Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07-17-2003St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3`d Floor Roger Poitras Annex July 17, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements — RZ-03-027 — Eduardo Leal will not be heard. D. Disclosures AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — .Tune 19, 2003 Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of June 19, 2003, meeting AGENDA. ITEM 2: WILLIAM D. MILLER — FILE NO. RZ-03-020: This is the petition of WILLIAM D. MILLER, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/acre).Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 3: EUGENE AND LESLIE DUNCAN — FILE NO. RZ-03-021: This is the petition of EUGENE AND LESLIE DUNCAN, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4. du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 4: CORA B. LAMBERT — FILE NO. RZ-03-022: This is the petition of CORA B. LAMBERT, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #4: Staff Report and Site Location Maps St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency July 17, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 5: 250 EMERSON AVENUE, LLC. (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent) — FILE NO. RZ-03- 012 / PUD-03-009: This is the petition of 250 EMERSON AVENUE, LLC. (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent), for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to be known as Emerson Estates — PUD. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #S: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 6: WATERSONG — FILE NO. RZ-03-016 / PUD-03-008: This is the petition of WATERSONG, for a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District and the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to construct a 91-unit subdivision. Cyndi Snay will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #6: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 7: BROWN RANCH, INC. — FILE NO. CUMJ-03-001: This is the petition of BROWN RANCH, INC. for a Major Adjustment to an approved Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the Stewart Sand Mining Operation in the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District. Cyndi Snay will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #7. Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 8: NESFAT M. MOHD — FILE NO. CU-03-009: This is the petition of NESFAT M. MOHD, for a Conditional. Use Permit to allow for the retail trade of undistilled alcoholic beverages as an accessory to the retail sale of food in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit 118: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 9: WINN DIXIE STORES INC. — FILE NO. CU-03-010: This is the petition of WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., for a Conditional Use. Permit to allow for the operation of a retail liquor store within the Indrio Crossing Shopping Center in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Cyndi Snay will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #9: Staff Report and Site Location Maps St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency July 17, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 10: TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent) — FILE NO. CU-03-011: This is the petition of TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent), for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a second air curtain incinerator within the U (Utilities) Zoning District. Cyndi Snay will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #10: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 11: Amendment of the Animal Control Ordinance — FILE NO.ORD-03-19: This is an ordinance to consider amending the animal control ordinance by amending the definition of "public nuisance" to exempt animals located on property zoned AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre). 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 August 21, 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. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 7/17/03 File Number: RZ-03-027 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (Planning Division) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioner FROM: Planning Manager DATE: July 10, 2003 SUBJECT: Withdrawal of the application of Eduardo Leal for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial Light) Zoning District. Upon reviewing the proposed rezoning application, it was determined that a petition by Robert and Jean Trenary requesting a change in zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural —1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial Light) Zoning District was for the same property. The rezoning petition was processed and subsequently approved by the Board of County Commissioners, via Resolution 02-303, on December 3, 2002. Based upon this information, the proposed rezoning application will not be processed and therefore the application is being withdrawn. The application fee is being returned. JG\E COIi ��' 'L�► COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT y F) Planning Division OR10P MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commisison FROM: David P. Kelly, Planning Manager���. DATE: July 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Mr. Lounds Mr. Lounds will not be in attendance this evening. He spoke with me over the telephone and wishes that his concerns on Agenda Item 10 be made part of the public record. He stated he is against the proposed petition as the applicants have not been good stewards of the land and have not satisfied the criteria of their original Conditional Use Permit. He does not want air curtain burners completely Manned from being permitted within the County. If the burner is operated correctly then there is no problem with the facility. FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME -FIRST NAME -MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Hearn, Bill St. uc e . County, P�,anzunc� and �oxi c Co s ori/ MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 5051 Tozour Road WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY + ❑ CITY CXCOUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Fort Pierce NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: St. Lucie Count St, Lucie County DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: July 17, 2003 0 ELECTIVE Ck APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 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 112.3143, 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. 163.356 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. 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 mini itPc nf the meetina. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) �l S 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. 1 Bill Hearn DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST hereby disclose that on July 17, 20 03: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain or loss; as .I own property. within 500 feet of the subject property. 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 whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of 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 ITE24 5: 250 EMERSON AVENUE, LLC. RZ-03-012/PUD-03}009: Cuozzo Group, FILE NO. by which This is the petition of 250 EMERSON AVENUE, LLC. (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent) for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to be known as Emerson Estates — PUD. 1 Date Filed CD - Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA 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. GE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney fW C.A. NO: 03-924 DATE: July 10, 2003 SUBJECT: Florida's Government -in -the -Sunshine Laws As you are aware, the Planning and Zoning Commission is subject to Florida's Government - in -the -Sunshine laws. The attached article was printed from the Florida Attorney's website and addresses many of the questions frequently asked regarding the Sunshine laws and their application. The agenda for the August 21, 2003 will include a discussion of the Sunshine laws, ex parte communications, and conflicts of interest as those matters apply to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The attached article is being provided to you for your reference in the interim. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Attachment HY/ Copies to: Community Development Director Planning Manager P&Z Secretary F .: Florida Attorney Ueneral rage 1 of 4 MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FLORIDA'S OPEN GOVERNMENT LAWS The following questions and answers are intended to be used as a reference only -- interested parties should refer to the Florida Statutes and applicable case law before drawing legal conclusions. Q. What is the Sunshine Law? A. Florida's Government -in -the -Sunshine law provides a right of access to governmental proceedings at both the state and local levels. It applies to any gathering of two or more members of the same board to discuss some matter which will foreseeably come before that board for action. There is also a constitutionally guaranteed right of access. Virtually all state and local collegial public bodies are covered by the open meetings requirements with the exception of the judiciary and the state Legislature which has its own constitutional provision relating to access. Q. What are the requirements of the Sunshine law? A. The Sunshine law requires that 1) meetings of boards or commissions must be open to the public; 2) reasonable notice of such meetings must be given, and 3) minutes of the meeting must be taken. Q. What agencies are covered under the Sunshine Law? A. The Government -in -the -Sunshine Law applies to "any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation or political subdivision." Thus, it applies to public collegial bodies within the state at both the local as well as state level. It applies equally to elected or appointed boards or commissions. Q. Are federal agencies covered by the Sunshine Law? A. Federal agencies operating in the state do not come under Florida's Sunshine law. Q. Does the Sunshine Law apply to the Legislature? A. Florida's Constitution provides that meetings of the Legislature be open and noticed except those specifically exempted by the Legislature or specifically closed by the Constitution. Each house is responsible through its rules of procedures for interpreting, implementing and enforcing these provisions. Information on the rules governing openness in the Legislature can be obtained from the respective houses. Q. Does the Sunshine Law applies to members -elect? A. Members -elect of public boards or commissions are covered by the Sunshine law immediately upon their