee determines that such costs submittedare excessive or incomplete. _ 12 _ 13 5. Acquisition bypurchase or condemnation:.. 14 15 In the event a developer is required as a condition of a final development order 16 to acquire off-site Law Enforcement property, the developer shall first obtain an 17 Independent Property Appraisal asdescribed in section 1-18-21 and provide 18 the County Administrator with a copy_ of the appraisal. The County 19 Administrator may obtain a review appraisal'as described in Section 1-18-22. 20 21 Except as provided below, credits for Law Enforcement property acquisition 22 shall be based on the lndepencient PropertyAppraisal,the Review Appraisal, 2 3 or the purchase price, if lower, as determined by the County Administrator. In 2 4 the event the deve{oper is unable to acquire the Law Enforcement property for 2 5 appraised value or lower, the Board may: 26 2 7 a. grant additional credits above the appraised value if it determines that 28 the cost of acct usition is less than the cost of condemnation or that 29 condemnation is not practical or desired; or, 30 31 b. authorize the condemnation of the parcels; or, 32 • 3 3 C. deny the request for additional credits. 34 3.5 _ F. Time of Claim: Waiver. 36 3 7 Any elaimfor credit must be made no later than the time of application for a building 3 8 ;.permf or an electrical permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition Sfrike-~hreagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 13 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 2 Section 1-18-11. Independent Property Appraisal 3 4 A. If the feepayer shall opt not to have the value of anyproperty dedication determined as 5 set out in section 1-18-1O~E)(~. the amount of credit shall be determined bathe Board . 6 of County Commissioners based on an Independent Property Appraisal (IPA, 7 prepared by an individual who is both a member of the Appraisal Institute~MAl) and 8 a state certified general appraiser acceptable to the Board ofCounty-Commissioners. 9 that is paid for by the feepayer. An "independent arop_ertyappraisal" is an appraisal 10 report containing the following: 11 12 1. Purpose of appraisal 13 14 The purpose of .the appraisal which includes a statement of value to be 15 estimated and the rights or interest beingappraised. 16 17 2. Legal Description of propert~r. 18 19 3. Description of parent property 20 21 Description of the parent properly to be appraised will include: 22 23 a. Names of'apparent: owner of each interest being evaluated. 24 . 2 5 ' b. Location of~ropert rL. 26 2 7 c. Total area of>property in acres or square feet. 28 2 9 d: Area of each interest in property being acquired in acres or square feet. 30 31 e. A minimum of five ~5) years delineation of title. 32 3 3 f. Present use and zoning. 34 3 5 g_ _ iUtilities. - - ` 36 - - - 3 7 h. Type and condition of improvements and special features that may add 3 8 to or detract from the value of the property. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition Strike~hreaghr is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 14 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 ~ i 1 4. Highest and best use. 2 3 The highest and best use of the property on which the appraisal is based before 4 the acquisition of rights and interests to be acquired and the highest and best 5 use of the remainder after the acquisition when a partial taking is involved.. In 6 either instance, if the existing use is not the premise on which he valuation is 7 based, the appraisal will contain an explanation justifyingthe determination that 8 the property is available and adaptable for a different highest<and best use and 9 there is demand for that use in the market: 10 11 5. Before and after valuation. 12 13 The "before and after" method of valuation as interpreted by Florida lawwill be 14 used in partial donations or special' 'benefits to the residue land or 15 improvements. 16 17 6. Approaches to value. 18 19 The appraisal should include-all applicable approaches to value. If an approach 20 is not considered applicable. the appraiser''must state why. All pertinent 21 calculations used in developing the approaches will be shown. 22 23 a. In the market approach, the appraisal report will contain a direct 24 comparison of pertinent comparable sales to the property being 2 5 appraised. The appraiser must include a statement setting forth his 2 6 analysis `.and reasoning for each item of adjustment to comparable 2 7 sales. 28 2 9 b. Where in the income (capitalization) approach is used, there must be 3 0 documentation to suQport the income. expenses, interest rate, 31 capitalization rate, discount rate, or any other factors used in the 32 - analysis. Where it is determined that the market rental income is 3 3 different from the existing orcontract income. the increase or decrease 3 4 must be explained and supported by market information. 35 - _ - 3 6 - e e. - Where the cost approach is utilized. the appraisal report must contain 3 7 the specific source of cost data, remaining economic life, and an 3 8 _ explanation of each type of accrued depreciation. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition mike-T-hrteagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 15 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 l 1 7. Appraisal of after value. 2 3 The appraisal of the after value must be supported to the same extent as the 4 appraisal of the before value. This support should include one or more of the ,r 5 following: 6 I 7 a. Sales comparable to the remainder properties... P 8 9 b. Sales of comparable properties :from which there have been similar 1 o donations, or acquisitions for like usages. 11 12 c. Development of the .income ~proach' on properties. which show 13 economic loss or gain as a result of'similar acquisition or taking for like 14 usa es. 15 16 d. Public sales of comparable lands by the state or other public agencies. 17 18 e. fn the event the data described in a hrough d above are not available. 19 the appraisal will so'state and give;.the:.appraiser's reasoning for his 2 0 value estimate. 21 22 8. Difference between before and after. 23 2 4 The difference between the before and after appraisal will represent the value 2 5 of the property tobe acquired including the damages to the remainder property. 2 6 The appraiser will separately analyze and tabulate the difference showing a 27 reasonable affocation to lane improvements, and damages. 28 2 9 9. More than one approach used. 30 31 Where two Or more of the approaches of value are used, the appraisal will 32 show the correlation of the separate indications of value derived by each 3 3 approach along with a reasonable explanation for the final conclusion of value. 34 This correlation will. be included for both before and after appraisals. 35 3 6 10. Photographs. 37 38 All appraisals should include identified photographs of the subject property - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition £Mii~e~Fhfetigh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 16 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 including all principal above ground improvements or unusual features affecting 2 the value of the property to be taken or damaged. 3 4 11. Sketch or plat. 5 6 Appraisal reports for whole takings will contain a sketch or platof theproperty 7 showing boundarydimensions, location of improvements and othersignificant 8 features of the property. For partial takings, the sketch or plat:will also show the 9 area to be acquired, relation of the improvements to the takln`garea and area 10 of each remainder. - - 11 - - 12 12. Comparable sales. 13 14 Each appraisal report will contain or make reference to the comparable sales 15 which were used in arriving at the fair market value. 16 17 a. The appraiser must state the `date of sale, .names of parties to the 18 transaction, consideration paid, financing, conditions of sale and with 19 whom these were verified, the location;:-dotal area. type of improvements, 2 0 appraiser's estlrnate of highest and best-.use at the date of sale, zoning 21 and any other data pertinent to the analysis and evaluation thereof. 22 2 3 b. If the appraiser is unable to verify the financing and conditions of sale 24 from the usual sources such'as buyer, seller, broker, title or escrow 25 company etc. he will so state. 26 2 7 c. Pertinent comparable sales date should include identified photographs 2 8 of all principal above ground improvements or unusual features affecting 29 the value of the comparable. 30 31 13. Inspection of properties. 32 3 3 All property appraised and the comparable sales which were relied upon in 3 4 arriving at the fair market value estimate will be personally inspected in the field 3 5 - - by the; appraiser and all dates of inspection will be shown in the appraisal . 36 - - report. 37 - 38 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition mike-~hreagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 17 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 14. Date of valuation. 2 3 The effective date to which the valuation applies. 4 5 15. Limiting conditions. 6 7 Statement of appropriate contingent and limiting conditions' if and, 8 9 16. Certification and signature. 10 11 The certification, signature and date of; ignature' of the appraiser. 12 i3 14 Section 1-18-12. Property Review Appraisal. 15 16 A. At the option of the Board, the Board .may request. a review appraisal of the 17 Independent PropertxAppraisal (IPA)„provided that in the event''the value established 18 bvthe Independent PropertyAppraisal exceeds one hundred twenty (120) percent of 19 the assessed value by more than wenty-five' (25) per cent, the Board shall require a 2 o review appraisal. A "review appraisal" shall comply with the following procedures: 21 22 1. The reviewing appraiser will field inspect the property appraised and the 2 3 comparable sales considered b ty he appraiser in arriving at either or both. as 24 a ro riate the fair marketvalue of the whole ro ert and of the remainde . 25 2 6 2. The .reviewing appraiser will examine the appraisal reports to determine that 2 7 they: 28 29 a.- Comply with the provisions of this section. 30 31 b. Follow accepted appraisal principles and techniques in the valuation of 32 real"property in accordance with existing state law. 33 3 4 _ c. Contain or make reference to the information necessary to explain, 3 5 -substantiate and thereby document the conclusions and estimates of - 3 6 value and/or just compensations identified therein. 37 3 8 d. Include consideration of compensable items. damages and benefits, but - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - Underline is for addition 6t,ylfei+~edgh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 18 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 do not include compensation for items, damages and benefits 2 noncompensable under state law. 3 4 e. Contain an identification or listing of the buildings, structures and other 5 improvements on the land as well as the fixtures which the appraiser 6 considered to be a part of the real property to be acquired. 7 8 f. Contain the estimated fair market value for or. resulting from the 9 acquisition, and where aperopriate; in the case of a partial acquisition, 10 either in the report or in a separate statement, a reasonable allocation 11 of the estimate of the fair marketvalue for the real property acquired and _ 12 for damages to remaining real- property. 13 14 3. Prior to finalizing his estimate of just compensation, he reviewing appraiser will 15 .request and obtain corrections or revisions of appraisal reports which do not 16 substantially meet the requirements. set forth in >this section. These will be 17 documented and retained in the parcel file. 18 19 4. The reviewing appraiser may supplement an appraisal report with corrections 2 0 of minor mathematical errors where such eerors`do not affect the final value 21 conclusion. He may also supplement the appraisal file where the following 22 factual data has been,omitted` 23 2 4 a. Owner's .and/or tenants' names. 25 2 6 b. Parties to transactions, date of purchase and deed book reference on 27 sale of'subject property and comparables. 28 2 9 c. 'Statement that there were no sales of subject property in past five (51 3 0 ey ars. 31 3 2 d. Location, zoning or present use of subject property or comparables. 33 3 4 5. The reviewingappraiserwill initial and date his corrections and/orfactual data 3 5 - supplerr~et~ts to an appraisal. report. 36 - ~ - ~ ' 3 7 6. Thereviewing appraiserwill submit a signed and dated statement setting forth: 3 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition S#rike-~hreagt~ is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 19 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRfNT DATE: 06/01/03 1 a. His estimate of just compensation including, where appropriate, his 2 allocation of compensation for the real property acquired and for 3 damages to remaining real property, and an identification or listing of • 4 the buildings, structures, and other improvements on the land as well as 5 the fixtures which he considered to be a part of the real property to be 6 acquired, if such allocation or listing differs from that of the appraisal(s). 7 8 b. That as a part of the appraisal review there was a field inspection of the 9 parcel to be acquired and the comparable sales applicable thereto. 10 11 e. That he has not direct or indirect present or contemplated -future 12 personal interest in such property or in any monetarybenefit=from its • 13 acquisition. 14 15 d. That his estimate has been reached independently, without collaboration 16 or direction. and is based on appraisals and :other factual data. 17 18 7. In the event that the review appraiser determines the value to be the same or 19 greaterthan the value determined bythe Independent PropertXAppraisal (IAP) 20 the county shall bear the"cost ofthe review appraisal. 21 22 2 3 Section 1-18-13. Law' Enforcement Impact Fee District Created 24 2 5 There is hereby established one (1) Law Enforcement Impact Fee District, as shown in Figure 2 6 I, for all of St. Lucie County. 27 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition • S~ilce-Thret~h is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 20 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 2 3 4 5 FIGURE 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES COLLECTION ZONES: COUP~SVVV®E n - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ BENEFff ZONES: I ~ N w s 1 ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA UWMPZNI- CiRAPFiCS 6 7 8 - - _ 9 - _ 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition 6t~ike~h~e~h is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 21 Law Enforcement Impact Fee - Oraft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 Section 1-18-14. Law Enforcement Impact Fees Trust Fund Established 2 3 A. There is hereby established a Law Enforcement Impact Fee Trust Fund, for the Law 4 Enforcement Impact Fees collected pursuant to this ordinance. 5 6 B. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with Section 1-18-15 7 of this ordinance. 8 9 10 Section 1-18-15. Use of Funds. 11 12 A. The funds collected bathe county and municipalities located therein shall be remitted 13 at least monthly tothe St. Lucie CountkSheriff. The collecting_governmental unit shall 14 be_entitled to up to but not more than 4% of the funds collected to compensate the 15 entity for the .administrative expense of collecting and administering the Law 16 Enforcement Impact Fee ordinance. All _:remaining funds collected from Law 17 Enforcement Impact Fees shall beused solelyfoe-.the purpose ofcapital improvements 18 to the St. Lucie County Sheriff Law Enforcement Facilities and Eauipment and not for 19 maintenance or operations. Land acquisition and improvements shall be of the type 2 0 made necessary by the County.'s growth and development. 21 22 B. Each January the St. Lucie Count~Sheriff shall present to the Board of Countv 2 3 Commissioners a proposed capital: improvement program for law enforcement capital 2 4 equipment, buildings and facilities,'assigning_funds, including any accrued interest, 2 5 from '.the Law Enforcement Impact' Fee'Trust Fund to specific Law Enforcement 2 6 improvements projectsand related expenses. Monies. including any accrued interest. 2 7 note assigned in any fiscal period .shall be retained in the same Law Enforcement 28 Impact' Fee Trust Fund until the.=next fiscal period except as provided by the refund 2 9 provisions of this ordinance. Funds shall be deemed expended in the order received. 30 31 C. The St. Lucie County Board of Countv Commissioners will enter appropriate interlocal 32 ,agreements between or among themselves and the governing bodies of the 3 3 municipalities in the County to provide forthe collection of fees imposed and to ensure 34 proper use of the funds collected pursuant to this article. 35 - - - 3 6_ - 37 38 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition ~tril~e-~h+~ea9h is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 22 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 Section 1-18-16. Refund of Fees Paid. 2 3 A. If a building permit or an electrical permit for a mobile home park or recreational 4 vehicle park expires and no construction has been commenced then the feepayer his 5 heirs, successors or assigns, shall be entitled to a refund of the Impact Fee paid as a 6 condition for its issuance except that the county shall retain four percent (4%) of the 7 funds as an administrative fee to offset the costs of refunding: 8 9 B. Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year immediately 1 o following then (10) years from the date the Law Enforcement l mpact Fee payment was 11 received shall, upon application of the current ownerwithin one hundred eighty (180) 12 days of the expiration of the ten (10) year period,'be returned to the current owr}erwith 13 interest at the rate of six Percent (6%~per annum.' 14 15 16 Section 1-18-17. Exemptions. 17 18 A. Thefollowing shall be exempted whollyor in part from paymentof the Law Enforcement 19 Impact Fee: 20 21 1. Alteration or expansion'of an existing buRding where no additional residential 22 dwelling units are created. 23 24 2. The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not produce 2 5 'additional need for law enforcemenffacilities over and above that produced bx 2 6 - the principal building or use of the land. 27 2 8 3. The replacement of a des#royed or partially destroyed building or structure in 2 9 existence on or after October 1, 2003, with a new building or structure of the 3 0 same or a different use provided that no additional need for Law Enforcement 31 Facilities will be~roduced overand above those produced bythe original use 32 of the land: 33 3 4 4. Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the time of application for 3 5 a building permit orelectrical permit for a mobile home. Any claim not somade - ~ - 3 6 shall' be deemed waived. - ~ - 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition r.,tfrlee-~Ftfoagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 23 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 Sec.1-18-18. Appeals 2 3 A. Any decision made by the County Administrator in the course of administering the 4 provisions of this chapter may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners by 5 filing a petition of appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the rendition of 6 the decision. 7 8 B. The Board of County Commissioners shall review .the petition at a public meeting 9 within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of appeal of said decision. The petitioner 10 shall be provided reasonable notice of the time,'date. and place of he public meeting 11 by certified mail, return receipt requested, and invited o attend. Testimony. at the 12 public meeting shall be limited to ten~10) minutes der side. unless an extension of time 13 is granted by the .Board. The Board's decision .shall be final for the purpose of 14 administrative appeals. 15 16 The Board of County Commissioners shall revoke ' he 'decision of the County 17 Administrator only if there is competent, substantial evidence in the record that the 18 decision fails to comply with this Article. 19 , 20 21 Sec. 1-18-19. Review-and Automatic Adjustment of Fees. 22 2 3 A. The Law Enforcement Impact Fee shall be adjusted by the County Administrator in 2 4 April of each calendar year, beginning the first year after the adoption of this article. 2 5 Unless otherwise:directed by the!Board of Count~Commissioners, any adjustments 2 6 to the Law.Enforcernent Impact Fee. made pursuant to this section, shall be effective 27 the first Monday in October-of each calendar Xear. All adjustments to the Law 2 8 Enforcement Impact Fee. shall be based on the methodology described in paragraph 29 ,(B) of this section. 30 31 B. .The base for computing any adjustment is the January Consumer Price Index -All 32 Urban Consumers for the United States. published each year by the United States 33 Departmentof Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Forthe purpose of this Section the 3 4 initial index to be referenced is January 2003. The Law Enforcement Impact Fee shall 35 - be adjusted:bp the percentac~change in the index. 36 - - - 3 7 G. ' If the index is changed so that the base year is different, the index shall be converted Underline is for addition 8frtike-~hretrgh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 24 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 in accordance with the conversion factor published bythe United States Department 2 of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the index is discontinued or revised such other 3 government index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to 4 obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the index had not been 5 discontinued or revised. 6 7 D. The Board of County Commissioners and the St. Lucie County Sheriff shall review the 8 Law Enforcement Impact Fee at least once every five.( years from the effective date 9 of this ordinance October 1.20032 10 11 12 **,r****,r***,t****,r,r****,r********* 13 14 PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. 15 . 16 Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie 17 County, County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this 18 ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance. to the extent=of such conflict. 19 20 21 PART C. SEVERABILITY. 22 23 If any portion of this ordinance is for any,reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, 2 4 inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If 2 5 this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, 2 6 or circumstance, such holding'shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or 27 circumstance. 28 29 3 0 PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. 31 32 Thisordinance shall be applicable throughout St. Lucie County's jurisdiction, including the 33 incorporated areas even in the absence of interlocal agreements with the affected 34 municipalities. 35 36 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition 6ffilfe~hreagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 25 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 . 1 PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 2 3 The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the 4 Bureau of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, 5 Florida 32304. 6 7 8 PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. 9 10 This Ordinance shall take effect October 1, 2003... 11 12 13 PART G. ADOPTION. 14 15 After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as :follows: 16 17 Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX 18 19 Vice Chairman Paula Lewis -XXX 20 21 Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX 22 23 Commissioner John D. Bruhn XXX 24 25 Commissioner Doug Coward XXX 26 27 28 PART H. CODIFICATION. 29 3 0 Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St.Lucie County Code and Compiled 31 Laws, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate 3 2 word, and the sections of=this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such 3 3 intention; provided, however, that parts B through H shall not be codified. 34 35 - ~ - 36 PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this 19th day of August, 2003. 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition St~oagh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 26 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01/03 1 2 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 5 6 7 8 BY: 9 DEPUTY CLERK - CHAIRMAN 10 11 12 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND 14 CORRECTNESS:.. 15 16 17 18 19 COUNTY ATTORNEY 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 7 OR03-025a(IMPAGTfee2003) 2 8 DJM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition ~ike~ijret~gh is for deletion Ordinance #03-025a Page 27 Law Enforcement Impact Fee -Draft #1 PRINT DATE: 06/01!03 f ' INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, Assistant County Attorney C. A. NO: 03-764 DATE: June 9, 2003 ' SUBJECT: Fireworks Ordinance No. 03-020 -Amending Chapter 1-7.9 (Fire Protection) by creating Article II (Fireworks) of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws BACKGROUND: Attached to this memorandum is a copy of proposed Ordinance No. 03-020, which would amend Chapter 1-7.9 (Fire Protection) by creating Article II (Fireworks) of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws. The St. Lucie Fire District is responsible for fire prevention and protection in St. Lucie County. The Fire District, on February 19, 2003, adopted Resolution No. 408-03 requesting the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County to adopt an ordinance establishing standards and regulations concerning the sale and use of consumer fireworks, (the Resolution is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). Under the terms of draft Ordinance 03-020, the County would regulate the sale of consumer _ fireworks to only be made on commercial or industrially zoned lands and only from a permanent commercial building. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to Board of _ County Commissioners with recommendation of approval of this Ordinance No. 03-020 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Ordinance. KMS/cb ORDINANCE NO. 03-020 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1-7.9, FIRE PROTECTION, OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE AND COMPILED LAWS BY CREATING A NEW ARTICLE II TO BE ENTITLED FIREWORKS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION ANO PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County is authorized by Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, to adopt ordinances for the purpose of fire protection; and, WHEREAS, the St. Lucie Fire District ("Fire District") is responsible for fire prevention and protection in St. Lucie County; and, WHEREAS, the Fire District, on February 19, 2003, adopted Resolution No. 408-03 requesting the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie to adopt an ordinance establishing standards and regulations concerning the sale and use of consumer fireworks, (the Resolution is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference;) and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is necessary to amend Chapter 1-7.9, Fire Protection and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County to create Article II Fireworks. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, that: PART A. CREATION OF ARTICLE II. FIREWORKS OF .CHAPTER 1-7.9. "FIRE PROTECTION". OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES AND COMPILED LAWS StntelrHn~eugiT words are deleted; underlined words are added. 1 Chapter 1-7.9 of the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County, Florida, is hereby amended by creating a new Article II "FIREWORKS", which article shall read as follows: ARTICLE II. FIREWORKS Section 1-7.9-18. Definitions.. "Board" means St. Lucie Count Board of County Commissioners. "Building" shall mean a permanent structure containing no fewer than four (4) outer walls and a roof enclosi~ said walls, constructed in accordance with the local building code and a duly issued building permit and for which occupancy is authorized by a duly issued certificate of occupancy. For purposes of this section, the term building shall also include a part of the structure, such as a unit or space within a shopping center. ~C.~ "Commercial Structure or Building" shall mean a building constructed and used for the purpose of producing income.. For purposes of this section. the term commercial building shall not. include a building designed, constructed and used in accordance with the laws for residential occupancX,, ,(_Q.~ . "Fireworks" means and includes any combustible or explosive composition or substance or combination of substances or. except as hereinafter provided. any article prepared for the purpose of producing deflagration. or detonation. The- term includes blank cartridges and toy cannons in which explosives are used,, the tyke of balloons, which require ire. underneath to propel them. firecrackers. torpedoes. skyrockets. roman candles, dago boor lbs. andgny fireworks containing any explosives or flammable compound or any tablets or other device containing any explosive substance. ~trnelrthrettgit words are deleted; underlined words are added. 2 ~~"Fireworks" does not include sparklers approved by the Division of State Fire Marshal of the De.~artment of Insurance pursuant to section 791.013, Florida Statutes: tox pistols. toy canes, to~auns or other devices in which paper caps containing twenty-five hundredths grains or less of explosive compound are used,._providing then are so constructed that the hand cannot come in contact with the cap when in place for the explosion: and toX pistol paper caps which contain less than twenty hundredths grains of explosive mixture. the sale and use of which shall be permitted at all times. "Fireworks" also does not .include the following novelties and trick noisemakers: 1 A snake or glow worm, which is a pressed pellet of not more than 10 grams of pyrotechnic composition that.~roduces a large. snakelike ash which expands in length as the pellet burns and that does not contain mercuric thiocyanate. 2 A smoke device, which is a tube or sphere containinq_not more than ten ~(10 crams of pyrotechnic composition that, upon burning{ produces white or colored smoke as the primary effect. 3 A trick noisemaker. which is a device that produces a small report intended to surprise the user and which includes: a A partk,po~o.,ner, which is a small plastic or paper devise containing not more than sixteen (16 milligrams of explosive composition that is friction sensitive, which - - is iani' 'ted b~pulling a string protruding from the device. and which ex els a p9.per streamer and produces a small report. 8traelc-Ehreagh words are deleted; underlined words are added. 3 b A booby trap, which is a small tube with a string~rotruding from both ends containing not more than sixteen (16) milligrams of explosive compound._which is ignited by pulling the ends of the string. and which produces a small report. c A snapper, which is a small,,._pane~ rwrapped device containing not more than four (4) milligrams of explosive composition coated on small bits of sand, and which. when dropped. explodes producing a small report. A snapper maX not contain more than two hundred fifty (250) milligrams of total sand. and explosive composition. d A trick match. which is a kitchen or book mgtch which is coated with not more than sixteen (16) milligrams of explosive or pyrotechnic composition and which. upon ignition, produces a small .report or shower of sparks. e A cigarette load, which is a small wooden peg that has been coated with not more than sixteen (16) milligrams of explosive composition and which produces. upon ignition of a cigarette containing one of the pegs, a small report. ~ An auto burglar alarm. which is a tube which contains not more than ten (10) grams of pyrotechnic composition that produces a loud whistle or smoke when ignited and which is ignited by use of a squib. A .small quantity of explosive, not exceeding fifty~50) milligrams, may also be used to produce a small report. ~CE_1 "NFPA" means the National Fire Protection Association. "Occupancy" means the purpose for which a building or portion thereof is used or intended to be used. St~~gh words are deleted; underlined words are added. 4 ~I "Retailer" means anX.person who at a fixed place of business is engaged inin sellit~,g sparklers to consumer at retail. ,(I~ "Seasonal Retailer" means any nerT son en~aaed in the business of selling sparklers at retail in St. Lucie Count from June 20 through July 5 and from December 10 through January Z of each Xear. "Sparkler" means any device which emits showers of sparks upon burning. does not contain any explosive compounds, does not detonate or explode. is handheld or ground based, cannot propel itself through the air. and contains not more than l0~arams of the chemical compound which produces sparks upon .burning. Any sparkler that is not approved by -the division or State Fire Marshal is classified as fireworks. ~(..C "Wholesaler" means ank,person engaged in the business of selling sparklers to a retailer. Section 1-7.9-19. Manufacture „Sale and use of fireworks. The manufacture of fireworks in St. Lucie County is prohibited. J~ Except as herein provided, it shall be unlawful to sell any fireworks in St. Lucie County, It shall be unlawful for any_person to possess. use or explode any fireworks at any public assembly in- St. Lucie Gounty,. untess such use is approved and authorized by the St. Lucie County Fire District. $traek-tl~rettgh words are deleted; underlined words are added. 5 j~ A registered wholesaler properly licensed and registered with the State Fire Marshal and St. Lucie County at the time of sale, may sell fireworks as provided in State Law and as further provided herein. ~ The authorized sale of fireworks may only be made on commercial or industrially zoned lands and on,~ from a permanent commercial building. Such building shall be protected with automatic fire sprinklers and fire alarms in accordance with the appropriate NFPA standards for such occupancy hazard. It shall be unlawful to sell fireworks from tents. open air stands or under a canopy. PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. Special acts of the Florida Legislature applicable only to unincorporated area of St. Lucie County ordinances and County resolution, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby superceded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. PART C. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property or circumstances, such holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property or circumstance. - - _ - - ° PART APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE This ordinance shall be applicable throughout St. Lucie County. Straeic-tfn~eagiT words aze deleted; underlined words aze added. 