election to public off ice. Q. What qualifies as a meeting? A. The Sunshine law applies to all discussions or deliberations as well as the formal http://legal.fim.edu/sunshine/faq.html 12/10/2002 Florida Attorney General Page 2 of 4 action taken by a board or commission. The law, in essence, is applicable to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the public board or commission. There is no requirement that a quorum be present for a meeting to be covered under the law. Q. Can a public agency hold closed meetings? A. There are a limited number of exemptions which would allow a public agency to close a meeting. These include, but are not limited to, certain discussions with the board's attorney over pending litigation and portions of collective bargaining sessions. In addition, specific portions of meetings of some agencies (usually state agencies) may be closed when those agencies are making probable cause determinations or considering confidential records. Q. Does the law require that a public meeting be audio taped? A. There is no requirement under the Sunshine law that tape recordings be made by a public board or commission, but if they are made, they become public records. Q. Can a city restrict a citizen's right to speak at a meeting? A. Public agencies are allowed to adopt reasonable rules and regulations which ensure the orderly conduct of a public meeting and which require orderly behavior on the part of the public attending. This includes limiting the amount of time an individual can speak and, when a large number of people attend and wish to speak, requesting that a representative of each side of the issue speak rather than every one present. Q. As a private citizen, can I videotape a public meeting? A. A public board may not prohibit a citizen from videotaping a public meeting through the use of nondisruptive video recording devices. Q. Can a board vote by secret ballot? A. The Sunshine law requires that meetings of public boards or commissions be "open to the public at all times." Thus, use of preassigned numbers, codes or secret ballots would violate the law. Q. Can two members of a public board attend social functions together? A. Members of a public board are not prohibited under the Sunshine law from meeting together socially, provided that matters which may come before the board are not discussed at such gatherings. Q. What is a public record? A. The Florida Supreme Court has determined that public records are all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. They are not limited to traditional written documents. Tapes, photographs, films and sound recordings are also considered public records subject to inspection unless a statutory exemption exists. Q. Can I request public documents over the telephone and do I have to tell why I want them? A. Nothing in the public records law requires that a request for public records be in writing or in person, although individuals may wish to make their request in writing to http://legal.fim.edu/sunshine/faq.html .12/10/2002 Florida Attorney General Page 3 of 4 ensure they have an accurate record of what they requested. Unless otherwise exempted, a custodian of public records must honor a request for records, whether it is made in person, over the telephone, or in writing, provided the required fees are paid. In addition, nothing in the law requires the requestor to disclose the reason for the request. Q. How much can an agency charge for public documents? A. The law provides that the custodian shall furnish a copy of public records upon payment of the fee prescribed by law. If no fee is prescribed, an agency is normally allowed to charge up to 15 cents per one-sided copy for copies that are 14" x 8 1/2" or less. A charge of up to $1 per copy may be assessed for a certified copy of a public record. If the nature and volume of the records to be copied requires extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance, or both, the agency may charge a reasonable service charge based on the actual cost incurred. Q. Does an agency have to explain why it denies access to public records? A. A custodian of a public record who contends that the record or part of a record is exempt from inspection must state the basis for that exemption, including the statutory citation. Additionally, when asked, the custodian must state in writing the reasons for concluding the record is exempt. Q. When does a document sent to a public agency become a public document? A. As soon as a document is received by a public agency, it becomes a public record, unless there is a legislatively created exemption which makes it confidential and not subject to disclosure. Q. Are public employee personnel records considered public records? A. The rule on personnel records is the same as for other public documents ... unless the Legislature has specifically exempted an agency's personnel records or authorized the agency to adopt rules limiting public access to the records, personnel records are open to public inspection. There are, however, numerous statutory exemptions that apply to personnel records. Q. Can an agency refuse to allow public records to be inspected or copied if requested to do so by the maker or sender of the documents? A. No. To allow the maker or sender of documents to dictate the circumstances under which documents are deemed confidential would permit private parties instead of the Legislature to determine which public records are public and which are not. Q. Are arrest records public documents? A. Arrest reports prepared by a law enforcement agency after the arrest of a subject are generally considered to be open for public inspection. At the same time, however, certain information such as the identity of a sexual battery victim is exempt. Q. Is an agency required to give out information from public records or produce public records in a particular form as requested by an individual? A. The Sunshine Law provides for a right of access to inspect and copy existing public records. It does not mandate that the custodian give out information from the records nor does it mandate that an agency create new records to accommodate a request for information. http://legal.fim.edu/sunshine/faq.html 12/10/2002 Florida Attorney General Page 4 of 4 Q. What agency can prosecute violators? A. The local state attorney has the statutory authority to prosecute alleged criminal violations of the open meetings and public records law. Certain civil remedies are also available. Q. What is the difference between the Sunshine Amendment and the Sunshine Law? A. The Sunshine Amendment was added to Florida's Constitution in 1976 and provides for full and public disclosure of the financial interests of all public officers, candidates and employees. The Sunshine Law provides for open meetings for governmental boards. Q. How can I find out more about the open meetings and public records laws? A. Probably the most comprehensive guide to understanding the requirements and exemptions to Florida's open government laws is the Government -in -the -Sunshine manual compiled by the Attorney General's Office. The manual is updated each year and is available for purchase through the First Amendment Foundation in Tallahassee. For information on obtaining a copy, contact the First Amendment Foundation at (850) 224-4555. Home I News Opinions I Consumers I Lemon Law I Crime Victims ( Open Government Prosecution Criminal Justice I Florida's AG I SG I Services I Jobs I Directory I Mans http://legal.fim.edu/sunshine/faq.html 12/10/2002 ZONING F St. Lucie County�)`�';d."�'`s'i 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; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Bather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. . V L— t P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 1 UPOFFICIAL- SU01ECT TO PLANNING & ZONiNG CALL TO ORDER COMMISSION APPROVAL 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 ►��111_01 121 K 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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING C'SSION APPROVAL 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 UNOFFICIAL --- SUBJECT TO AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — MAY 15, 2003: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL 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). P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 4 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 2: JIT INVESTMENT COMPANY. LLC. — File No. PA.0QMYi11SSION APPROVAL 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 IND (Industrial) for a 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 IND (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 a two-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 staffs 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 lessed out is to P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 5 UNOFFICIAL --- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING remain commercial. He continued that there are actually only 43.30 acres that wo�urd"fieSS�OngeIuPPROYAI 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 UNOFFICIAL-- SUBICT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 3: GLASSMAN HOLDINGS. LLC. — File No. PA-03-002: COMMISSION APPROVAL 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 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). 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 for a 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 UNUFFICIALIMINN SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISAPNJPPROVAL Mr. Hearn stated that he heard mention of a small area of wetlands on the subject prope 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 V2 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 a single-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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING entrances. Mr. Walter stated that there would be one access point on Indrio RoaSPANQIg& APPROVAL 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 a single-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 a four -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 UNOFFICIAL. -- SUBJECT TO rPLANNING & ZONING Kelly stated that technically it could be done by taking the existing densities on f O p�j�§p APPROVAL 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 Planning Agency of St. P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 10 UNUMVIALMMMM SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL 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 UNOFFICIAL SUBJECT TO PLAIiNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 4: BECKER HOLDING CORPORATION — File No. PA-03-003: CQMINISSIDN ZONING l 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 for a 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 a multi -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 a three-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 SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL 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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO pLAW,4 iy a & ZONING CIIfi+SgssICPi APPROVAL 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 UNUMUIALUMM SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL 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 a multi -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 SUBIECT TO PLANNING & ZONING like gas stations, grocery stores, or doctors. He continued that by increasingCAWSM APPROVAL 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 a high -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 a ten -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 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO rPLANNING & ZONING during the day, but this development would cause too much traffic. She continued i&SAW-ibPPROVAL 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 a storm 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 a twelve -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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO rPLANNING f & ZONING Mr. Merritt stated that he feels this is the County's fault because they should have pu�'PMDJti @RN APPROVAL 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 RS (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 unurritan SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL 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 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO AGENDA ITEM 6: ALICIO PINA — File No. RZ-03-023: QI.ANNING ZOM114 At COMMISSION 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 a single-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 UNUFFIUTAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING Mr. Robert Caron stated that he owns the 8 acres next door to the subject prope toy aWogdnoPROVAL' 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 a multi -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 UNOFFICIAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING atmosphere and would not want someone to put 4 or 5 dwelling units per acre ne;'tltltlY p r�PR VAL 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 a four -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 believe there may be some problem because he personally believes Indrio Road will become a four an commercial corridor eventually. He stated that they have the land use there that is appr hate and denying that could lead to litigation. 16 P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 22 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING Mr. Hearn stated that the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) zoning that is on the property APPROVAL 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 80X120 lot 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 UNWIGIAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL Mr. Grande tated that this is not an easy issue to discuss. He advised that he disagrees with the concept tha they are coming so we need to accommodate them by allowing higher densities or move furt west. He stated that he thinks that Martin County has set a fairly good example in terms no needing higher densities or development further west. He continued that if Martin County o s 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 unurrIWAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COR SSION APP 1JAL 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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO PLANNING .-& 7W.W9 AGENDA ITEM 7: DALE T. MOSHER — File No. RZ-03-024: COMMiSS116N A P R VA1 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 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 a single-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 UNOFFICIAL- . requesting the rezoning in case he wants greenhouses later rezoning in order to put the pots on the property. SUBJECT TO QL n' 'Na & Mr. Mosher stated that helne&d6d,the 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 du/acre) zoning you could have animals as an accessory use to a single-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 a single-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, 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 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 UNUMWAL. SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL 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% 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 $157 less 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 a five-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 UNOFFICIAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING �J&j ZONING Mr. Don Santos, Treasure Coast Builders Association, stated that $6,000,000 in iimpa S! feesAPPROVAI 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 unurriblHIL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL Mr. Grande made a motion to approve Staffs 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 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZON'NG AGENDA ITEM 9: FIRE / EMS IMPACT FEES — File No. ORD-03-024: COMMISSION APPROVAL 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 firetrescue 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/EMS 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 Staffs 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 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 10: LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES — File No. ORD-oSOIISSION APPROVAL" 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 UNOFFIC6AL.— SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING feels most of those capital costs are countywide costs and that those capital facilities aC eNHt ON APPROVAL 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 Staffs 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 UNOFFICIAL SUBaECT TO PLANNING & ZoggG AGENDA ITEM 11: FIREWORKS (FIRE PROTECTION) — File No. ORD-03-020cd�9iSS10iV APPROVAL 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 H (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 UNUFFICIAL- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING Mr. Grande stated that any buildings would need to have a sprinkler system. Mtr. ghan APPROVAL 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 staffs 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 buy 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 U1JU1 1 1W1r&16 SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING CoMfolISSiON APPROVAL 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 BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be July 17, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Diinn—Gilmore, Secretary P & Z / LPA Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 37 UNOFFICIAL. - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COANWIISSION APPBOyAj PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 7/17/03 File Number: RZ-03-027 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (Planning Division) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioner FROM: Planning Manager Qf)� DATE: July 10, 2003 SUBJECT: Withdrawal of the application of Eduardo Leal for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial Light) Zoning District. Upon reviewing the proposed rezoning application, it was determined that a petition by Robert and Jean Trenary requesting a change in zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural —1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial Light) Zoning District was for the same property. The rezoning petition was processed and subsequently approved by the Board of County Commissioners, via Resolution 02-303, on December 3, 2002. Based upon this information, the proposed rezoning application will not be processed and therefore the application is being withdrawn. The application fee is being returned. i L Planning and Zoning Commission, Review; 07/17/03 f File Number • R I D AMEM0RANDUM ; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: ' Development- Director, DATE:. July 1'01 2003 SUBJECT: Application of William D. Miller for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 .� {Residential; Single -Family 4 ' du/acre) Zoning:, District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple Family -- 9 du/acre) Zoning District: - LOCATION: West 1 side of South 25t' Street, approximately 700 feet south of Cortez 'Boulevard. - EXISTING ZONING-' _ RS=4 (Residential, Single -Family -- 4 du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING: RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 du/acre) FUTURE LAND USE: RM ,(Residential Medium) PARCEL SIZE; 7.34 acres / -PROPOSED-USE: Uses consistent with the RM-9 Zoning District PERMITTED USES. Attachment "A" ! Section 301.03(N) RM19 (Residential, Multiple -Family -- 9 du/acre) - containsthe . designated uses,, which are permitted , ,by right, permitted as an accessory, use,, or permitted through the conditional use process. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is _ required to undergo -further review and approvals. Any use not ' found within the zoning district . regulations are - designated as prohibited uses for that,district - SURROUNDING ZONING: RS4 (Residential, Single -Family 4 du/acre) to the west, north, and:east across South 25`" Street. RM9 Zonipg is, also `located to the ;east across South. 25t' Street: . (Institutional) and. PUD '(Planned Unit Development 4 Lake Forest) to the south. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property to the west is single-family residential. To the east is -single- July 10, 2003 Subject: Willliam D. Miller Page 2 RZ-03-020 family and multiple -family residential. There is an Adult Congregate Care Facility and an adult retirement community to the south. The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area is RU (Residential Urban) to the west and RM (Residential Medium to the east. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #1 (2400 Rhode Island Avenue), is located approximately 1 mile to the north. UTILITY SERVICE: Water and sewer facilities are in the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) service area. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for South 25'h Street in the area of the proposed rezoning is 80 feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and specifically has met the standards of 11.06.03. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; July 10, 2003 Subject: Willliam D. Miller Page 3 RZ-03-020 The proposed change in zoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and standards of this Code, the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.1.1 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes maximum residential densities for the RM (Residential Urban) Future Land Use Category as 9 dwelling units per 1 acre. The proposed rezoning is consistent with this policy. 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 uses in the area. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; There have not been changes that would require an amendment. The petitioned parcel has been designated with a Future Land Use Classification of RM (Residential Medium), which stipulates that the parcel may be developed up to 9 dwelling units per acre. The site is located within the Urban Service Boundary of St. Lucie County and has adequate water and sewer and roadway capacity available to service the project. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, Including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Any development will need to demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities in the area to support such development. Water and sewer services are available to the east of this site. Roadways in the area are not at capacity. 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. Pine trees are located through out the subject property. As a part of any proposed development of the site, a tree survey will be required to be provided indicating where trees are located. Any removal of these 'trees may require the applicant to mitigate for their removal. pl­ (( F t k tl t7 S Suggested motion to recommend approval/.denial of this req ue,�i4ophqh6e in zoning; , MOTION TO" APPROVE: AFTR CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRFSENTED,DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,: 77 - CL, INUDtNG";STAFF COMMENTS, AND .THE STANDARDS ,OF "REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST,." LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,, I HEREBY MOVE' i THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING" COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST: LUCIE COUNTY "BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS `GRANT "APPROVAL TO THE" APPLI""CATION .OF WfLOAM D. MILLER," FOR A. CHANGE" IN ZON{NG, FROM THE RS-4 " (RESItENTIAL, SfNGLI.=FAMILY" "- .4 .DU/ACME) " ZONING " 'DISTRICT "TO THI= (RESIDENTIAL, "MULTIPIrF-FAMILY'- 9,DU/ACRI=) ZONING DISTRICT,' BECAUSE'..,. " [(,;ITE REASONS] WHY -PLEASE BE' SPECJFIq " MOTION TO DENY: , AFTER CONSIDERING'"THB TESTIMONY PRE SENTED"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 t COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DENY THE'APPLICATION OF WILLIAM D. 'MILLER, FOR "A "CHANGE IN .ZONING FROM THE RS4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY -, 4 DU/AGRE)`ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RM-9 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE -FAMILY - 9 DIJ/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE ...' '[CITE REASONS] WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. :. AjYy . MO1 i A� Section 3-01 b ,$ Zoning District Use RegulaEibns i J,. IRS RESIQENTiAL. SINGLE-1=AMI�Y -'4 '\ 1RNIz� 1. Purpose N,� The. purpose ,of this district it, -,to. provide and protect an` environment' suitable for single famii dwetttngs at a max+murYt density of four,(4) dwelling units -per gross_acre, together with such other, -; uses as,may be necessary,for end compatiblewith iow dens y residential surroundings. The number in "O" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code `reference'described in :Section 3 01,02(B.). The number 999Fapplies'_to a.use not defined unifier the" SIC code but may be further ' definedan Section 2 0000 of this code: 2. ('ermitted Uses; a,1=amily_day Care homes t''m b: Family residential hofnes.provided that such homes shap:not be located within a radius of one thousand (1Q00} feetof another existing such family residential home and provided'that ! the sponsoring e9ency or Department of Health Gild Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies .. the Board of County Comrriissloners at the time of hortle occupancy that the home is licensed by.HRS, cssst - c: Single-family detached dwellings. ssss� 3. IS Requirements , Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04,00, 4. DIen§ional Regulations .- t Dimensionai requirements -shah be inaccvrdance with,Section 7a?4.00: 5. Off-street Parking Requirements Off-street•parkino requirements shall be.in accordance with Section 7.0600. 6. Conditional Uses; a - Farnity cesidential homes iOcated within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another such family residentalfiome. easel b. Telecommunication towers - subjectto the standards of Section 7.10.23 c9"i 7. Accessory Uses , Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section'8.00.00. Adopted August 1, 1990" 107 Revised Through 08/01/00 - 4.4in — z N SL O N CD p i O P Y� tovl�V` a G CLS o q Ni3tl'J � �S 1£ to W All— big? k" a 1 _ o ' � L� W ,,J may, t r"113t1n336 - 11QE v �i f .I...l. .. �iV'if1UT0—• j \t. _ � .._.�'- I ix Gt9 rr �� • p I t = � - �' 4 ;r x� 3S OY _ f OyZitAt3fki ou ; tjJ �1H5i7 -P -` - \ �i 'Mlyfri0nrt s, - GrOa AwvO W7{rl N 44 r a ftC xr SOHN tC anm, ` � atr7- �.. Croy 3•aw+x W -- -YW34r HOSyii3 O1 _ _ W Mu NO!Smw ON ' M Oroe NoiSwia' ... U� r3 c om tnyan -OrON ONrO7t00r - O1 . —� Z 0 i n xlwit]Oy8 Z I--! avow Nw5 O DON 300VUOyl LLJ� I . e I 7 OrOU lryr3 y30r3H cr_ ✓f l 3 Z_ Oy owv" W36 W i— �I N I tK M I $ OrOY 03316 -. Or°y W l Vrt3 K I Q I QI K-7 1rM] Z - / W A / i fop M S 6£ 1 S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 hdNnoo 3380HO33AO Mu NO!Smw ON ' M Oroe NoiSwia' ... U� r3 c om tnyan -OrON ONrO7t00r - O1 . —� Z 0 i n xlwit]Oy8 Z I--! avow Nw5 O DON 300VUOyl LLJ� I . e I 7 OrOU lryr3 y30r3H cr_ ✓f l 3 Z_ Oy owv" W36 W i— �I N I tK M I $ OrOY 03316 -. Or°y W l Vrt3 K I Q I QI K-7 1rM] Z - / W A / i fop M S 6£ 1 S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 hdNnoo 3380HO33AO A Petition of William D. Millier for a Change in Zoniing from the RS-4 (Residential, Single- Family-4duiacre) Zoning District to the R.M.-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family-5 du/acre) Zoning District. 1V 7 q. rs "0 7 p p 7 2 0 Q I 2 North Cortez Boulevord u N.S.L.R.D.D. ConolNo. 8 I 0 { I ( U I L N.S.L.R.D.D. Conol No. 8 5 1 IIJ 2 5 1 I J 2 I/ Q7 11 � !I V7 9 8 = 8 6 9 /5 6 15 00 p u _ L Cto p u /J 112 O n /0 L j O N -C 7 O N /S n AS J6 ,y > PF— 9 o /B /6 9 Z/ Pb r 2J H ?2 2C/ 24 Z ZZ V) N 20 ' 2J ILE 3Z 03-020 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce AS /5 u /J N J GIS Map prepared May 27, 2003 N1M My MxIIW Wn TW b p» N moMPrKa W CNM Mvmu'n Vintl�.�� MYtFJYO bLN tl � MiN( �W �� Zonin William D: Miller. �''� �•�F■�ir �0 00 iiA � © or or ez ou evord N.S.L.R.D.D. Conol No. 8 a 5 - J�21/ S1 PI, S� IJ P�/ IJI2I/ N _ � 6 U 6 ,J 7 7 ' r_ N 6 +9 N 6 9 6 --- Ya 6 �iP AS t0 11`� /2 I a _p ,. f /5 N a �+ 127 getziP2 Y/ Pp Po 14 N N Y/ PO PP PJ P2 rn bronvy N S . J P / +' L 7 0 6 /J N N N 8 /S r 00 —, rV Rz 03-020 This pattern This pattern indicates subject parcel indicates City of Ft. Pierce GIs =� Map prepared May 27, 2003 ,M ^MV M an b,Y.Yp WFp .w MM.n. gAYIP.P— dk. M/i MY M.Lft YiYI �YaC YW b PAYS f� nYr W*0 1bPY�Y NJInYIIa pYrtM. � Y mtWfor w Y Y lyy� d—� I -.Land Use William D. Miller 9 orth Cortez Boulevard RU N.S.LR.O.D. Canal No. 8 � 1 ' ( 1-1 113 21/ 51 15 tI/ ` f N _ 41 6 /S 6 IJ 1 7 11 N 6 g N 6 S d — d e 115 a cs 10 p _ t p u 1 re to q a - u'z /I X1 /7 — q Q 6 N z O N b n 16 — 18 nLzJ NEJ tt E'024 a(!� m20 Id I zz t► Canal No. I �!�! iiil �� irA iY fits • it!!!!1 � Q • Q /s v 21 0 9 O 3 N.S.L.R.W.M.D. Canal No. 9 26 V) 7 S 27 6 C M s 29 4 JO 3 .RZ 03-020 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce its -w Map prepared May 27.2003 m. map w ern mnp'Ma a o. 0—" — ni..n. Wa Y plwo M maMaut t in Y .oa.w N YP—M.•"� t--r•ko*w. v•OIL r - M oa lyl I d (vl 'sr . it tv r Il xr o0 0, ao GCSt ( l Et {r eh v e3Ttt 'trtr eJ �� � t� � c,� ; o ..� fr ; � � � Q+ `..- Q s� o l �e�i � �• ! � �n � cn i �+s� r+1 M 1 i�f c!} �M #li= eit -. '' � M 'M �• `�i ! � � � � ! j; � � �. ��. !. ! i 0' f+l M � � i M e'1 , ?✓1' � M M t'� E� � M ? ENV oO ONO t 00, 00 d\ 01 4o OO I , f rn iic"ir�,zw w:wiLww�wwwwwwwww, w ckw,w cr4w� c�., 18 ! oah yaaa,7s.aaA. a.wQ:;aa a:aa , N o 0 0 0 o a o 04 0 0` x o 0 0 0 0. "o 0 6 `o `�° ' cSv ` IL�, { u. cc,_ a o U U cd " " . 5, c" ,: «-1 � *o � b `v -a •v .� jvy.., o ;a !fi!r-. {mal.y.� N l4A A 90 x v e rn ae: o c� vi o� to rn Vn En mac' rNi r R� h r O o� AD �O oo +� p0 Cq �h [i� "Cl1 i17 CQ pq i L1q N 'X ; O 4N .N _?ACaxUvicn"vaU�?rCnvitnv�rnv�v�zn3333'33333 4 060 00 00 h Op .N.; 01 N ® '00 N N. tS N -N� N"N EV N .�° N ^'ti fV N p..,;N cV. N N N N 00 00; Q6'go 66 "oo w OQ op: coloO.Ob (4;91 _ v r Stj o d cl .03 C � V M do is , ,N EVINiN1N` . �r NE 1/4 t)� 5� f%4 p�' iecbrd ��ctir�esthe te�ti f �: ' SE :1/4 (7 34 �GI 'tt)ti m0fiy ' ae Cvidencel 534-05) upon w��ch the Appel is to be based. location West OT I South 25th rget,. ap PLANNING AND ZONI�fG r Iproximately sopfh_of Cortei Avenue COMMI$SION> SY L`UCIE GbUNT1; FLORIDA ` /S/ Sd MerrittCHAiR1 MAN PUBLISH; Juty 3, 2003 . 752 19. - r s lM J j {� ie IC f Planning and Zoning Gomrnlss�on Review: 07/1;7/03 " File Number RZ"b3 Q21 t Z1 �xk ;4r �.e s COUNTY MEMORAN VM �� ` :r� il ;. z DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i, ,OF �._ `I Ui Planning and Zoning Commission FROM. Development Director ,(} DATE: , " Jufy=10, 2003 ,. SUBJECT: Application" "of Eugene and, Leslie P. Duncan -.fora Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential; Single -Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the , RM'9 (Residential, Multiple -Family -- 9 du/acre.] Zoning District, LOCATIION: west side of South 25t" Street, approximately 700 .feet" south of°Cortez Boulevard. EXISTING ZONING RS-4 (Residential, Single=Family — 4 du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING: RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family -- 9 dulacre) FUTURELAND USE- RM`(Residential Medium) PARCEL SIZE: 1,25 acres` - PROPOSED USE: Uses consistent with the RM-9 Zoning District PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A" - Section 301.03(N)" RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family- 9 du/acre) -contains the 'designated , uses, which'.are permitted by, right, permitted as an accessory' use, or permitted' through the conditional.' use process. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further review and approvals. Any use not found within the zoning district " regulations are _ designated as,prohibited uses for that district SURROUNDING ZONING: R$=4 (Residential, Single -Family -- 4 du/acre) to the west, norhand east across South 2"' Street, RM- Zoning . is also located to the east across South 25t" Street. (Institutional) and PUD (Planned Unit Development —:Lake Forest) to the south. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property to the west is single-family residential To the 'east is single-;- Elf. s July 10, 2003 Subject Eugene and Lesije P Duncan Pa je 2 RZ 03 02, family and multiple family residential. ` There is an Adult{ Congregate Care Facility :` and ' an adult tetiremenrr community to the southlf f� The: Future Land Use: Classification of surrounding } 5{ .:the area is, RU (Residential U`r`ba%) to the' west and (Residential Medium to the `C ,as FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #1 (2400 Riode Island ' .Avenue), [s .located . , approximately 1 mile to the' nartfi. UTILITY'SERVICE; Water and .sewer facilities are .in the Fort pietce .Ufiities Authority (FPUA) service.area, TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS, t. RIGHT-OF-WAYt AbEQUACY: ` The'existirtg right�o-Way. .for South '25t' :Street in the area of the proposed rezoning is'.80 feet.. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None. 1 TYPE OF. CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED. Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. T 3 STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION '11.0603, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing his application for proposed rezoning, ' the Planning and zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: " 1. Whether the proposed rezoning, is in -,conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County. Land Development Code; The ,proposed zoning .district is, consistent with the St. Lucie County Land: Development Code and specifically has met the standards of 11.06.03. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; - } ' 0 y fl 1 July 10, 2003 Subject Eugene and Leslie P puncan ; 1k4`y f R Page _ RZ=03 021 ? kh, a i E 7: Whether the extent to the amendment would result in_``, and which proposed an orderly .and logical, development 'pattern specifcally tdentfy�ng `any negative a ectsi of such patterns, The proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical_ development. l pattern -for the long term -uses in the area ,The subject property :has a, future land } ,` use classification OUR Medium which allows? for the . RM49 Zoning ; -District and the uses associated with :this designation: The subject property Is 3 within the Urban 'service boundary of St Lucie County: There is amultiple-family development T hake Forest Park PUD'— to the south 'an also' across 25, Street to ,the east _ Surrey Woods. RM-9 Zoning' also located across South 25"' Street to;the 'east; -The general use and :zoning of the area to the southeast of the subject property is commercial office and is developed with professional' L Offices. 8.` Whether the proposed ' amendment would, be in conflict with the public interest, and`is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this IC The proposed amendment is not ,in'conflict with'ahe public ,interest and ;is in {t harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land 'Development Code. COMMENTS' , Y The petitioners, Eugene and Leslie P. Duncan, have requested this change in, zoning . from 'th$ :RS4_, (Residential; .Single Family -- 4 du/acre) Zoning Distr{c# to the RMy9 (Residential, th Multiple=Family -.9. du/acre) Zoning District or , property located} at the west aide. of South 25- Street; approximately 700 feet south of Cortez Avenue irj order to develop the property for multiple ;family uses up to 9 dwelling units per gross acre. There is =a multiple -family ` development Lake Forest Park PUD - to the south thatwas developed at 5 dwellings units tozx the'. acre.` Across 25`h 'Stmet to the east is another multiple -family project, Surrey Woods. Vacant RM-9 Zoning is also- located across South 25 ' Street to the east. The general use and " Zoning -of the area 16,the southeast of the subject, property, is commercial office and is developed with professional,: offices. The site is located with{n the Urban Service Boundary. of St. Lucie County and has adequate water .and sewer and roadway capacity available to service the project. As a part of any proposed development of the site,. a tree survey will be required to be ,provided indicating where trees are located. Any removal of these 'trees ; may require the applicant to mitigate for their removal. - Attached is a copy of Section 3:01.03(N) =- RM-9 (Residential, M iltiple .Family �- 9 du/acre), <bf the St: Lucie County Land Development Code, which delineates the pemtittetl, accessory, and conditional ` uses .allowed in 'this toning district; If a `change in zoning is approved, the applicant, by right,' would be, allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses section. Any use under the Accessory Uses section would be allowed ,only if one or more of the permitted uses exist on the subject property. Any use -under the Conditional Uses section .could only be allowed if it first receives approval through the Board of County Commissioners: Y� I `I Sugsted motion to •f`ecommend approval/denial of'th{ requested change m.zornng: r MOTION'TO APPROVE ter, ' t AFTER C0NSIDERING',THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED,. DURIN THE PU,BL{C HEARING, ; . INCL,UDIN:G STAFF COMMENTS, 'AND THE`STI�NDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN ;�S ' -�� _ ', .' .• +' rya - ,_ SECTION 9.1 06 03, 031 LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOP.MI NT CO.pE, f HEREBY MOVE � THAT 7Hf� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REC®{VlMEND THAT f 8 8T LUCIE' my COUNTY BO�ARb OF COUNTY CONMISSIONERS ' GRANT APPROVAL T'O THE ARPLICATION EUGENE'AND LESIIE i�: DUNCAN, FOR A; CHANCE IN ZONING "FROM 3. .`OF THE RS-4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE,FAMILY �.4 OU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RW.9 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLEwFAMifY .,. 9.DU/ACRE} 20NING DISTRICT, BECAUSEJtt - • r ( l } [CITE 'REASON[S];WHY '- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. MOTION TO DENY: =x J AFTER CfJNSiDERING THE TEST{MONY PRESENTED 'DURING THE' PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS` OF REVIEWAS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1 �:06 03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE i THAT THE PLANNING 'AND. ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUGIE COUNTY BOARD OF .COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE :APPLICATION' OF EUGENE a AND LE P. DUNCAN,;FOR A CHANGE {N ZONING PROM THE R84 ,(RESIDENTIAL, y - '.. SINGLE-FAMILY - 4 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RM4 {RESIDENTIAL, -. MULTIPLE -FAMILY 9 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE .... ;[CITE REASON[S] WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]'. C _ O p i�5�p'�5 3 I4�� `. Section,3.01., - Zoningbistrict Ilse"Regula4ons �. , � a RS-4 RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE-FAMILY:- 4 - rL fife; 1. Purposes #, The purpose of this district is jo 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 it "O" 'following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code. reference described in Section 3s01.02(B). The nurriber 999 applies,to a use not defined,.under the SIC code`but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. Permitted Uses a Family day car._e homes. ts9si b: Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousarid (1000) feet of $nother existing such:family residential home and provided that > >, the sponsoring agency or i7epartment of Health an0 A.6habilitative Services (HRS) notifies # the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed, by HRS', ts9si e. 'Single-family detached dwellings, ti 3. Lot Size Requirements. Lot size `requirements shall'be in accordance with.Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00, 5. Off-street Parking Requirements r Off-street parking requirements shall, be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. 6. Conditional Uses a. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another such .family residential home, tmi b.. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 7. Accessory Uses Accessoryuses',are subject to; the requirements of Section '8.00.00. Adopted August VI 107 Revised Through 08/01/00 NOW Section 3.01 03 u Zoning, istrict Uso,Regulat+ons N ; ; RM 9 RE$IDE-NTiAL MULtipLEwFAMILY ` 1 Purpose ..'f The purpose.. of this district is to provide and protect an�environment ,suitable for single-family, . two-family, three farnilp, and,multiple=:family dwellings at a rrlaicimum density of nine (9):dwelling units'' t ;per gross acre, ;together with s4ch other uses: as rriay be necessary for and compatible with low andF medium :density residential surroundings The number Ili "(j~ following each Identified use r corre;sponds.to,the SIC co, e.referenco described in'Set;tior 3�01 Q2(B) The number 999 applies"to v F, a usemt defined under. th$ SIC code but i>lay be further clef f M Section` z00.Oq of this code. s r 2. Permitted Uses a. CQmmuntty,res_icjei tial homes subjectto the provisions of-Section710.07 of this Code. (seal b. ` Family.,day care homes. '(ess) r c. Family residential hates provided that such horiies ,shal{'not; be located within'a radius Qne.thoUsand {1,000):feet of another existing sua;ti"family, resident%hl home:and provided that the sponsoring agency or the t)epartment:af Health and Rehabilitative Service's _(HRS) notifies the Board of.�ounty,igmmissiQneTs at the ;tinhe of home occupancy. that the home is; lidensed.by HRS. to* d. , Multiple=fam, ly dwellings {3 'or more units) ti e. Single=family detached dwellings, f: Two-family dwellings. tsss> 1 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04,1 0 ' x 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall -be in accordance with Section 7:04.00. 5. Oit ttreet Parking Requirements Off=street!parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06:00, 6. Landscaping Requirements - Landscaping requirements shall be In accordance with "Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses - a. Family residential homes Located within a radius of one thousand (1;000) feet of another such - family residential home. [seal ,, b. Telecorr mt�ttication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23% (ow 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, Adopted August 1, 1990 111 Revised Through 08/01/00 U N .o�. of x Op ~ -I•'�N ' j� v y � 6 %0W" `�.J �yN LL d a t i� N a � p VJAW Yi3tlo ^`��L .o w W _ w#rl{y,0j gs � _.•.�eEN� i c � �" ■b. �i � - 7AV"S716Ii7_"•` ` ` ,� SJOu-- v St9 ' — S •• N' oa ,yY, �Cutiu73S vua�4r TWAT 4OStl3vt7-" J W Ovoij Q yy.. M f U OrOtl MO15Ngt' �,�,� r1f Ot oi0tl otlN171B0y... 0 Ovate M.". •�—.