6 PART E. FILING WITH DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Clerk be and hereby is directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Administrative Code, Department of State, 401 South Monroe Street, Elliott Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250. PART F. EFFECTIVE ~ DATE. This ordinance shall take effect on July 5, 2003. PART G. ADOPTION After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows: Chairman Cliff Barnes XX Vice Chairman Paula Lewis XX Commissioner John D. Bruhn XX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX Commissioner Doug Coward XX PART H. CODIFICATION Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article" or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance -may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided, however, that parts B to H shall not be codified. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this day of , 2003. 6trnelrthraugit words are deleted; underlined words are added. 7 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Chnirman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney C:\Temp\03-20.wpd ~tt~e~-tf~reccgi~e words are deleted; underlined words are added. 8 ST LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO, 408-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT, RECOMMENDING THAT. THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMMISSIONADOPT ACOUNTY-WIDE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CERTAIN STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SALE AND USE OF FIREWORKS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, in City Ordinance No. K-142, adopted March 19, 2002; and the City Council of the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida, in City Ordinance No. 02-52, adopted June 10, 2002, copies. of which are :.attached hereto, whereby the sale of consumer fireworks within the jurisdictions of those cities was limited to the confines of defined permanent structures; and WHEREAS, the Fire District Board ("the Board") has determined that it would be beneficial to have the adoption of more uniform regulations throughout St. Lucie County, Florida, including unincorporated areas, relative to the sale of fireworks, so as to insure the. safety of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges that 32 states, including the State of Florida, allow the sale of some or all- types of consumer fireworks, which are approved by enforcing authorities or as specified under state law; and - WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges that six states allow the sale of only sparklers or other novelties, while 10 other states ban the sale of all consumer fireworks altogether; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that, in the United States, more than 8,300 people are killed or are treated in emergency rooms for injuries associated with fireworks each year; and ' , WHEREAS, in addition to medical costs directly and indirectly attributable to fireworks injuries, U. S. fire departments reported approximately 21,700 fireworks-related fires in 2002, that were estimated to have cost $15.6 million in direct property damage; and WHEREAS, under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the federal government has prohibited the sale of the most dangerous types of fireworks to consumers, in order to help prevent fireworks accidents; and WHEREAS, injuries due to fireworks occur most often on holidays associated with fireworks celebrations, especially July 4~' and New Year's Eve; and WHEREAS, the Board is awaze that time is of the essence in establishing effective, more uniform, county-wide fireworks regulations before manufacturers, importers, and retailers of consumer fireworks are able to take advantage of areas governed by more lenient laws; and . WHEREAS, the authority to establish more uniform standards and regulations relating to the sale of fireworks throughout St. Lucie County, Florida, lies with the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Lucie County Fire District, that the following is hereby adopted: Section 1. It is hereby requested that the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida adopt an ordinance, as soon as possible, on a St. Lucie County-wide basis, establishing standards and regulations concerning the sale and use of consumer fireworks, to include, but not be limited to, a requirement that the sale of consumer fireworks be made only on - land zoned commercial or industrial and only from a permanent commercial building protected- 2 i .,4 with automatic fire sprinklers and fire alarms, in accordance with the appropriate NFPA standazds for such occupancy hazard. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately as provided by law:. DONE AND ADOPTED in regulaz session this _ day of February, 2003. ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNT FIRE DISTRICT By: ~ ~ _ William Casey, erk Doug o d, Chairman 3 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING June 19, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Morgan, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Merritt, and Ms. Hilson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Trias (with Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Diana Waite, Development Review Planner; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Merritt called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Jones stated that he regretted to announce that he would be resigning from the Planning and Zoning Commission effective after tonight's meeting. He passed out copies of his resignation letter to each member of board and stated that he appreciated the time he has spent on the board. Chairman Merritt welcomed new member, Ms. Stephanie Morgan to the Planning and Zoning Commission /Local Planning Agency. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to make a few comments regarding Mr. Rudd Jones' resignation. He advised that he was disappointed that Mr. Jones was resigning because it takes away an appointment to the board that they all came to rely on because of his employment in engineering. He continued that he hoped there was not anything else behind the resignation. He stated that they are an advisory board and should not be making their recommendations based on the feelings of the Commissioners. He advised that he is not on this board to be a yes man to anyone on the commission. He continued that he hoped the Commissioners take their advice as advice and their opinions as opinions. He also stated that he has faith in most of the Commissioners because they are fair thinking, far sighted, well educated, and mature people. He stated that he thinks they run the County very well with the help of Doug Anderson. He advised that Doug Anderson really has 6 people he works for, the five Commissioners, and the citizens of St. Lucie County. He continued that he has served on several advisory boards and hopes that those boards and their members don't feel like they have to advise based on any one commissioner's feelings. Mr. Grande stated that he has communicated with some of the public regarding questions about the impact fees. Chairman Merritt stated that he had a conflict of interest on Agenda Item # 6, Alicio Pina, and would be stepping down and allowing Mr. McCurdy to Chair for that item. Chairman Merritt questioned if there were any general public comments not pertaining to any of the agenda items. Ms. Pamela Hammer stated that she would like to address the board because this is her first Planning and Zoning board meeting. She advised that she was concerned about some of the comments that were already made. She continued that she is going to be Mr. Jones' replacement on the Planning and Zoning board. She also stated that Mr. Coward had asked her to be part of the board and they had only seen one another two times, when she came out to speak regarding a sewer issue in her community. She advised that they only have had one phone conversation about how many meetings there are in a month. She stated that he in no way, shape, or form try P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 2 to influence any thoughts she might have, any decisions, or put any kind of ideas in her head. She also stated that she had asked him his opinion on a couple of issues and his comment to her was that in the brief time that she has spoken, he feels she has a good head on her shoulders, she'll think things through, and she will vote her conscience. She continued that she takes exception to the innuendos about high stepping to the Commissioners, because she will not be high stepping to anyone. Chairman Merritt stated that rezoning petitions 03-020, 03-021, and 03-022 have been postponed until the July 17, 2003, meeting. Mr. Murphy explained that the three zoning petitions for Miller, Duncan, and Lambert, was originally advertised for tonight's meeting and a mail out was done, but there was an error with the publication. He stated that they are being rescheduled for the July 17 meeting. He also stated that the application for Agenda Item # 5, P&L Property Management (a/k/a St. Lucie Square Bingo) has been withdrawn by the applicant. Chairman Merritt gave a brief presentation on the procedures and what to expect for tonight's meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency 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. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES -MAY 15.2003: Mr. Lounds made a motion to approve as written. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). i P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: ,1IT INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC. -File No. PA-03-001: Ms. Diana Waite, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of JIT Investment Company, LLC., for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from COM (Commercial) to ]ND (Industrial) fora 46.56-acre parcel of property at the southeast corner of the intersection of North Kings Highway (SR 713) and Angle Road. She also stated that the existing future land use designation on this property allows for general commercial uses. She advised that the petitioner was seeking a change in the future land use designation in order to permit the development of the property in an industrial manner, instead of a commercial one. She continued that the site's close proximity to interstate roadways and its lack of natural features makes it suitable for industrial uses. She advised that the proposed IlVD (Industrial) Land Use designation is considered to be compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding the site. She also stated that if the site is developed for industrial uses, adequate buffering is to be provided between the site and any potential residential uses that may be located to the east of the project site. Ms. Waite stated that roadway capacity and Level of Service analyses indicate that the proposed change in land use will have minimal effects upon the primary effected segments. She also stated that an analysis of any future development proposals traffic distribution on segments within atwo-mile radius would be required before any final development order. She continued that indications are that development of the proposed amendment would have minimal impacts on the arterial and collector roads within the two-mile radius. Ms. Waite also stated that the applicant has provided documentation that water and sewer service is available. She advised that prior to any Final Development Order for the property the applicant must obtain a Certificate of Capacity, which demonstrates sufficient capacity in these services exists to serve the property. Ms. Waite stated that based upon the information provided, staff has found the proposed land use change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. She also stated that Staff finds the proposed amendment to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that they authorize transmittal of this amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review. Mr. Grande questioned if there were any discussions about the use of the land, since no specific plans have been submitted yet. Ms. Waite stated that the application had stated that it would most likely be developed for Industrial Light purposes. She continued that this change in land use would allow all Industrial classifications, heavy or light. Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant or their representative were present. Mr. Bobby Klein stated that he represents the applicant. He advised that staff's report indicates that it is consistent with all of the state laws and local ordinances. He also stated that the idea of this project is that it would be light industrial for five to ten acres lots. He continued that they wanted the change in land use to allow them the flexibility for light or heavy industrial uses dependant upon the economic demands. Mr. Lounds questioned why the northwest corner of the parcel was not included in the request. Mr. Klein stated that the parcel itself is 46.56 acres, but the 3.26 acres that is lensed out is to P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 5 remain commercial. He continued that there are actually only 43.30 acres that would be changed to industrial, if approved. He advised that they did this to allow for any possible potential of commercial uses, if the area becomes viable for it. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Akins questioned what happens with the future development of this property once they take an action tonight. Mr. Kelly stated that this is a request for an amendment to the comprehensive plan and if this property is changed to an industrial land use, it would need to come back in the future to request a rezoning to be consistent with the industrial land use. He continued that the Planning and Zoning Commission would receive any rezoning request at that time. Mr. McCurdy stated that 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 JIT Investment Company, LLC., for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from COM (Commercial) to IND (Industrial) because it is a very good fit with the existing character of the neighborhood and I don't believe commercial is appropriate at this time and probably won't be for many years. However, there is a lot of industrial along that corridor and I believe that is what we want there. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously passed (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 3: GLASSMAN HOLDINGS. LLC. -File No. PA-03-002: Ms. Diana Waite, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Glassman Holdings, LLC., for a Change in the Future Land Use Designation fora 47.96-acre parcel located just north and west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban). She continued that the existing future land use designation allows for residential use at 2 dwelling units per acre or a total of 96 dwelling units. She also stated that approval of the proposed change to RU would allow a maximum of 5 units per acre or 240 total dwelling units. Ms. Waite advised that the stated purpose of the requested change in future land use was to develop the property for single family residential uses through the County's Planned Unit Development process. She stated that the applicant has submitted a concurrent application for a Planned Unit Development that provides for 140 single-family units in a manner that maintains a .46-acre wetland and also provides fora 2.43-acre passive recreation area. She also stated that a change in the future land use designation would be required to allow the applicant to seek a change in zoning from the subject property's existing AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) zoning classification to PUD (Planned Unit Development). She continued that the PUD application package included a Traffic Impact Report and an Environmental Impact Report, which were utilized to evaluate the proposed future land use amendment. Ms. Waite stated that the proposed amendment has been determined not to conflict with the Future Land Use Element. She also stated that the surrounding future land use classifications are RE (Residential Estate) to the north and west, RU (Residential Urban) to the east, and COM (Commercial) to the south. She advised that the future land use classification of RU allows residential densities of up to 5 units per gross acre and some limited commercial uses. She also stated that the existing Urban Service Boundary (USB) Line is adjacent to the subject site. She advised that approval of this amendment would extend the USB 1,050 feet to the west of the subject site. She continued that the amendment meets the policy that allows a one time 1,500- foot extension of the Urban Service Areas for residential classifications. She also stated that both the existing RE and the proposed RU Future Land Use designations are residential classifications. She continued that the subject property is contiguous to RE (Residential Estate) designation to the north and west. She advised that a portion of the amendment site's eastern boundary is contiguous (across Emerson Avenue) to RU (Residential Urban) designated property. She stated that this would not extend the USB of any other parcel in the County. Ms. Waite stated that based upon the information provided, staff has found the proposed land use change to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies as set forth in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the proposed amendment not in conflict with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Policy Plan. She also stated the proposed Future Land Use Classification would allow slightly higher residential densities to occur within a growing area that contains the necessary infrastructure and services within close proximity to the amendment site. She continued that the amendments location within 1,500 feet of the existing Urban Service Area would result in extending the boundary line to the western side of the amendment site. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that they authorize transmittal of this amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs with Staff's report being included as part of the public record. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 7 Mr. Hearn stated that he heard mention of a small area of wetlands on the subject property. Ms. Waite explained that their preliminary plans have avoided the wetlands. Mr. Hearn questioned if small areas of wetlands that are isolated are the concern of the County. Ms. Waite explained that they are typically protected by state and local standards but the threshold is '/2 acre. She continued that the subject parcel has .46 acres of wetlands, but their plan has avoided this area. Mr. Grande stated that he would like the petitioner to explain why they should move the urban service boundary for this request when this area is currently being reviewed. He also questioned why the applicant is requesting a 150% increase in density because he feels this could be ~ considered sprawl. Mr. Lounds questioned if the mixed airport area is planned for development of the airport or runways considerations. Mr. Kelly stated that it is primarily for runway considerations because it is far enough away that it isn't for any physical development of the airport. Mr. Murphy explained that the area was reclassified as part of the general comprehensive plan amendment from MXD Airport to RE (Residential Estate) limiting their uses to about 1 unit per acre, which is consistent with the density assigned under the MXD Airport designation. Mr. Jones questioned if the urban service boundary had been expanded in that area. Mr. Murphy stated that it has not and the density component is 1 unit per acre and would be outside of the boundary of the urban service area. He continued that typically higher densities are inside the boundary. Mr. Jones questioned the conflict with DCA and the urban service boundary as it applies to the western expansion on the urban service area. Mr. Murphy stated that DCA was looking for some greater development standards for changing and moving the boundary line. He continued that they want to see a progressive movement of the boundary should one be warranted, as opposed to a haphazard approach of movement. He advised that he feels this request would be consistent with DCA's staff recommendations with regards to this area. Mr. Jones questioned if this request would affect the settlement between the County and DCA. Mr. Murphy explained that the settlement is still being finalized and is subject to further discussion and review prior to their formal presentation. He stated that he did not think it was inconsistent with the direction and instructions they have been given by DCA in dealing with matters like this. Chairman Merritt questioned if the petitioner or their representative were present. Mr. Lindsay Walter of Kilday and Associates stated that he represented the petitioner, Glassman Holdings. He stated that this is the first step in the development process so that they can rezone to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) to achieve the density they are looking for. He advised that this is a lengthy process and they will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission again for their PUD (Planned Unit Development) preliminary approval. He continued that Glassman Holdings is proposing asingle-family development for a project that is approximately 140 single-family units. He also stated that they need a density of approximately 3 units per acre, which would be more than the RE (Residential Estate) land use designation. He advised that any environmental wetlands would be addressed through the appropriate regulatory agencies. He stated that their preliminary plans are taking into account the existing wetlands on the property and they are also working with the native upland trees on the property. Mr. Hearn stated that one of his major concerns with changing the densities is that the development causes traffic jams when people are trying to come and go through only one or two P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 8 entrances. Mr. Walter stated that there would be one access point on Indrio Road and then one also on Emerson Avenue. Mr. Grande questioned if this were not approved how would the applicant feel about requesting a PUD (Planned Unit Development) with only 2 units per acre. Mr. Walter stated that this parcel is a transition parcel and would be more suitable with the higher density. He continued that his client is only interested in doing single-family, not multi-family, and the parcel is more designed for asingle-family layout. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Susie Caron stated that she and her husband are new residents at 8500 Indrio Road. She advised that they bought about eight acres a year and a half ago. She continued that their intent was to have property without having neighbors close by. She stated that they own horses and prefer living in a more rural area. She stated that they all own acreage with estates in that area and a Lakewood Park type community with three or four units per acre would not be appropriate for that corridor. She advised that Lakewood Park is not full and there is a tremendous amount of housing still available in that area and she thinks we should be careful about doing such a change. Mr. Frank Stewart stated that he owns the property to the north of Mr. and Mrs. Caron. He stated that he has the same issues as Ms. Caron. He advised that he is concerned because Indrio Road is going to become afour-lane road soon and developers are doing higher density developments in that area. He stated that he has one house in the middle of ten acres; the Caron's have one house in the middle of eight acres and then you want to cram all of these houses out around them. He also stated there are a lot of septic tanks in the ground out there already and all of these talks about planned water and sewer have been talked about for years, but never happened. Mr. McCurdy questioned if this development would be allowed to have well and septic. Ms. Waite explained that it would not be allowed if the density were more than 2 units per acre. Mr. Hearn stated that in the Comprehensive Plan there is a goal or policy that talks about predictability and ensuring the people who invest in the community that they have a clear picture about what is going to happen in their areas in the future. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande stated that he would have a difficult time supporting this request because it is premature with the urban service boundary study that is currently being done. Mr. Akins stated that he agrees with Mr. Grande and feels this request should be delayed until after the study is completed. He advised that he would not be able to support this request at this time. Mr. McCurdy stated that he does support this request because he feels this is a logical and orderly progression of the urban service boundary and would help to control urban sprawl. He also stated that this is a good transition and is a reasonable request. Mr. Hearn questioned if the developer with this PUD could sell lots and build homes with the density that exists now and then come back at a later date and request higher densities. Mr. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 9 Kelly stated that technically it could be done by taking the existing densities on the property, going through a PUD, clustering in one area and then setting aside other areas for future development at a higher density.. Mr. Hearn questioned if they could sell smaller lots and then leave the other lots vacant. Mr. Kelly stated that he could not think of a practical way to do that. Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant had done the change to commercial on this parcel. Mr. Kelly stated that the land use was already commercial, but the zoning was residential and they changed it to commercial. Chairman Merritt stated that they need to be fair and that the landowners in the north end should get the value of their land. He continued that he could support this request. Mr. Lounds stated that he has mixed emotions because of two issues. He advised that the urban service boundary is still an issue and that they should send a message to the Board of County Commissioners that they would like to see the study finished before considering these types of - requests. He also stated that he is concerned about the development in agricultural areas. He continued that this is a similar density as Spanish Lakes with a corner for commercial development. He advised that this is a large jump in density and they need to be able to direct these requests. He stated that he feels there should be more discussion regarding the urban service boundary line issues first. Mr. Jones stated that he too had mixed motions. He stated that he feels the urban service boundary change is fairly minor and sensible. He advised that he felt the timing might be a little off but that he could support the request. Mr. Akins stated that they need to have the Board of County Commissioners hear them and that there are broader issues that need to be addressed. He also stated that he feels the request is premature with the urban service boundary and Indrio Road issues currently being discussed. Chairman Merritt stated that the urban service boundary and Indrio Road corridor are being looked at and that he feels this fits in with what is being proposed in that area. Mr. Lounds stated that he -felt they needed to consider everything and what the Indrio Road corridor is going to look like in the future. Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed with Mr. Lounds and that an impact of 1 1/2 times more homes could be too dramatic on the school systems. He recommended postponing this request for the present time. Chairman Merritt questioned when the Indrio Road corridor study would be finished. Mr. Kelly stated that they are. supposed to have a full report by around the end of the year. Mr. Lounds stated that he would consider the request if it was not facing Indrio Road. Mr. Grande stated that there are several problems with this request that should be straightened out or else the net result without the studies will create sprawl. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, "I hereby move that the Local Plamung Agency of St. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 10 Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Glassman Holdings, LLC., for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from RE (Residential Estate) to RU (Residential Urban) because it is inconsistent with the current surrounding future land uses and it is premature during a period while we are studying the urban service boundary: ' Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-3 (with Mr. Jones, Mr. McCurdy and Chairman Merritt voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 11 AGENDA ITEM 4: BECKER HOLDING CORPORATION -File No. PA-03-003: Ms. Diana Waite, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of Becker Holding Corporation, for a change in future land use designation fora 72-acre parcel from RS (Residential Suburban) to RU (Residential Urban). She continued that the subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Selvitz and Ralls Road in a transitioning area of the county. She also stated that the current future land use designation allows residential uses at 2 dwelling units per acre, or a total of 144 dwelling units. She advised that approval of the proposed change to RU would allow a maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre or 360 dwelling units. She continued that the stated purpose of the requested change in future land use is to develop the property as amulti-family project. She stated that the applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan that provides for 360 units. She also stated that a change in the future land use designation is required to allow the applicant to seek a change in zoning from the subject property's existing AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) zoning classification to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) or PUD (Planning Unit Development) zoning. She advised that the future land use application package included a Traffic Impact Statement encompassing athree-mile radius that was utilized to evaluate the proposed Future Land Use amendment. She also stated that the surrounding zoning is AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) and RS-3 (Residential - 3 du/acre) to the east, west, and north, with IX (Industrial, Extraction) and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) to the south. Ms. Waite stated that the petitioner's application for this amendment to the County's Future Land Use Map states, "Any future development of this site would have to restore natural vegetation and restrict any development from within the floodplain pursuant to the St. Lucie County Land Development Regulations". She also stated that it is acknowledged that increasing the gross land use density on this site will likely have some degree of impact upon the floodplain of Ten Mile Creek. She continued that an estimated 35 acres of the 72-acre amendment site is within the 100-year floodplain. She advised that the conceptual site plan for the development site indicates that a portion of the floodplain would not be impacted by direct site development; however, this area would include storm water management facilities within the floodplain area. She also stated that that although much of the floodplain on this site was previously filled for agricultural activities, lower elevations continue to store water during heavy rains. She continued that there is also a remnant oxbow from the natural course of Ten Mile Creek in the western 1/3 of the petitioned parcel that was cutoff from the main channel when the river was dredged and straightened for drainage control purposes in the 1940's. Ms. Waite stated that surrounding land uses are RS (Residential Suburban) to the west and southeast, with RU (Residential Urban) located to the south, north, and northeast. She advised that farther to the south/southwest of the petitioned property is a large area of industrially classified lands that house a number of industrial activities from material processing to distribution of goods. She also stated that the requested future land use classification of RU allows residential densities of up to 5 units per gross acre and some limited commercial uses. She continued that approval of the proposed amendment could result in residential development densities slightly higher than the residential areas to the north, across Ten Mile Creek. She stated that higher density residential units could be considered a good transition from the adjacent industrial uses and the residential uses to the north. She also stated that the primary concern the County currently has is in regard to this petition is the increase of potential impacts that may be generated from this site into the floodplain area of Ten Mile Creek. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 12 Ms. Waite stated that the applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Statement based upon a "worst- case" traffic generation rate for the amendment site utilizing the maximum density as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. She advised that the analysis indicated that an additional 210 single- family dwelling units would not reduce the level of service on Selvitz Road. She also stated that if developed for multi-family purposes, the trip generation would be reduced from that of the single-family demand. Mr. Jones questioned where the flood plain was. The petitioner passed out a map showing the flood plain area. Mr. Jones questioned if Staff's recommendation was for approval if they only used those areas outside of the flood plain and if they met all setbacks for shorelines. Ms. Waite stated they were concerned about environmental issues but if the development was outside of the flood plain and preservation areas it should be okay. Mr. Grande questioned if the applicant was made aware of the environmental issues prior to the meeting. Chairman Merritt asked the applicant or their representative to come forward. Mr. - Mark Matthes from Lucido and Associates stated that he was the representative for the applicant Becker Holdings and that they only had some brief conversations with Ms. Waite regarding environmental issues. He also stated that their original meetings with Staff were focused on different information that what is within the staff report. He continued that they revised their plans based on the information contained in the staff report. He stated that they are committed to removing all storm water facilities from the oxbow area of the creek and do whatever is necessary to return the oxbow to its natural condition. He advised that they feel they can provide a multi-family development on the site within the upland portion that would meet their needs for 360 units and will provide the value and benefit to the regional waterways. He also stated that aside from the environmental issue the staff report is very encouraging because of the high- density transition, isn't considered to be urban sprawl, and no real conflicts with many of the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He continued that they are also willing to work with Staff regarding their comments about roadways. He stated that there is a three hundred foot setback to Ten Mile Creek, which is easily accommodated, however with the reintroduction of the oxbow, the three hundred foot setback from the relocated oxbow creates a severe limitation to the use of the property. He also stated that the general portion of the site is quite elevated compared to Ten Mile Creek. He continued that they feel they can utilize the higher elevations of the site, restore the oxbow, and re-vegetate the shoreline. He advised that they are concerned about Staff's recommendation of limiting the land use amendment to only the upland portions because that would limit the portion of development potential to only 260 lots. He stated that there is no federal or state funding for reconnection of this oxbow and they feel they could be partners with the County but they need the extra units to bring forth those resources. Mr. Jones questioned how many acres of the subject property they were going to be developing. Mr. Matthes stated it would be about 36 to 38 acres. Mr. McCurdy questioned if the homes would be for sale or rental. Mr. Matthes stated they were not sure yet because they did not have a developer assigned yet. He advised that they are looking at the typical size one, two, and three bedroom units. Mr. Lounds questioned if their conceptual plan was for two or three story buildings that would have 16-20 units each. Mr. Matthes stated that is what is conceptually being planned right now. He advised that the actual plan that will be submitted may have less or more based upon the P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 13 application of development conditions, but they are asking for the land use change to allow that many just in case. Mr. Grande questioned why they did not apply for their PUD at the same time, especially since they are requesting an increase of five times the allowed density. Mr. Matthes stated that it is a 2 1/2 increase, not a five. He continued that it is too costly to submit the PUD unless they know that the future land use change would be granted, especially without a developer on board yet. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Maryann Angelis, 4064 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that she was speaking on behalf of a hundred of the residents within the area of the subject property. She also stated that the property is one of the county's best properties because it is located on the Ten Mile Creek. She advised that the neighbors have seen manatees and other wildlife in the Creek. She continued that when she bought her home in Oak Hammock, she planned to live there for life with her family. She stated that they own businesses and work in the County and feel having this project will increase the crime in their area. She also stated that the driving on Selvitz Road would be greatly impacted by adding 360 units worth of traffic in the area. Mr. George Brown, 4910 Ralls Road, stated he owns four acres on the north side of Ten Mile Creek and nine acres on the south side. He stated that he has known the Becker family for a long time but is very concerned about the flooding in this area. He advised that when they develop the site, all of the pavement and other areas would collect water that has to go somewhere. He continued that if you obstruct the water from dissipating over the flat area the people on the other side of Ten Mile Creek would end up getting flooded. He stated that this would cause an increase in the volume of water and cause erosion. He also stated that he has seen manatee in that area too. He continued that he is very concerned about what they are going to do about all the water run off from the asphalt and roof drainage. He advised that pulling out on Selvitz Road is okay if you are turning right, but turning left is very difficult, and would be impossible with this much more traffic being generated. Mr. Danny Weiss, 3965 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that traffic backs up from the corner of Selvitz and Edwards Road across the canal, across the bridge, and sometimes up to Ralls Road. He advised that by adding about 600 cars, three per household, would not be safe. He questioned how multi-family unit developments reduce the trip generation in comparison to single-family. Mr. Murphy explained that in traffic modeling, forecasting, and traffic trip generation rates, a single-family on a national average generates more trips than multi-family. Mr. Weiss stated that he doesn't agree especially since we don't have any real public transportation in the area. He advised that the bridge would need to be rebuilt with this amount of increase in traffic and the road cannot handle it either. He stated that he is very concerned about all of these new homes ending up under water with the way the area floods each year. Mr. John Ferrick read a letter submitted by Patricia A. Ferrick on behalf of the North Fork Property Owners. "The North Fork Property Owners question the need for such high density on property that borders Ten Mile Creek, that flows directly into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The impact would be well over 1,000 people on this property. How will it impact our schools? We understand work is currently being done to restore Oxbows in the North Fork; this property has an Oxbow on site. We also question the traffic impact statement; does it include projected daily trips for the Wal-Mart Distribution Center? Does it include trips generated with P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 14 the opening of Selvitz Road, providing a direct connection into Port St. Lucie, and the accompanied additional traffic from recent zoning changes in the PSL corridor? We question the additional trip generations on the roadways in the surrounding area. There are no grocery stores, drugstores, or doctor offices in this corridor. We question the noise from the adjacent industrial uses in this area. How will this impact amulti-family setting? Will this change encourage other property owners along the Ten Mile Creek area and the North Fork to request this same change? Will it set a precedent for more multi-family development along the pristine waterways to the south and thereby degrade the water quality that flows into the aquatic preserve south of the Midway Road Bridge? The North Fork Property Owners feel that these questions need to be answered prior to the Land Use change being granted." Mr. Marty Limberis, 3252 River Drive, stated that this would be the view from his backyard. He advised that the property is very low on the backside. He questioned if they would have a septic system on this property because there is no city water or sewer in the area. Mr. Doug McAdie, 4301 Edwards Road, stated that he has lived on his property for twenty-two years and his parents and grandparents lived there prior to him. He stated that the south side of the river floods as far as the eye could see. He advised that he is concerned about them getting the change in land use and then selling the property to someone else, which could end up with a totally different plan for the property than what they are suggesting. He stated that he agrees that they really should have submitted a PUD (Planned Unit Development) with this to assure them that they are going to actually do what they are proposing to do. He also stated that he saw a panther walk through his property, and there are only seventy in the state. Mr. Bill Braun, 3920 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that his property is to the east of the upper portion of the subject property. He continued that flooding is very bad in that area and the river is extremely sensitive and should not be overloaded. Mr. Ron Burton, 3224 River Drive, stated that there is supposed to be a bridge to walk on in the area, which is currently crime free. He advised that adding this to the area would increase the crime and destroy property values. He stated that the entire area is under water during the rainy season. Mr. Bob Forsman, 4010 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that his problem is that he is concerned that all of these changes from what the public originally wanted is changing the way the county is developed. He advised that he doesn't think it is important to have multi-family housing in that area. He stated that he trained environmental engineers and the mathematics behind water run off is very sophisticated. He advised that the ability to slow down the run off through Ten Mile Creek is handled through the oxbows. He continued that when you have upland, that is a major restriction of the water run off into the drainage ways. He stated that if the land can absorb it, it helps slow it down the actual run off even more. Mr. Jim Pulliam, 3311 Selvitz Road, stated that he feels developers should restore and ensure establishment of natural vegetation prior to actual project construction. He advised that the grove has not been used in several years and that wildlife is already reestablishing itself due to access of surrounding natural areas. He stated that the higher density would effectively increase one mile population from approximately 850 residents of single family owned homes and 40 duplexes to 1,770 for 350 multi-family units, or 1,500 if there are 260 units. He also stated that he feels urban sprawl is encouraged by this plan because there is no family support in the area, P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 15 like ,gas stations, grocery stores, or doctors. He continued that by increasing family density adjacent to an industrial park would encourage all retail activities to proliferate in an area that is primarily single-family homes. He stated that this project is within the urban service boundary but not close to urban facilities. He also stated that that site's protected shoreline and preservation zone, flood plain, and flood way could become a playground for approximately 200- 300 children in the proposed project area. He advised that this project would increase road use and that being so close to a work area could increase the amount of trips because it would encourage someone being dropped off and the other household member using the car all day. He stated that he feels by approving development in this area the county would be endangering residents because of the two chemical fertilizer plants blast area and the deadly ammonia gas. He also stated that they were concerned about everyone being charged a sewer fee by FPUA since this development would need sewer lines brought in. He advised that they feel this site does not protect, conserve, or enhance the natural resources of the area. He stated that the County should assume liability for allowing development of ahigh-density development that would put 700 - 1,000 people at risk because of the adjacent industrial park. He also stated that placing the project on a single entry and exit road would create an extremely dangerous intersection, especially in extreme emergency evaluations. He continued that the adverse effects will impact the natural protected shoreline, flood plain, and upland habitat of Ten Mile Creek and would probably jeopardize future funding of environmental restoration money to St. Lucie County. Ms. Diane Pulliam, 3311 Selvitz Road, stated that there have been many accidents on the road, which is directly in front of their house, where people have gotten killed. She questioned what would happen when this development is put in and the existing residents don't want to hook into the FPUA sewer lines. Chairman Merritt stated that if water and sewer lines are put in and they run next to their property they would be asked to hook into them within one year. Ms. Pulliam stated that she believed that would be quite costly. She also stated that there is already going to be an increase in traffic in the area because of the new Wal-Mart. She advised that there is an S- type turn on Ralls Road and that makes it difficult for driving. She continued that there aren't any services nearby either to handle the increased population. Mr. Al Rosenberg stated that he and his wife reside at 3201 Live Oak Lane, in the Live Oak Estates Subdivision. He advised that last year they tried to go home on Edwards Road and were stopped and asked to leave because the wind was blowing poisons fumes over the area of their home. He also stated that there are many problems with cars approaching the intersections at a high rate of speed. He continued that many driveways come out onto Edwards Road and that makes it difficult for the homeowners and also very dangerous for drivers. He stated that DOT should lower the speed limit on Edwards Road because the 45-mile an hour speed limit has caused many deaths in that area. He advised that by creating a more intensive use on this subject parcel would be dangerous because of the heavy industry in the area. He continued that he feels the Comprehensive Plan is a wonderful thing and the public input is very important. He advised that more intensive, dissimilar uses should not be side by side. He stated that having heavy industry surrounding a residential area, with only aten-foot vegetative barrier, dooms it to failure. Mr. Lounds questioned when he moved to his current residence. Mr. Rosenberg stated that he moved in December 1995. Ms. Stella Geraghty, 4001 Oak Hammock Lane, stated that their area is a more high-end development and feels putting a lower income, denser; housing development close by would not be appropriate. She stated that they are all used to the industrial area because most of the noise is P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 16 during the day, but this development would cause too much traffic. She continued that the traffic already backs up quite a bit when the railroad is closed and this would only make it worse. She stated that this would totally change the area that she lives in and she isn't sure that she would want to stay in that area if this development is approved. She also stated that right now there is no crime, it is quiet, and no one knows they're there, but this development would change that. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Mark Matthes stated that he would like to address some of the publics' comments and questions. He stated that drainage, traffic, crime, utilities, and multi-family seem to be the biggest issues raised. He advised that crime he cannot address, but they are not planning on having criminals move into their homes. He continued that most of the comments regarding drainage were about the floodway and damaging it. He stated that he and his client do not planning on blocking the floodway and Staff has even stated that they cannot block the floodway. He also stated that putting a lake in the floodway would not block it any way and that they feel putting astorm water system in a floodway would increase the storage capacity because of the soil being removed. He advised that they are not going to drain into the floodway because they are required to drain into an on-site system to treat water quality before it discharges into the positive legal outfall. He continued that they have a right to drain into Ten Mile Creek, but that drainage must be controlled and will be controlled by all the rules and regulations of the SFWMD. He stated that they already have atwelve-inch water main next to their site and they will pay the full cost of bringing sewer to the site. He also stated that no one has the money to restore this oxbow, re-vegetate the shoreline, reforest the three hundred foot setback, but the developer is willing to partner up and restore that. He advised that they could help restore and maintain the wildlife, they are only asking for something that will allow them to pay for that restoration and use the land in a reasonable and compatible fashion. He continued that the smallest buffer, conceptually, is a fifty-foot buffer along one side, the buffer and reforestation along Ten Mile Creek would be over three hundred feet in some places. He stated that traffic is an issue, but it sounds like the problem already exists and isn't being caused by them. He also stated that one way to solve that problem is to allow developers to pay for the impact they cause. He advised that they believe this development will pay far beyond its fair share in impact fees because they would need to provide intersection improvements at Edwards Road, Selvitz & Ralls Road, and possibly other improvements. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels this development is misplaced due to so much industrial in that area. Mr. Grande stated that he would not be able to support this without a PUD (Planned Unit Development). Ms. Hilson stated that there are too many environmental issues with this property. Mr. Jones stated that he did not feel this project was right for this location. Mr. Lounds stated that he isn't anti-development, but that he doesn't feel this particular property is right for this project., P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 17 Mr. Merritt stated that he feels this is the County's fault because they should have purchased this property a long time ago. He also stated that he feels this is the wrong project in the wrong place. Mr. Hearn stated that 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 deny the application of Becker Holdings Corporation, for a Change in Future Land Use Designation from R5 (Residential Suburban) to RU (Residential Urban) because of all of the stated concerns that we heard here tonight and I applaud the public for coming out and expressing their concerns. I too feel this is a very, very, sensitive piece of property. I can see some very upscale homes being built on certain portions of large tracts of this particular piece of land if it is not purchased by the County for preservation purposes. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion. Mr. Jones stated that it was brought up earlier that they might want to suggest that the County purchase this property and that he feels the comment regarding upscale homes conflicts with that. Mr. Grande stated that he believed that Mr. Lounds suggestion would appear in the minutes for the Commissioners to read and act upon if they wish. He also stated that an alternative would be that once this voted on, you may choose to make a separate motion with that recommendation and have that separate motion voted on. Mr. Hearn stated that as the maker of the motion, his intention was not to develop this land in any way or remove it from the suggestion that it be purchased for preservation purposes. He continued that he fully supports that but in view of the fact that may not happen his recommendation is that it be used in a much more sensitive way for development purposes, if necessary. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with Mr. Grande that the Commissioners can review the minutes and make their own recommendations based on the Local Planning Agency's suggestions without it being part of the motion itself. He also stated that the motion doesn't limit the Becker family from coming back with a different plan that might be presentable and compatible with the residents, as well as the LPA and Board of County Commissioners. 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 /LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM 5: P&L PROPERTY MGMT (A/K/A ST. LUCIE SQUARE BINGO) - File No. CU-03-007: Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant had requested to withdraw their application so Agenda Item # 5 would not need to be heard. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 19 AGENDA ITEM 6: ALICIO PINA -File No. RZ-03-023: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application of Alicio Pina for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District for 27.28 acres of property located on the North side of Indrio Road, approximately 2,000 feet east of Emerson Avenue. He continued that the surrounding zoning was RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) to the east and northeast, AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) to the north, south, and west, and I (Institutional) is located to the west, south, and further east. Mr. Flores stated that the purpose of the rezoning was to develop the property for asingle-family development. He continued that the subject property has a future land use classification of Residential Urban, which may allow the RS-4 Zoning District and the uses associated with this designation. He also stated that the subject property is bounded by the Lakewood Park residential subdivision to the east and northeast, which has a zoning district designation of RS-4 - and is within the urban service boundary of St. Lucie County. He advised that adequate water and sewer services are available to the area. He also stated that several developments have been proposed for the Indrio Road corridor that has densities up to 5 dwelling units per gross acre. He continued that the proposed density is compatible with these existing and proposed 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 recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the petitioner or their representative were present. Mr. David Knight of Knight, McGuire and Associates, stated that he is the engineer representing the owner Mr. Slonam and the applicant Mr. Pina. He advised that the site seems to be in the path of growth within the urban service boundaries and rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive land use plan. He continued that currently the property is agriculturally inactive and the grove is expired and no longer economically viable. Mr. Grande stated that this is an area of about 27 acres, which would mean slightly in excess of a hundred units. Mr. Knight stated their development plan shows just fewer than eighty units. Mr. Grande questioned why they were requesting an RS-4 zoning instead of a PUD (Planned Unit Development) for this particular parcel. Mr. Knight stated that being a citrus grove it doesn't really have any environmentally significant portions of it or any special considerations for the layout or design. Mr. Grande questioned if their concept would be to divide it up grid-like as opposed to clustering and a standard residential subdivision. Mr. Knight confirmed that it would be more or less a standard residential subdivision with lake front properties, nice entry features, and a clubhouse. Mr. Lounds questioned if the piece to the north of property was landlocked. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Mr. Frank Stewart stated that piece is his property and that it is landlocked. He continued that they went to the variance board to allow an entryway access via the canal. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 20 Mr. Robert Caron stated that he owns the 8 acres next door to the subject property at 8500 Indrio Road. He advised that he has several issues regarding who would pay for fire, police, and schools in the areas that would be impacted. He also questioned if he would be responsible for paying for a third of the cost for the cost of water and sewer services. Mr. Murphy stated that the property to the north is under review for a PUD submission and as a part of that development, the developers are working with the county utility department to bring water and sewer lines to the site north of Mr. Stewart's property. He continued that it would not be encroaching upon either property and that he believes the laws are that if their existing septic tanks failed, they would then be required to hook up. He also stated that there might be some laws regarding the water lines as well. He advised that the only other way that they would be compelled to hook up would be if he requested that services be brought to his land and would be subject to hook up and line extension charges. He also stated that these questions would be better to be answered by the legal department and the utilities department. Mr. Caron stated that he is concerned because someone wants to extend Lakewood Park into his side yard. He also stated that he is very concerned about traffic, school, police, and drainage issues. He advised that he feels that corridor is being piecemealed and we need to be very careful about that. He continued that he bought that property because of the way the surrounding properties were zoned and now everyone around him are requesting changes to allow more densities. He stated that he feels the properties are already zoned for reasonable uses and increasing the density on this parcel will increase the value of one person's property while decreasing the values of the surrounding property owners. Ms. Susie Caron, 8500 Indrio Road, stated that she and her husband don't speak together because they each have their own areas of concern. She advised that there is a very large issue because they are on the approach of runway 14 for the Fort Pierce Airport. She continued that she and her husband are both pilots and lived in Vero Beach for twenty-five years. She also stated that right now Vero Beach is in big trouble because they allowed developments like this in that area who are upset and saying they cannot enjoy their property because they cannot hear because of the approach line of the airplanes. She advised that this is going to become a problem in St. Lucie County because of all of the changes requested in the approach area. She continued that there is amulti-million dollar study going on in Vero Beach and the residents want the airport moved even though the airport was there prior to them developing in the area. Ms. Nadine Horowitz-Stewart stated that she and her husband Frank Stewart own 14 acres with an upscale home north of the subject property. She advised that they are mostly concerned about their property values being decreased by these requests. She continued that they are not trying to stop progress but they are very concerned about all of these density change requests decreasing the value of their home. Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that on page three, number three of the staff report it references several areas and their densities. He continued that in his mind this explanation is irrelevant to the proposed application. He advised that from what he understands from the people of the Indrio Road area, they aren't interested in accommodating developers who want to increase densities. He also stated that these people bought these properties and checked out the zoning and future land use, and felt comfortable with their investment based on what was going to happen in the future. He continued that there should be some respect for the people who have bought land and built their homes and their property rights. He stated that he personally doesn't like living in an urban P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 21 atmosphere and would not want someone to put 4 or 5 dwelling units per acre next door to where . he lives. He continued that he appreciates what the public is saying and that he cannot support this particular application for that reason. Mr. Lounds questioned if the applicant felt it would be economical to put residential dwellings on the property that are upscale and large enough to get a return on their investment if there were only one or two units per acre instead of four. Mr. Knight stated that he would not be able to answer that question at this time without doing an economic analysis of that as well as a residential marketing study to see if would be marketable for this property. Mr. Grande questioned if Mr. Lounds felt this was consistent with the future of this portion of the Indrio Corridor based on his work with the study groups. Mr. Lounds stated that the problem he has with the Indrio Corridor is that you have residential that is one dwelling on multiple acreage. He continued that many areas of the western county are moving into that direction. He advised that there is a school to the east of it, congestion on Ft. Pierce Boulevard that comes out from Lakewood Park, which are four dwelling units per acre. He stated that if you put more traffic on Indrio Road without consideration that sometime in the future Indrio Road might become afour-lane road. He also stated that if there were upscale dwellings with one to two units per acre, the more dense areas would be faced with traffic controls in that area. He advised that at this piece he would rather see one to two units per acre of upscale homes rather than four units per acre. He continued that if this project were a mile north on Emerson Avenue, he wouldn't have such a problem with it because it isn't along this corridor. He stated that this project does not fit this corridor and he would be more comfortable with one or two per acre of upscale homes in this area that borders the urban service area. He also stated that he is not anti- development but is concerned about the revenue to St. Lucie County with four units per acre. Mr. Akins stated that this property is very close to the other property that they considered this evening and that they should be consistent in their direction for that area. He continued that the other application was premature and that he felt this application is also premature until the whole picture is reviewed in that area. He advised that he would not be able to support this application at this time. Mr. McCurdy stated that one of the issues with the other application was extending the urban service boundary and this application is already within the urban service boundary. Mr. Akins stated that he does agree with that point. Mr. Jones stated that the part that troubled him the most on the previous application was requesting to extend the urban service boundary. He advised that this property has an RU (Residential Urban) land use, which is 5 units per acre. He continued that the people who buy in those land use areas should anticipate that type of development happening there. He stated that they should respect the property rights of the owners of this property as well as those surrounding it. He also stated that he would prefer to see more studies done in this area to see what the future growth of the area will be. He continued that he would support this petition. Mr. McCurdy stated that he agrees with what Mr. Jones said. He advised that this is an area that has an underlying land use of RU, which is five units per acre. He continued that he doesn't see how the Board can deny an appropriate use, which staff has recommended for approval. He also stated that he believes there may be some problem because he personally believes Indrio Road will become a four lane commercial corridor eventually. He stated that they have the land use there that is appropriate and denying that could lead to litigation. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 22 Mr. Hearn stated that the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) zoning that is on the property was there when the owner purchased it. He advised that he is not convinced that they have an obligation to change the zoning to get the maximum allowed number of units under the future land use. He continued that if that was the case, they wouldn't have zoning districts, they would only have future land use designations. He stated that he has to respect the opinions and desires of a community and these people don't want to become another Port St. Lucie so he will be voting against this petition. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn and that the word entitlement frightens him. He stated that he is opposed to the concept that a landowner has an entitlement to every single potential zoning that is valid within the future land use. He continued that if that were the case, there would not be a need for zonings and would not have the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners making these decisions on a one by one basis. He advised that the switch from one allowable zoning to a second allowable zoning within a future land use designation is open for discussion and can be ultimately approved or denied. He also stated that he doesn't know of any basis for litigation over requests like this because there is no entitlement to a zoning change within a future land use, it is discretionary. Mr. McCurdy stated that he understands that but that the land use was given to the property as a tool to control growth in an orderly fashion. He continued that while this may be premature, he believes this area will be developed in the future at higher densities. He also stated that the market would determine what the appropriate density is, whether it is one unit per acre or the higher densities. He advised that there are some decisions that have been made, this is on a main corridor, within the urban service boundary, and it is in the path of growth. Mr. Hearn stated that many of them have stated that they don't want to make the same mistakes that they have made in South Florida. He advised that if we keep increasing densities we are going to end up making the same mistakes that they have. He stated that they should take a close look at what they are recommending. He also stated that he personally believes that there are enough people in the country that would pay big money to live on property that has a little more acreage to it, than four or five units per acre or higher. He advised that people in South Florida think an 80X1201ot is large compared to what they get down there. Mr. Jones stated that he agreed with what Mr. Hearn was stating, but if they don't increase densities on properties they are not going to have enough property to put people on. He continued that they are not requesting an increase to the maximum allowable use on this property, which would be five units per acre and they are only asking for four. He stated that the future land use indicates that this would be an appropriate use for this property, but the question is the timing of it. He advised that he feels the timing now is appropriate. Mr. Akins stated that he stands corrected as to the consistency of the two positions in the urban service boundary. He advised that they when they are looking in this area they are dealing with perspective. He continued that they have to balance all of that with the needs of the community and that is going to make their jobs even more difficult in the future. He also stated that they should look at the bigger picture and try to avoid the problems in southern Florida. He suggested that he could agree with the future land use being five units per acre. He advised that he understands Mr. Hearn's statements because they knew the zoning was one unit per acre when they bought it. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 23 Mr. Grande stated that this is not an easy issue to discuss. He advised that he disagrees with the concept that they are coming so we need to accommodate them by allowing higher densities or move further west. He stated that he thinks that Martin County has set a fairly good example in terms of not needing higher densities or development further west. He continued that if Martin County holds to their standards, the people would come to St. Lucie County. He advised that if we keep our standards where we planned them to start we would grow the way we planned to grow. He stated that they have absolutely no commitment to get denser than they had originally planned to be or handle more people than they choose to handle. He stated that he would not be able to support this application. Mr. McCurdy stated that he is aware of three different twenty-acre subdivisions in Martin County that are about five miles east of Lake Okeechobee out on 714 and that is classic urban sprawl. He advised that Martin County's smart growth standpoint has created the same problem that we are trying to avoid with higher densities within the urban service areas. Mr. Lounds stated that he didn't understand why having one or two upscale units per acre wouldn't keep the value of the land and houses up, rather than putting a lesser scale house with four units per acre in that area. He advised that Lakewood Park is a great place but it would be hard to put one house per acre in that area with its current level of development. He stated that he thinks that two houses per acre of upscale development would be more appropriate in this area. He advised that this project would be more appropriate in the Lakewood Park area or out near Emerson. Mr. Hearn stated that upscale is better for the community because it pays more of the tax bill and it keeps overcrowding of schools down. He advised that their obligation should be with the taxpayers and property owners of this community to not provide an avenue for development to come in to the community and doesn't pay for itself. He stated that new development must pay for itself, the Comprehensive Plan states that too, and he feels they should vote on these issues based on that. He continued that the surrounding communities should support the development, if they don't support it, he will have a hard time voting for it. Mr. McCurdy stated that St. Lucie West has four units per acre and they haven't given the applicant the benefit of the doubt of what he is looking to be put in there. Mr. Hearn stated that if they had a PUD before them, they would know, but the applicant does not have any specific plans submitted yet. Ms. Hilson stated that she feels they have the opportunity in the northern county to do something different than GDC did years ago. She continued that the north county is underdeveloped in comparison to the south county. She also stated that this is an opportunity to do this right and agrees that they need to be extremely careful how they handle this. She stated that the reason people are coming here is because they don't want to be in South Florida and how they handle this will determine when and what people come in. She advised that it should be smart growth, not quick growth. Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony present 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 Alicio Pina, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District because at this particular time we have to respect the concerns of the adjoining P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 24 property owners and the community out there that doesn't seem to want a high density development in their neighborhood. There are a lot of undeveloped lots in Lakewood Park that are appropriate for four dwelling units per acre and the intense traffic that would be created if we continue to make higher densities available on Indrio Road. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-2 (with Mr. Jones and Mr. McCurdy voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 25 AGENDA ITEM 7: DALE T. MO5HER -File No. RZ-03-024: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of Dale T. Mosher for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District for 9.67 acres of property located at 4200 Edwards Road. He also stated that the surrounding zoning is RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) to the north, south, east, and west and further west, and a small area is AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) zoning to the south of the subject site. Mr. Flores stated that the petitioner, Dale T. Mosher, has requested this change in zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 dulacre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District on property located at 4200 Edwards Road in order to develop the property for greenhouses as an accessory to asingle-family residence. He continued that the subject property is located in an area, which is generally used for mixed residential and agricultural uses. He also stated that even though the property is located within the urban service boundary and the Comprehensive Plan discourages the location of productive agricultural uses in the urban service boundary, several properties in the area have been rezoned to the AR-1 Zoning District, which is primarily a residential zoning district designation. He advised that these rezonings have been consistent with the overall existing development pattern of the area. 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. Grande stated that based on the lists of conditional uses in AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre), if this were to be granted, does the greenhouse require a conditional use under landscaping and horticultural services. Mr. Flores stated that the applicant is requesting greenhouses and an accessory to a single family detached dwelling. Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Dale T. Mosher stated that he was the applicant and that he would like to have his quiet property but would like to be able to utilize it for an income. He advised that the property has been used for nurseries in the past and has not been built on since that time. Mr. McCurdy questioned if there was a home on the property currently. Mr. Mosher stated there was not. Mr. McCurdy asked if he intended on establishing a home there and Mr. Mosher stated that was correct. Mr. McCurdy questioned if it was going to be a container nursery or greenhouses. Mr. Mosher stated that it would be a container nursery and also planted directly into the ground. Chairman Merritt questioned if he would have any greenhouses. Mr. Mosher stated that he was not proposing to do that at this time. Mr. Lounds questioned if the old greenhouse that used to be on that property was still there. Mr. Mosher stated it was no longer there. Mr. Lounds questioned if he was planning on reestablishing that greenhouse that was previously there. Mr. Mosher stated that they were not planning on it and would have them in the ground or in pots. Mr. Lounds questioned if he was P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 26 requesting the rezoning in case he wants greenhouses later. Mr. Mosher stated that he needed the rezoning in order to put the pots on the property. Mr. Hearn questioned if farm animals could be put on the property if the rezoning is granted. Mr. Flores stated that in AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 dulacre) zoning you could have animals as an accessory use to asingle-family dwelling. Mr. Hearn stated that they have no positive assurance, other than the applicant's word, that this is how he will use the property. Chairman Merritt stated that across the street from this property just to the west, several years ago was a greenhouse that created a lot of problems for the county. He continued that the greenhouse backed up to residences and every time the owner turned the fan on, he blew all of his insecticides into those residences. He advised that there were a lot of health problems for those people because of this and he doesn't want to see that happen again. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande stated that he was confused because the staff report stated that the applicant wanted to develop the property for greenhouses as an accessory use to asingle-family residence. He stated that the petitioner presented a plan that was specifically not greenhouses and would be living on site with the nursery. Mr. Flores stated that it was a misunderstanding because of the previous greenhouse. Mr. Mosher stated that what he presented is what he intends to do with the property. Mr. Hearn stated that he wants the applicant to be able to do this there but he is concerned about the other possibilities that are allowed under the proposed zoning. He continued that he felt if the Board of County Commissioners denied this petition he would like to see a request for a PUD on that property where can he do what he is proposing. Mr. Akins questioned why the change is necessary if he isn't doing greenhouses. Mr. Flores stated that it is still necessary to rezone it because the use of a commercial nursery. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, 5t. 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 Dale T. Mosher, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District so that the young man can put an agricultural facility there. I think it would help limit some of the problems in that area. It is a very quiet area and I think it would be consistent with what he wants to do with his piece of property. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 27 AGENDA ITEM 8: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES -File No. Ord-03-023: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 8 was Draft Ordinance 03-023, which would propose to amend the County's current Education Impact Fee Schedules, effective October 1, 2003. He continued that education facilities impact fees, a/k/a school impact fees, across the State have been subject of much discussion and many are experiencing or are proposed to be increased, some rather dramatically. He continued that it is important to note that the amount that an impact fee may be raised is directly dependent upon the level of State and local revenues that are earmarked for capital construction. He advised that one reason for the rapid rate of increase in impact fees across the State is that while the State has reduced its funding commitment for new school capital cost, and the basic cost to provide a school and the necessary student work stations, has increased substantially, many local communities have not, or cannot, adjust their local taxing structures to meet the costs of the community. He continued that the projected costs of providing public educational facilities per student are in St. Lucie County estimated to be $14,000 per student station. He also stated that broken down through the formulas provided, the consultants have determined that St. Lucie County will be short approximately $2,380, per single family home, in meeting our facility obligations to address new community growth. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-023 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Marty Sanders stated that he is the facilities director for the St. Lucie County School Board. He advised that they have been working with Staff and Dr. Nicholas providing the information to update the impact fee analysis. He stated that the analysis is re-computing the costs based upon the most recent expenditures by the School Board for new construction of facilities and purchase of property. He also stated that they have been working with Treasure Coast Builders Association (TCBA) and other community groups to make sure the fees are fair and reasonable. He continued that the School Board had a special capital workshop to discuss the impact fee ordinance. He advised that they received the full support of the TCBA for the full implementation of the increase in the educational impact fee. He stated that the School Board approved two conditions to the educational impact fee. He continued that the first condition would be to implement it to the full extent of $2,380, as calculated by the County's consultant and the second would be to provide a phasing to allow notice to the builders. He stated that the first 50°Io would be implemented on January 1, 2004 instead of October 1, 2003 because there are several smaller builders that have contracts already in process who may not be able to get their building permits by October 1. He also stated that the second half of the increase would be implemented on October 1, 2004, which would work well for the builders too. He advised that the educational impact fee that was calculated by Dr. Nicholas back in April of 2000 was only $1571ess than the current proposed amount. He stated that the fee was not increased in 2000 and one of the reasons was because of a legislative moratorium impact fee increase for educational impact fees so it couldn't be increased then. He also stated that they have afive-year facilities work plan that has a shortfall of $190,000,000. He advised that at the current rate of construction the impact fees amount to about $5,000,000 a year. He continued that this amount doesn't meet their facilities needs from both a rehabilitation standpoint and new construction. He stated that they believe that working with the builders in the community by phasing the fees in and seeking alternative funding sources would meet all of their facility needs. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 28 Mr. Don Santos, Treasure Coast Builders Association, stated that $6,000,000 in impact fees doesn't go very far in supporting the capital of the construction of schools. He stated that it costs $45,000,000 for a senior high school, $20,000,000 for a middle school, and about $12,000,000 for an elementary school. He advised that impact fees by themselves would not get the community where it needs to be. He continued that the builders are willing to pay their fair share but want it phased in for practical reasons. He also stated that they want to be able to go to community and ask for sales tax increases, and general obligation bonds. He advised that implementation on October 1, 2003 for any of these impact fees is going to cause a major problem. He stated that since this wouldn't be finally approved until August 15, 2003, then it would become effective a few days later, there would be customers with signed contracts who all of a sudden need to come up with the additional $1800 to cover the impact fee increase. He continued that they agree with the recommendation of the School Board to phase in the fee increase. Ms. Pamela Hammer, Charleston Way, The Reserve stated that she has a different position from the builders and School Board. She advised that this increase should have been proposed a long time ago. She stated that if they hold off on implementing this fee there would be many more homes built that won't be responsible for paying the increased fee. She continued that if these homeowners in the Reserve and Tradition can afford those homes, they could afford the increased impact fee. She also stated that the shortfall would end up being paid by everyone else in the community if these impact fees aren't increased on the originally proposed October 1, 2003 date. She advised that there is no excuse for not getting this money now because we are far behind other communities. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande questioned if Staff's recommendation was for the October 1, 2003 date or the phasing in of the costs as the School Board recommended. Mr. Murphy stated that he was not given any instructions regarding a date schedule and their recommendation is for the October 1, 2003 date. Mr. Lounds questioned if the educational impact fees were only accessed. on single-family dwellings. Mr. Murphy stated that the fee is on any residential use. Mr. Lounds questioned if the fee affects commercial buildings. Mr. Murphy stated that it does not include commercial because the basic methodology does not measure service demand on commercial development. He advised that a commercial business does not generate a student or the need for student station, but a house will. He continued that a commercial business would only generate a need for fire, EMS, and law enforcement services. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels that commercial businesses could do their part to help lessen the impacts on the community by paying an educational impact fee too. Mr. Murphy stated that is not possible because it is more like a tax because they aren't impacting schools by adding additional students. Mr. Grande stated that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because there is a clear delineation between where the money should be obtained for the impact of new development as well as ongoing maintenance of the existing facilities. He advised that impact fees are designed to pay for the new capital construction and that makes sense. He continued that he agrees with Staff's recommendation and also has an ancillary benefit for the tax base. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 29 Mr. Grande made a motion to approve Staff's recommendation to forward Draft Ordinance 03-023 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, effective October 1, 2003 because it is absolutely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and it is in the best interest of the students and citizens of the county. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn, with discussion. Mr. Hearn stated that he believes that if the new developments, which are causing the impact on the community, don't pay their fair share, the taxpayer ends up paying it. He advised that it is time for the people who are creating the expense to pay the bill. Mr. Lounds stated. that his logic about asking about this fee being accessed to commercial development goes back to the tremendous amount of people who open businesses within this county but rent and therefore don't pay the impact fees. He also stated that he agrees with Mr. Grande's comment, but wants to figure out how the people who are renting pay their fair share. Mr. Grande stated that the owner of the home paid their share when it was built so those who rent had their fees paid by the owner. He also stated that when one renter moves out and another moves in, there isn't any additional impact because in effect the new kids are replacing the old kids. Mr. Lounds stated that he understands that but he doesn't feel this fee is enough. 