•� OVO�n Z a L p Yt�K Q0l19 0 ! , n � I I orotl MNer. i I orOtl 7o0RJBY0tlt CC I oyod TMro tl OOK j1s5 oY Oa0_ 'WI w M "I 1 orotl 0m ¢ 1 c( I K-] Mq'J i Z - W M 6 3 z . oron 3+l 7�Yrtl W z � n 4 _ CLOY tql Wro - � W W / � n / � o: S 11£ 1 S 5£ 1 S 9£ 1 kLNf1OO 338OHO33/iO A Petition of Eugene & Leslie Duncan for a Change in Zoniing from the RS-4 (Residential, Single Family-4dL✓acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family-5 du%cre) Zoning District. 'o .9 d 9 d I I Q � I � North Cortez Boulevard 0 N.S.L.R.D.D. Conol No. 8 I a N.S.L.R.D.D. Conol No. 8 5 N N .�+ (n J Y / 5` J I t I 5I YI/ 51 I! YI/ I I N v V) IJ _ /! N _6 T 6 7 9 d 9 d q r — �— p d' -- L .0 N 0 r _gyp O N IS q IS O O V) b A O' V) M 9 N 2! ?2 tD Ell Y2 tJ »- Brontly Rood rn N 5♦ T.M. / N 5 z N 30 6 15 N 6 V) , „ r - N 03-021 ]This pattern indicates subject parcel 1 This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce a /3 H /J IZ r v O J p O O 9 O 3 d N C n 6. 5 t J Map prepared May 27.2003 h.� b,9...,a...n.� 5Mb rr rm nr Ors m.a. n psk} M �ewwrR+w .00.r Mo'nybt poupY,�Y /p YYtltl 4.M r � IyYy CiWp 4NIrl 1 Zoning Eugene & Leslie Duncan p p 10 7 p p 7 2 9 8 9 g 9 d 9 d 9-m- /� ( / Q North Cortez Boulevard `.'�` N.S.L.R.O.C. Conal No. 8 va L Rz S J 2 / 5I JI2 / ( SI IJ 2I/ SI IJ 21/ i w � ..�.. 7 614 6 /J — 6 — 7— /! /f _6 9 8 Y 8 e 'Q rs e -- � a — N p _n p o N O l5 N z O N /S A /6 /8 6 — 19 n AS g 27 2J 22 2I (/1 N ?J Zo P2 p� 22 LJ bronvy Flood N S I ! 2 / 5 r r 7 � 6 /J N 6 fn 7 N T 00 N 03-021 This pattern indicates subject parcel 1 This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce G{S. Map prepared May 27, 2003 mY mn �r. a1n aoncwa a pn.rrpw�.p .,a ,A.ww ww«. a+a N N1M M'y Wlht bn orb b Vab• M �bMalrytll Dili �a0u�b fbnWbn yOYOY,�Y MYi�O brYM Y � YpYy OYMp CewwL Eugene & Leslie Duncan q7 q q 7 Y _ 1 IT 0 .9 9 0 / Q RU � North ortez Boulevard o R.D.D. Canal No. 88 �� _. I_ I I I I I I f I I I I 1 1 1 N.S.L.R.D.D. Canal No. 8 Brontly Rood In WMAIMEM N.S.L.R.W.M.D. Canal No. 9 RZ 03-021 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce Y J ,0 0 �0 0� 0 0 GIs, Map prepared May 27, 2003 x++. «.y 11b1Yr an � o OVA•"~o W.oa+r hbmrlbn pnW�. �Y -N..o d b w r • Yy/ ft-q O--- it•.� 1` � � � rwl�°;t•i � s a * +"r c'j} v� s�':�:' i'+t :� a r c r ,• a-•J 1 -- { '� ��'t t i` t /( 1 a,,,r +. i ..fir t M �� � _M ra�n�r- r rrs � ►+-. n,y itfu 6..7�a{' � �'�-.L r,;?; .4,�{;O �.µ � 4 �Z'"'yla �x ."t'l •• , j x� �,-"<W�/rFi►�1�`1`�t.1� i y„ C t�.«- 4+1+-na..r"L.Y.•air2 ..I',ar"i"t'':YlGr -- - _ ,, vaaa �..� ^� i,t�ro at�,l t.'t/i.'r'f -lk �'M/+•��r Y ' fv '.i "e'SY W t"•''+�ta..,;:7a��t �'�L� +, { s� �,{..w< � ` _ �,,�i. � -; v c - lu,• : •'•r =:rr .sir-�. .r �r-a^+^r. r• sr -...tea - 'e• tw : - ,ai..r..:', s Y L�V� fls .; .4 C ,; • l_a� •,yyd��` _. t�S.J•iu'h"IbAs�y F ��}i,l't-¢.� i-•�f i� -ar. - t;��jru oar i+ •_ � i tay � ,f ► b>! -M, "4 � I �' S -%- � � z, t � t c,,ll �. �. 1 , K, i. 'tr• � 4 4��' � I - ar r� j( t• ���,,,,,,,,,,,,t'vr + d _ c 1111 {' � St t fit•' tad �, +r t >a'a"�{�yb. N3- .a.+ �. .;.z•x -. p it ?r- .SURiW L.r.� t. L'Ksr� � S 1{ ;! �l i•.. l 1 � if CJE'l -J / - ,; r • � ` � I f : 1 '' J t' b (- { 3.t-fin b tM `tea . J: r,-Y�r -. C J � ✓ °�{ i �j'�w� a .r'yv�'r l t � `. if �U �� t� 1 � ..fit Y ���' � 4'ti hlL:-. {��,� .,a ` •1 1 �V -4r � j � � ,,:s -� i4 �`�hS5�`. L t _ i• ��� �' �JiEr"'l,�` WY �� {�� �i' !1: `.. t .1! .�''�.. .b 'A ` 1f,�2�. �•Jrt' L 6t =�`,• _. Mky{ t+ �3 1 A r _ . � '` ii.w`t t 1.�?� x "a- ' +rJ'�� t i a,.'G.,. > F^ � ^�a� uvyi r ti+-} -;}•, i -' <�._�: f .- raS5iJ t.raR � b...uf��N�x �r �. (. .}sr.h n i��1.1 f V ai`� Y ® h �• a:7 .. ���j�'jt'� �r+j n. �r s�,r-�f) idit ��t dam. �+.i����� �P�' a� 11.U4 � 1.1 �c. a� r t• s.�Ei�; �`i` �\ •�i�����E t .L ;,o-: tyy ryv -}•t fit, � ; t � • ' ` .,g � {yY}`'liH. sty ter' •� ��il� n���' �� !`n �e � .3�'���"vf < J �� �'� �+- ����t"' ,� u ��� ��y +, r v:1 ',�r� - �' �`� •� • �� -A >' � r,¢ Fy - �C� S ✓ �r:--i .�y' ! F !. r...r .�`a..>� r3, ti r� �•'C� • � �' �l �'''� i..• .S� !!f r 3, ,t 'R i JE:r:. „ :,:tbsl�f,l��`,,;i, i. �6 `,`:' ''ram '� �� �� •y�9. 9 �� � �� �.. r r 2 sti .N s ." ..•'4 ._ 3 ,& .ti Ktir/�t r w � /[ .� .i y.. F 4,, .r` F ls''+ �i `,0, y��i€`r) .� - ti "Y 'k,-- i. .7 � I (PYsi�h. � tt i�122E19'W�Iroaaa lFa %�� ■ i ; '4 t, \' r41 +�r`� � ! Vt K 14.- K� �+j..J,i �� r, � � l�' r pit � E (..�t � •-; � r�` 41' `s �t i@�"� +�?' �a! F� �. �� o ,> 7�' .1, �' -L.: Lk8,�. �� �.anJ%,t c•. wl L+ Y-h, • �. ` r � ` { .e �cL yo-r� apyp^ �, } •+•<�. �hh.�.l.ia rF� �„3 i� f �.,.� K�.is u- tea.;����r�tr%.t; r{..��' �t, c ." ����. .�_ry,• � v-,��t,�l lr °s r� ��z`�. • It6; Ty" F.'! L._stT",, ��� :.:. u �-1...,a,.� :�.'%K J �'�o,:at��,� 3�; �G•' �;�a��.�af' �T., �� v1 Ir. �>i.+ •q3 . �-� F ,v.. L �i yy,,,,,, d t w t C _ �: Sa,•c� � � •�,r ✓". � � 'V if 3 L��ia° -y a � p: 4t; ! .. � -���' i�--� t�t'�`�:3 ✓�� .7 `�, k f 1-y`ns• s'y' �,,'��'9'yt Y eY 7 B ,�j� �a ��� v.. t t..,�_y:.yd. -: t'31s:m4'd c• . Yi;. ,..rj �`s:'if`• +tE�.'•'4ya,{,},• ['i 1►'z 1 V ,1 u1IFF' , '? :ice "" ' 6" r ��y�r��E1�f• P�.6� .e �*w ,: c.'�, �� .r'� ,,r w`'r. FF• , : a!`3t .,ate - ¢_. - f�1y , Ci rll {��'. ♦ c t(" J �.,. - SS - i vwy •4-JPh ` s1i -o •3' a. i . •�-�•'"t d+.. a our �.,�c 7art �t F, Jtwe a �"LFF 1 Y^ to �.�1p� l� �t! /� 7.T/7iAi✓•�-?h +ah.. rt t .!w i+. �. i hR w 'L- ��. q-'• 's,r f t"t� ...�. F.n rj� .. �% � t ^ r ro. � , S.. r• s Y :.ro } .� w • s o� F 'k° ' v t. _x: � ,a. i �t-C r Nr '� �W ��t _ W. � '+� �`%r"''rti •� ti'T �C• kf �} �� �L F'r .J `� >,l u�, t� � k,C aF' ,j [ Fr, CY at�r r .>' i'-`� ,'F � >'ca,{�Cswh • u`3'•s, ;r,>1 I �'(, R ���.J�rS �� �4• •'" `Z.. } X. ', s:,, `F�, g rl ��4 �� dot `��js >.,' a.,., . `�ii �*►• y1'i,7 � �ti� M•' llr ,":y i•i-.+:ci.- YY•�,�n.xtist 1 n e ••>_.�"_lad.IC.+� `ylOy"_iS`laAir�4._'�.h�"", FZy, "`r�' '+r��G: `�awi •ti'.:. vil, 3 �t� • � a�1�F�� A { hUa { �"`•�. ;T� •,.� ter`" � � °. 3t-:'� � � ; ; �J �: '>� y,�yv,,, Y+_.,.__ +��' _ t_ ' r Ita. A .,K e-1 __' a�fa n •fa �it:�Y' .r 'taF�Jn7�tit o� �-• a-0 � t �a� Itee' - __� _ t - ,'.,.,1 �, � -- n�., ft �t%.'�� .I.L { - •�e t u�'"G+ w � { >•ftr'a a'� ' ,�� j:'x;' �? 7 fe: a �� �`1 t x�tf't 51 d. 'w'..b' M t� R ~ • �_ fit} � I •! �h J�,� {y4G wt,,a,� 5as_` }it, .. 4 +'l 'y L• �,t�, T-'1 3 �3 1.. �.iL� •b ,d v{. A v� L �l [t y id.. •a ' �..' � 1 ,l J I51 a S Y 7 ti �§ i-- •i V- a au-waa`cq*�iw.... _ �• .,.w .:r jt"`�"h.,� 1Yi: J �1 d.i t ~5 �U r� , rwi�S' t: u, PJ�'1,-y.�b: i ���� n7'9 ) d' .3`" � �•• �1 fJ .lx !, {t$ •'t1� �,Y-SS } a`"'Fi,,�• rJ!" :MI� '� r ''� F �a.i 'Ln s i 2 iw k. t �J �3 /a a r �• {a• � rF_:, y4..+6 11rl.i ..;+terr-n`3�!lY.�f7F' �' _ i � ,_ ♦ _ •fl m raid' �r fit* °`s'�r f K - 11 . � F r d � ..'� rr ®7� do � ..q� C Vrt�°���j'y 6-.v�.,.a..,Y t � 4�, �' f, �tr=y,���('•T � �K=«'� �i b- 5�¢... �°"'�•arZf'YL.>.... k -.,a ,h..1 T--�"'`''.1^r7..g'31.F"a3►I.a.sl+�v% Lu.`.0 at;��.�4� ,�R3F�'+�5�'tY� 'a•( F t�":"_, dtp'�/_'M `-._.$•. ;'r'e'°.ta�,Ye-T f. fair• t M"�11a < 7 ,p`ti'a o al•d'S'i �` '• E, *. `�`'{�`�C'g,.,�.n „r. �?SN �J 9'�'+`i•l,. �'�a�'.d� ^�s*^M ?'t`rct,�i" _ ♦ P `h.. t'}t dal ��� j. -2., " .,hat.mrt. :5.•ni ':,, °r X: � t.,�._� �`,`�'�t �•st � ��.: z.` �i��xe ti ) { ���M� � k.:ti ` � r.. < u'•, .�i� �,•',b 4�� � yS - r � r� b�+sl 1P .�� .1.. ria+ ] �7�'•-< aL a � is '4." .,.., �^:.j y„��'�. x, w � � -1 t�• $ _' i _: � y<'tSAX � t ryt�*�.s s�„� j� �l -`. r'1 .Y. x'�'+ �.,} ?�"y.'1' " � ''�z w., i'�ls...:.:r »� t'c `� .• 3� ; SAX � a..c M,J`. ti i ! t'i .r {; w� � r'it�'t, {�-s k~.�i^ .� -� r .jt �� ".• ��'y A.� y al 1 F t y # ,t - - a .,r 5`4 �_,, +..� ft .-t !_ °' '� y ,;�•t;g+��'�.aw- "f�: T; f 7U" �' ^� 7 �, ( �= • Vrt's .t6 ,> 1 n ,X �i i{y�R^e 6wrvra,at .;p-.?'. l ,re t. �,v f .•.�ii}..1'-�i {na J tJ '1 t �"..�b�e.?� i•. }� „�'a(� •• ;j C� - �`_1 '.i { t{••�,-. t �':. •� 4;,1�� . � kmb ��lti.r,- i• ��., ..... -_: �..r... �..:1 t•„_''i��t fi. _ is > . { �r.r- a , Or \O i o% N N M M M M N e2' GT '7 00! OB I �h - jN N' O N tV N�VI I Q\ (T O ^ ��}}•• '''jjj7�� 00 N�NI�O M �D� IoOiv�•Ml•� M'd O��{oof ct,�O+oo.a0!ooi N O O�Q p o0 "o, ON: O\ OiM:.+ O d rf jl°�fQ�iM O N h \pi0, O' O rA O' O,iO,J O O O O� Q\ O 01 h %n _ '7 [h : b r 00 �O M M �P '�t �O h 'R 'U' �O r �O '7 '�i '�t W �O lj N N M M r N,N �lMIM!MiM N' �;N ''MrM N M M M,.� i.: iM N N i, 00'00 00�00:00�00, -00 OO•.V' 00 00� :00,00• •00.00j00'00• io0 00� 00 !. I.0. 0\ d ON 0\.C\ ch: O�'O� 0\ O� 0\ •O� •0�'0�-Q��O�! iQ\}�� 01 a1 N• M M M M'M M M M M M M M M It M'M M M M!cn.. M Mi N aa...�aaaaaa:aaa..�aaaaaaaa...�aa..�•a.a�..aa;,.��...z„a�a'..a� v� wc,..wwwwwwwwwwwu.wwwwc�..wwwwww.ww:r�.w�w!w;wc�.jw; M i cv w 0" u" " 0 0 a, n� " u" u u u u u u b u u h"i a� 3 3 u u a`i a) .� ; ! ui i ., a aaa,aa a a a t_aaaaaaa;a aan,a.a c.aa. aaa;aa' N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 M °' °' 0 0 0 0 0 0 V. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o o' 0; o o U wwwwwwww:�awriwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.>w.w;w!w;w: m 0 o u r >> ca R 3 u 3 .n R m R R' C' 3 u t4 as v En ai aR, —°.-' 4 o Y a a o rn 0 Y ¢ 0 3 0 0 0 .5 - U 4Vi s o 00 00 0 00 H CII).0 N M M t� X V] N N f3 (n C/! V} i N N �. N- ±� F` L �U�¢mC/�C/1hhm�Q0umfn,Oo33U�Uaaca���rU� wIm V M O h et' Vl N oo w M Q• d' O h o _M O M M M \_O to h M N V) - N: r/'�; N M' .0 N O O -- OO O -- N D -O O h O \O M O N O O OO 0=0;OrO,N!Mi O �t 'I op th O O� a0 M M o0 00 h �O N DO DD (— 00 oD ao 00 h h : h ' N : M + Q h N N N N ON N N.. NCl. N,N N N N N M N N-N N N NN,^':NNrNi00; t v E N a 3 z co U N O �p co 0 ;mow b u u � � u U L' V Q N Qr • Cl M O � fv" T V L wca y N 3 12 N .D O c3a is N y y o 0R0 u 0 P. T.. V L C > .D O b0 G s v E� a R z at w" O of ca cV C O cV toO K 0 co mm ° m UU UU U a cacaAoo v u c � o � w Cl E ° N Z w m o � �.� 0 RSV] W yai LCN]�N mNE a•dv ¢ t*.y VOA GO:.. C O VcV M z O3N ~U 3. R d O t�0 ,x=Ui m�7u. �4 L CL r N; > C �j L `� O yO, . ► , 0 Q GL >> A R rn R O 0 O G L ..i t. C o �' O ORO R R R y y A y u }. 0:'y0: 'b N; �, R ti p �i �i �, rn o 3 3 d .. ° v o c R co N, o Q Oi E rn O v ►- C 0 7 y y E¢ M Eq R z 0 rV R .�. 3�,0H�'Ala,cd.. R R C) O O F. �.. 0 c~a .c O ¢<commmmimmmoommUUUUUUUULIA0:0Q0:Q&W.wwio: tv. p 4+ pppp php 0\ N M 0% N 00 %O et �D �O O N 00 �O O i ^ i�py• O O O O O S O O O S S O S 0 0 0 S S S S S O O S S S S O: SS;SOi O O S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O'O. .O'O.OIC p O S O O O O O O O O d a p O_ O p 0 0 S S_ S S S_ S O S O S S_ S S S O S S S S S S' S S S S 0 101 0' E by t p Q _S t N \O �o N N N �O %O �O. N N �D �O N N 10 \O \O N N N- N -et: M N, N \O ! N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 O,O O O N O O O O O O.O e� Oi0'OiO 00 Ch 00 00 h w 00 00 00 h 100 R r,,. M h h 00 00 00 !