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 / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 30 AGENDA ITEM 9: FIRE /EMS IMPACT FEES -File No. ORD-03-024: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 9 was Draft Ordinance 03-024, which would propose to amend the County's current Fire/EMS Protection Impact fee, effective October 1, 2003. He continued that St. Lucie County's existing Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee is above the State average for single family residential and near the State average for other land uses. He advised that note might be taken of the fact that many Florida jurisdictions impose a Public Safety impact fee that includes fire, rescue or EMS and police. He continued that the comparison data listed in the summary report are only for fire or fire/rescue impact fees. He also stated that revised facility costs were provided by the Fire District and based upon those costs, the County's Impact Fee consultants have revised the Fire/BMS Protection Impact Fee as shown in Draft Ordinance 03-024. Noting the above, and based upon the consultants report on the proposed adjustment to the County's Fire/EMS Protection Impact Fee, staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency _ forward Draft Ordinance 03-024 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Captain Nate Spera from the St. Lucie County Fire District stated that the fee basically funds their capital improvement plan. Mr. Lounds questioned if the fee is accessed based on zone. Captain Spera stated that these are not accessed by zone they are countywide. Chairman Merritt questioned if they are being impacted because of the CRA issues. Captain Spera stated that anytime a property's ad valorum is frozen for any reason, because of the nature of their work they couldn't withhold services to a community. He advised that when either or both municipalities segregate out a portion of fire taxes and use that for a purpose other than fire and rescue services the remainder of the community is supporting those services. He continued that they received approval yesterday from the Fire Board to apply for an exemption from the Port St. Lucie CRA, which should go into effect July 1, 2003. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve Staff's recommendation to forward Draft Ordinance 03-024 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval because it is as required by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the best interests of the citizens of the county. 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 approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 31 AGENDA ITEM 10: LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES -File No. ORD-03-025: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 10 was Draft Ordinance 03-025, which would propose to create a Countywide Law Enforcement Impact Fee, effective October 1, 2003. He continued that the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department provides countywide law enforcement, court security, and correctional security throughout St. Lucie County pursuant to the authority granted under the Florida Constitution. He also stated that the imposition of a countywide impact fee for law enforcement services would assist the Sheriff in meeting its countywide obligations to provide effective law enforcement services. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-025 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Santos from the Treasure Coast Builders Association stated that he is a homebuilder in St. Lucie County. He stated that there are three things that have to go with this, the first being fairness for the existing residents as well as the new residents coming in. He continued that it should have a rational nexus where the amount you pay should have a service associated with it that you can benefit from. He also stated that the third item is the methodology. He stated that he felt this ordinance has some serious problems. He continued that this is a countywide impact fee that is going to be paid to the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department. He advised that this is impact fee is based on service calls, an amount per call, and how many people are in a residence. He stated that the problem with this is that he thinks that the service calls for the Sheriffs department are predominately in the unincorporated areas. He continued that although they do provide services within the municipalities, it is probably at a limited amount relative to their overall service calls that they are highlighting in the report. He stated that the City of Port St. Lucie would probably request to have some of the money from this fee because there isn't any rational nexus to say that a citizen in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County, the Sheriff is going to provide 100% of the law enforcement. He also stated that those in the City of Port St. Lucie would most likely not receive 100%. He continued that the report says that all of the money is going to go to the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department. He advised that he feels there is a real problem with that and that many other municipalities base it on certain specific criteria and not so generally. He stated that nothing other than service calls are considered in this report and there is no fairness with this. He also stated that he isn't taking issue with the number just with the fairness and rational nexus of connecting it to the other two municipalities. Mr. Akins stated that they should also consider that the Sheriffs Department is not just road personnel covering other areas of the county. He continued that there are concurrent jurisdictions in which the Sheriffs Department does help; they are also 100% in charge of court security; which aren't shared by any of the other law enforcement agencies. He advised that he believes there is some rational relationship to basing this on the Sheriffs Department. He also stated that any impact fees in a municipality could be handled through municipal permitting collections. Mr. Grande stated that he thought the law enforcement impact fees were for capital expense of law enforcement. He continued that the fees would not pay for the security at the jail, but they pay for the building or expansion of the jail itself. He also stated that the fees don't pay for the salaries of guards for court security, but pay for building a new courthouse. He advised that he P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 32 feels most of those capital costs are countywide costs and that those capital facilities are shared among the cities, so this fee structure is imminently fair as long as none of these funds go to pay salaries within any of the departments. Mr. Murphy stated that impact fees may be used for capital needs and cannot be used for operating needs. He also stated that the fees address the capital needs and the methodologies used have been used elsewhere successfully. He also stated that they are cognizant of the questions that Mr. Santos raised about the nexus and they believe that it does satisfy that. He continued that they would review the information further prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting to make sure. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve Staff's recommendation to forward Draft Ordinance 03-025 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval because it is in the best interest of the citizens of the county. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. Lounds stated that he understands Mr. Santos' position. He also stated that calls within the unincorporated area, once you pass Jenkins Road, become very few as compared to east of Jenkins Road or east of I-95. He continued that the Sheriff is charged with backing up the city and taking calls in the incorporated areas of both cities. He advised that the County already has an impact fee on corrections. Mr. Murphy confirmed that for capital building, a portion of it does go to corrections. 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 / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 33 AGENDA ITEM 11: FIREWORKS (FIRE PROTECTION) -File No. ORD-03-020: Ms. Heather Young, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 11 was proposed Ordinance 03-020, which would amend Chapter 1-7.9 (Fire Protection) by creating Article II (Fireworks) of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Complied Laws. She also stated that the St. Lucie Fire District is responsible for fire prevention and protection within St. Lucie County. She continued that the Fire District, on February 19, 2003, adopted Resolution No. 408- 03 requesting that the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County to adopt an ordinance establishing standards and regulations concerning the sale and use of consumer fireworks. She advised that under the terms of Draft Ordinance 03-020, the County would regulate the sale of consumer fireworks to commercial or industrially zoned lands and only from a permanent commercial building. She also stated that there is a full definition of what is classified as a firework and what is not within the ordinance. She advised that Mr. Fred Vaughan was present as a representative of the Fire District to answer any additional questions. Ms. Young stated that this item would be heard at the Board of County Commissioners July 1, 2003 meeting but would not be effective, if adopted, until July 5, 2003, after the holiday. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Vaughan stated that he was the Fire Marshall for St. Lucie County. Mr. Hearn questioned why it took so long to get this ordinance. Mr. Vaughan stated that he has been working on this ordinance for a long time. Mr. Lounds questioned if the intent of this ordinance was to stop all tent sales in St. Lucie County or do they have a fear of a tent fire because of the fireworks. Mr. Vaughan stated that the fireworks ordinance, as it stands, does not eliminate sale of the State approved legal fireworks. He continued that they are trying, from fire prevention /protection stand points to limit these items being near homes, businesses, gas stations, etc. He also stated that there are items that can be purchased today that could cause problems concerning public safety. He advised that the large amount of these types of products that can be sold in a tent ultimately could cause a very severe problem. He stated that the City of Fort Pierce approached him several years ago to assist in drafting this type of ordinance for them, in which they were successful. He continued that subsequent to that, the City of Port St. Lucie asked him to assist them in doing the same thing. Mr. Vaughan stated that the Fire Board asked him to present this to the Board of County Commissioners so they would have something fairly uniform throughout the entire county. Mr. Lounds questioned if the fire hazards within a commercial building would be less than in a tent. Mr. Vaughan stated that anywhere fireworks are sold it is dangerous. He advised that if it were within a building, it would burn up, not across a road. He continued that when a fireworks fire starts in a tent, they could fall down and therefore shoot the items across roads into schools, businesses, putting the general public at higher risk. Mr. Lounds stated that he spoke with the Fire Marshall in Tallahassee and he stated that within the last five years there have been eleven structure or tent fires of which nine were at events, fairs, and shows. He continued that cooking, not fireworks started all of these fires. He questioned if the intent of this ordinance was to stop tent sales of anything in St. Lucie County it needs to be addressed. Mr. Vaughan stated that they are not trying to limit all tent sales only to control firework sales in tents because if these items catch fire they can leave the premises and cause risk to the public. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 34 Mr. Grande stated that any buildings would need to have a sprinkler system. Mr. Vaughan confirmed that the ordinance was written to include that. Mr. Grande stated that it being in a building that contains a sprinkler system is a very important factor. Chairman Merritt stated that he had a problem with the ordinance because he would rather see all fireworks banned in St. Lucie County rather than limit them to a building. He continued that he received a letter from the American Pyrotechnics Association that states the only deaths in the last twenty-five years were within a building that had a sprinkler system that was disconnected. He also stated that there was an accident last week where a trailer turned over and caught on fire but the fire department could not put it out because the fuses were waterproofed. He advised that by the time the heat and smoke activates the sprinkler system it could be too late. He stated that he doesn't feel this ordinance does enough by just outlawing tent sales of fireworks because it confines people within a building. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn made a motion to approve staff's recommendation to forward Ordinance No. 03-020 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande, with discussion. Mr. Jones stated that he agreed with Mr. Lounds and Chairman Merritt, but understands the Fire Marshall's concerns over public safety. He continued that he was not sure that he would be able to support this ordinance. Mr. Lounds questioned if the County could ban fireworks within the county, or would it cause problems with State law. Ms. Young stated that she believed there were some places within the State where fireworks are completely prohibited. She continued that she would do some further review on that question. Mr. Lounds stated that if he would be able to vote for this if they would request that the County ban all fireworks sales within St. Lucie County because it would end the problem. Mr. Vaughan stated that he would be more than willing to approach any board to try to outlaw firework sales within St. Lucie County and has been trying for that for many years. He also stated that there are loopholes in Florida Statutes with regards to these laws and that is why they were trying to create this ordinance. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels anyone who lives in St. Lucie County who wants to l~uy fireworks should have to go to another county or state to buy them. Mr. Akins questioned if the intent was to not have fireworks at all in St. Lucie County or to limit them to being sold within commercial ~ buildings. Mr. Grande stated that his intent with seconding the motion was to express his faith in the fire departments recommendation. He continued that he is not an expert in this area but believes that the fire departments recommendation is relating to personal safety and the safety of the purchasers of the fireworks. He also stated that he didn't believe they were restricting purchases, only where the items could be sold safely. He advised that his personal feeling is that the fire department is the best group to make a recommendation with regards to these matters and why he seconded the motion. Mr. Vaughan stated that this ordinance is mainly addressing eliminating items that weren't State approved. He continued that having many of these items in a tent is a fire hazard because they can tip over and shoot into stores, family residences, and other highly populated areas. He also stated that he does not necessarily like these items being sold within a building, but at least if P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 35 something happened it would be confined and would not travel such large distances. He advised that he is just trying to protect the citizens of the County from these types of activities. Mr. McCurdy questioned if there have been any incidents within St. Lucie County of items catching fire and tipping over and shooting into public places. Mr. Vaughan stated that he was not aware of it happening to date. Chairman Merritt stated that the American Pyrotechnics Association could only find one incident of injuries in twenty-five years worth of review. He continued that the fire was intentionally set inside a building and killed seven people in Ohio. Mr. Lounds questioned if their information did not show any injuries as a result of fireworks. Chairman Merritt stated that they were unable to find any tent sale fires, but there were about 8,000 people a year injured by fireworks. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to send a message that if fireworks are going to be restricted then they should consider banning them altogether in St. Lucie County. He also stated that there are a few businesses within the County that should probably be grandfathered in, but this should limit there being any more of those types of businesses. Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 4 - 4 (with Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Morgan & Chairman Merritt voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their review. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 36 OTHER BUSINE5S/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be July 17, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Dawn Gilmore, Secretary P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 37