�• h h m w 00 w h h w M h h 00 00 1 O•- '•- O O -- O O O -- 0 0 0 0 �- -- O -- -- -• 0 0 O. O O. 0. O' O r- d R NV V � N7 It NV Itt � 'NQ' Nt NV � �' V NV dN• VN' g t v NV `Na' v (14 v •�t 'N7' v NV ' � ' � -4 Q E" N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N nr nr ST. LUCIE COUNTY ' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA July 17, 2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CON- CERN: NOTICE is heretly given in accordance with Sec- tion 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land De- velopment Code and the provisions of the St. Lu- cie County Comprehen- sive Plan, the following applicants have request- ed that the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Co on consider their following requests: 13REASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a sec- ond air curtain incinerat- or within the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property: SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 35S RANGE 38 E THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH- WEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUN- TY, FL Location: South side of Orange Avenue Exten- sion, approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed Road. 2.WILLIAM_ D. MILLER, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Reside- ntial, Single -Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District for the following de- scribed property: 20 35 40 SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4=LESS N 235 FT OF W 460 FT AND LESS E 40 FT -AND W 161,80 FT OF N269.44 F1 OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 (7.34 AC) (OR 534-505) Location:West side of South 25th Street, ap- proximately 750 feet south of Cortez Avenue. 3.EUGENE AND :LESUE DUNCAN, for' a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single - Family - 4 du/acre) ,Zon- ing District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple - Family - 9 du/acre) Zon- ing District for the fol- lowing described prop- erty: 20 35 40 N 225 FT OF W 242.50 FT OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 (1.25 AC) (OR 269-1999) Location:West side South 25th Street, proximately .750 fl south of Cortez Avenue. 4.CORA B. LAMBERT, for a Change in Zoning from the RSA (Reside- ntial, Single -Family - 4 dulacre) Zoning District to 'the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family 9 du/acre) Zoning District for the following de- scribed property: 20 35 40 BEG 242.5 FT E' OF NW CDR OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4, TH RUN E 217.5 FT, TH S' 235 FT, TH W 435 FT, TH N 10 FT, TH E 217.5 FT, TH N 225 FT TO POB (72) 0.23 AC) (OR 222- 1441: 1069-1725) Location:West side of South 25th Street, ap- proximately 750 feet south of Cortez Avenue. PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held in Commission Chambers, Roger Poi- tras Annex, 2300 Virgin- ia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on July 17, 2003, beginning at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Stat- utes, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by a board, agen- cy, or commission with respect to any matter considered at a meeting'. or hearing, he wilt need -a record`of-the proceed- ings; and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testi-t mony and evidence! upon which the appeal is to be based. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Ed Merritt, CHAIR- MAN PUBLISH: July 3, 2003 199752 Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 07/17/03 File Number RZ-03-022 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Development Director QK_ DATE: July 10, 2003 SUBJECT: Application of Cora Lambert for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family — 9 du/acre) Zoning District. LOCATION: West side of South 25th Street, approximately 700 feet south of Cortez Boulevard. EXISTING ZONING: RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING: RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family — 9 du/acre) FUTURE LAND USE: RM (Residential Medium) PARCEL SIZE: 1.21 acres PROPOSED USE: Uses consistent with the RM-9 Zoning District PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A" - Section 3.01.03(N) RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family — 9 du/acre) - contains the designated uses, which are permitted by right, permitted as an accessory use, or permitted through the conditional use process. Any use designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo further review and approvals. Any use not found within the zoning district regulations are designated as prohibited uses for that district SURROUNDING ZONING: RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/acre) to the west, north, and east across South 25th Street. RM-9 Zoning is also located to the east across South 25th Street. I (Institutional) and PUD (Planned Unit Development — Lake Forest) to the south. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property to the west is single-family residential. To the east is single- t�r July 10; 2003 Subject: Cora Lambert Page 2 i. RZ-03.-022 =` - family and multiple -family residential. There is an Adult Congregate Care Facility 'and an adult retirement a<. community to the south. The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area is 'RU (Residential Urban) 'to the west and RM (Residential Medium to the east. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #1 (2400 Rhode Island Avenue), is located approximately 1 mile to the north. UTILITY -SERVICE: Water and sewer facilities are in the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) service area. TRANSPORTATION 'IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: ` The existing right-of-way for -South 251h Street in the area of the proposed rezoning is 80 feet. \ SCHEDULED: IMPROVEMENTS: , None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this . application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the; proposed rezoning is. in. conflict with any applicable portions Of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and specifically has met the standards of 11.06:03. 2. Whether the:proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; July .10, 2003 Subject: Cora Lambert Page 3 RM3-022 The proposed change in zoning is consistent with the','goals objectives, and. standards of this Code, the St. Lucie County°Comprehensive Plan, and the Code' . and'Compiled Laws of St Lucie County. Policy 1.1.1.1 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes maximum . residential densities for the RM`(Residential Urban) Future Land Use Category as 9 dwelling units per 1 acre. The ,proposed rezoning is consistent with this policy.; 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; J The -proposed zoning is.consistent with the future proposed uses in the area. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; There have not been.changes that would require an amendment. The petitioned parcel has been designated with a, Future Land Use Classification of RM (Residential Medium), which stipulates that the parcel may be developed up to 9 dwelling units per acre. The site is -located within the Urban Service Boundary of St. Lucie County and has adequate. -water and sewer and roadway capacity available to service the project. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on, public facilities,: and. whether or to the extent to which. the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical lacilities; The intended use for -this rezoning is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Any development- will need to demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities in the area to support such development. Water and sewer services are available to the east of this site. Roadways in the area are not at capacity. 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. Pine treesarelocated through out the subject property. As a part of any, proposed development of the site, a ' tree survey will be required to be provided indicating, where trees are located. Any removal of these trees may require the applicant to mitigate for their removal. i R�tY i`YK t I: i V - .. July1d,.2003" Subject: Cora Lambert \'" R k f5 � k 5 _ Page 4 RZ-03=022 hl sk iRll t : Whetheandhow7thich the proposed amendmentwould result in , an order) and logical development atkern sped ficall identi m an Y 9� , P PY fY� g Y 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 Medium which allows for the RM=9 Zoning District and the uses associated with this designation.. The subject property is within the urban service boundary of St Lucie County. There is a multiple -family development - Lake Forest Park PUD -- to the south and also across 25'n Street - to the east - Surrey Woods.. RM-9 -Zoning is also located across South 25'n Street to the east. The "general use and'"zoning of'the area to the southeast of the subject property is commercial office "and is developed With professional offices. 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, Cora Lambert, has requested this change in zoning from the RS4 (Residential, Single-Famiy - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-(' (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9` 6/6cre) Zoning District . on ;property, located at the west side of South 251, Street, approximately 700; feet south of Cortez Boulevard in order ;to develop the property for multiple family uses up to 9 dwelling units per gross acre. There is .a multiple -family development - Lake " Forest Park PUD - to the south that was developed at 5 dwellings units to the acre. Across'25'n Street to the east is another multiple -family project, Surrey Woods. Vacant RM=9 Zoning is also located across South 25'n Street to the east. The general use and zoning of the area to the southeastof the subject property is commercial "office and is developed with professional offices. The site "is located within the Urban. Service Boundary of St. Lucie County and 1has adequate water and sewer and roadway capacity available to service the project.; As, a, part, of any proposed development of the,site, "a tree survey will be required to be provided "indicating , where trees- are located. Any removal of these trees may require the applicant to mitigate for their removal. Attached is a copy of Section 3.01.03(N) ..- RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 duLacre), ""of the St. Lucie County Land'Development Code, which delineates the pemltted, accessory,. and conditional uses allowed in this zoning district. If a change in 'zoning is approved, the applicant, by right, would be allowed to establish any of the uses under the Permitted Uses`,section. Any use under the Accessory Uses.section would be allowed only if one 'or more of the permitted uses exist on the subject property. Any use under the Conditional Uses section could only be allowed if it first receives approval through. the Board of County , Commissioners: 4 1 i Suggested motion to recorntnend approval/denial of this requested change in zornng . . k S#k t 451 MOTION TO APPROVE. J { AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING; n tr 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..:CRANT- APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF CORA ' LAMBERT, FOR A CHANGE, IN ZONING FROM THE ;RS=4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 4 DU/ACRE) ZONING. DISTRICT TO THE RM�9 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE -FAMILY 9 DU/ACRE) ZONING ;DISTRICT, -BECAUSE ,... [CITE REASON[S] WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC). MOTION TO_DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC 'HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11:06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE .` COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF CORA LAMBERT, FOR A CHANGE]N ZONING FROM THE RS-4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 4 DUTACRE) .ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RM-9 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE -FAMILY - 9 DUlACRE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE.... [CITE REASON[S] WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations l 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(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Family day care homes. (999) 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. (999) C. Single-family detached dwellings. (999) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking 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 (1000) feet of another such family residential home. (999) b. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 7. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00. L Adopted August 1, 1990 107 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations N. RM-9 RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE -FAMILY 9 Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-family, two-family, three- family, and multiple -family dwellings at a maximum density of nine (9) dwelling units per gross acre, together with such other uses as may be necessary for and compatible with low and medium density residential surroundings. The number in "()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Community residential homes subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.07 of this Code. (999) b. Family day care homes. t999i C. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by HRS. (999) d. Multiple -family dwellings (3 or more units) (m) e. Single-family detached dwellings. (999) f. Two-family dwellings. (999) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking, Requirements Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such family residential home. (ase) 11 b. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00. Adopted August 1, 1990 111 Revised Through 0&01/00 -+.M+-- Z I Z 0 U A Petition of Cora B. Lambert for a Change in Zoniing from the RS-4 (Residential, Single- Family-4du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family-5 duiacre) Zonin District. 7 q J, q 7 P Q? 9 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 g g I Q / I 2 North Cortez Boulevord 'U o N.S.L.R.O.D. Conol No. 8 CL 5 J I 1,I/ 5' JIY / 15I .IJ YI/ 5I IJ YI/ I y R -� 4 7 7 N 6 9 N 6 9 e __ a 9 /s e K � n 6 — n .�.+ m p a u 9/Y —�a a — — � N > O N 15 — n K /6 9 u > /i— / rg 9 a 4 +6 —y r6 9 S ib 1 N YS YY ZO 24Z Y2 d W 0 8 Ye _ IZ YS Y2 2J RZ 03-022-�.. This i pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared May 27.2003 I� This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce DO-w N x�r. «w wnw an n+.a. a aro.� er mu a...n.na .owr Wa"M"Wb*I b M"M*A OX ..%DW Chit' O»nrl Zoning Cora.,-B. Lambert p 7 q —' q r q q r 2 ///��� Q /, � I North Cortez Boulevard `-t' I v f v N.S.L.R.D.D. Conol No. 8 d T PEA N �/ I 6 /J — 6 —r—^ !J II V) 6 9!5 8 — 2/5 r q Y —p n to A 3 O N L 3O a IS A Ili q 9 a ! i0 16 D " a A7 x 2J 22 217 P4 N V, 8 zo i2 PJ � 2J 03-022-,�„- This tern Cates at indicates G's p d subject parcel Map prepared May 27, 2003 This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce mw «./ rwiw e..n mw a aua. n mo.onw+re rwr. N Land Use Cora. B. Lambert q rti 7 a 7 a q 7 ? v 9 a a 9 s s y a North Cortez Boulevard Q o N.S.L.R.D.D. Conoi No. 8 RU N.S.L.R.D.D. Conal No. 8 /s ai N .`. N L ? 1/ N N N p N 6 IJ _ 6 U 64—L, 9 a 9/s a �rs 10 r _ L to a n a N a 9 /? -C j O r 7 O a 15 — n_ 14 r9 9 — re 9 v i8 _a 9 q Po r 2J 2Y 2b 21 22 (A N g Yo P2 2J Y2 2 .- Brontly Rood 0 N 5 f J 2/ F MCC r �, p 6 W 7 /J N ` N 5 rJ 00 N U n p ,Z o/z19— 0 2� 2J q go ?f ? f2 Po N.S.L.R.W.M.D. Conoi No. 9 C M 03-022 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates City of Ft. Pierce 2 J G 5 ,7 ,6 /a ,5 a y EV rJ 2< 1z 2? p C 23 J p p N p 9 O Y5 ; a a� r 26 to 7 ?7 6 2a 5 29 f JO J Map prepared May 27, 2003 Mti wrY Mut11W OM'1 IIrF' b P�>• M IIg11NM Yb 1>LM. �iVm/lo'i poME4 � Y rcl tYtlq br W r . bGr/ Ot4p COvnyL 1-31 1 ilk- V c SNOOK, -or. 4-ri "'N 'rrrL AL. gk� � ri.114 a`.,MAI Tj jz; 'lop i.7 WWt Wall INIQlte, ro" L2. 4-_711-1 t.Ai vi- IR XX. 'TP 44 wr.a�l �_Al� U.,hi , Fj 7 N4, 0-P I rpm I T11711 ALL . �,W N37 .0. 5t I K'. ik '74 Zf 41 174 ti F 7 a } ih_ f �3 T- F' ip Y > y AGENDA -PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION ._ July 17, 2D03 7. P.M. h zt+ CORA B. LAMBERT, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoningfrom the RS-4. (Residential, Single -Family - 4 dulacre) Zoning District'to'the R0-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 awdore) Zoning District for the following described property.•r Loeation: West side of South 2P Street, approximately 750 feet south of Cortez Avenue, Please note that all proceedings before the Planning and Zoning CommissionlLocal Planning •Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by' .the,Planning_and Zoning Commissionllocal Planning Agencywith respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and tliat, 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 patty to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to crossexamine any individual -testifying during a heating upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public heating, 'notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners July 7, 2003: Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general -circulation in St. Lucie County, onJuly 3, 2003 File No. RZ-03-022 ON %01ON :ON'j oo:!�-'ct!�IN�N�O+N!N Nlv'11--0� a`T00 O V' M;cD"ct oo+\0 M�%Or�O�00 to '• M V• O '7100 �t;�D+oO oo 0o d-IN�O O �DI�Y'�O 00 ON .p ' ON: O� O + M + .-. O Nt , tt O� O% ; M O In v) 0 O� + O� 0 � ON O� O 10 l O O � O� + O� O Q\ h N ; "Zr 't - �O i 00 �o %.0 en fit• �}' ' d �O W H - d' 'R %0 , %o "t tt V' c0 ; c0 I �O��D I N ! � �0�'•d' �o M i M M'�• �' �MlM.M M i -� M M, 1. M M M. i_ i ,M' i {{{{{M N:N :N,N;._: N h N —• - N •--'- :.- .-.!.-.: N((h( 00 00 00�00: 00 i 00' 00 00 V 00 00 :00. 00• 00. 0000 DO: 00 00' 00I tt = : � O\ ON � ON, ON: ON : O, ON ON O\ ON � O� ' 0 O\ � ON: O, � O\' O� � O� ; O, + Oti N M M M M'CM M en M Nl M M M M M M M'M,`: M i M: M f M I G) aa..�a.�aa..>aaaa..�aaa�aaaaaa._.�...�aa;aaa�a,aa:a: tY1 w w w w w w. w w w. w w 4- w L. w L. cc. L.. w w w w w w w w w w w. U. w; w w! w M � U ti N iU.. ti tU. ti w O O U U N H � t0. tU- � � � � tU. tU- � 4U-. ti ti � cd � •. U U . � . � aaai%aaaa. a ; aas.aaaaa.aaaaaaa.a°�a`a'a.;aa.' U w° uo. L°. c° c° Lo. Lo. ti c° O O w O O O l. 0 0 0 O O . 0 0 0 U 0 0' O: O. O .� ..� u. u. ti. w L. L. w w w w w w w w L. w> w w w! w w; m 0 o > c c p c Q «Cl c .� ►] fn a C ti .Cj r�.1 ,j 'U TJ s.. T 'i7 a >> T T .-•1 N T >. >. •a 'L7 y V y, >> u o 3 3 v `u 3 o 0 3 3 3 oG a' . Y R' N E m !� a3i > o ) b v u a� tx > U o o -o v aTi cn in U lu 0) o Q � a W o rn o Y ¢ P _0 3 O o o Y U a, : c rn h Ou o rn b b rn o �, �_ 3 to to ro °° °° �' °° t= ° G O Cn !`�.. N .c N M M X �"� N N F3 r.. 4.. N N E al N i V)C-) ¢mwv�tnht�mmt�cn c�mcn�ca33Uc�UmmU)U) U�nc�l;�p. M O h Iq to N 00 a0 M O\ V O O M O M M M �O N h M 'n c!1 - 'n ; h N+ en:O 'IT V' 00 Oh O 00 M M ONO O oo Oh �o N 000 oo CMS goo 0000 00 000 Oh t— Oh N . OM I Oh ; Ch 000 , OMo ! Q v) N N N N O\ N N tn h N 0. N N -- N N en N N N N N (14 N -- N•N'N+N:00; O � d al .a to T cv a E 3 co U z U N N �O 7 O --� C y _N E-• O co 0, w ..-. Cl N a) c >, cV C O G ca O >~ U 'L7 a N 00 sz t43 u C N 0) O F v� v, u d H s-. O N t= v C t- C ,) 3 N as co p y cv �y a) �' 00 w u C tJ 0 .x co cV `� O 0 cV co O al co O X 7 7 w z ..0 mm.O, m UU UV U A ApAAA C7 u aC) C � 7 w o N mm o S y ) 2 im aG U. E Q Z�Aj �.x �Uu�'°°uae oo •N- �C cl q- —E• 000E 0 c0c013 c:; M cl y O O tc�C 3 °z m CE CE ncN -01 m (7 U u 0 n:Neoc wv z s c a L v' v U ' a v EEn C N; > L v O O cCl in LT. a c O ti F"TT co G c � �; co �' G E . e `C� o D 3 3 c°'i `n ° c�a coo Y ccu E ��' EO o Z P H i-. it Cd O O i0. i0-. R7 N c�V N .0 cd O ¢ N Clt cd 119 X � O � ' 'y � C ¢QmmmImmInmmMcnmuuUUUUUUC]AAALaLaAf�w.wwiwo: O O q ON oo o0 h o0 h oo —• N h ON N M O\ N w I d' �o �o O N 00 V co m O i^; T, C) S S S S. O S S S 0 0 0 a 0 S S 0 S S S 0 0 0 S C) S 0 0 S +'o C) S; • p 4n O O O O O O O O 08 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O'O.Ow(D c):O: ON to I- h O\ 4n %O O_ ,T M w \O to V1 t� ' 00 + N C sn d' M h O w N N " w '--- M_ . M n ; M l O a �O d th tQ O O+ --• �O O N N O O vl ON O ON W) 'q h O O ; h: M! O O O O O O y E pp ('Sc� O O O p O O O p O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O+O+O;O- O_ O O O O O O_ O _O _O C. O O O O Co_ O_ O O O O O O O O O O O O S 0;0100' N co �O N N N �O %o �O N N �O c0 N N �O w �O N N N N v M. N N' "0!N . O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O'O'O.O cl w w h 00 w w h h h w w 00 00 h t-, 00 M h h h 00 00 00 00 g g 00 00 h W, O -- O Co-- O O O -- O O O O O -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• O -^ O R VC14N'NV VN' NV V V VN' VN VN 'd' NV NV NV NV N4 VN' VN V CN'VN VN' 'NV' NV G P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N• N N v.v',vIItvv+vjvv:�rv�r;v.vvvv':�tvvAIvv'vv d vv ��'dV1vvv t*1 N.•N N:N�N NININiN N.N±N N;N NN N N�N!NINiNiN,N N NN�NNM M en in M M?M MGM M:M M"M M M M•M M`M!M M:M M M M M MM M•M M"M; c�1 MiM M!M MM.M M-M M M.M M-tn!MM M.en en M MIM; cn enM M M M:M:M M M.M M M!M M N1 C6 M M-M rn en.cn CM'M M!MIc M.. M!M'M M+MiM�M M N ar ' w � wwwwwww:wwwwwwwu.wwwwwcL.a..cLCLwwwwww,w;w;w;wi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -O• 0 0 O.� O; oOf .Y •,��^,, •CV •cV •fV .« •cV .ict .� .Y .Y .Y •iV •cci .cC .Y •� .Y •iV .� 'cV •N .Y .7 •i i .Y .Y .Y •�5 •m 1 •7�4 N C C !r >: C >= G C C G G !✓ C >= C C F C G G C C !_ !✓ >= m O C C C' m m m m m m m m m N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m: m m :. U cia Ea.a.C.a.[i.O.aal1.6.5La.a.Em,E.EL. EKB.aaEaO 5,a.E F."aaO. 'O '> m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m T7 O T T 'O T 'O 10 'O T 'O 'D -0 -0 'V 'O 'CS 'O -O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O : 'O "2 'O T "0 ' 'O : "O " N c~cf N N 0 cu N cca cca N N c~cf co co c~d C~d C~C cF0 Cca m cca mm m 0 N 0 N c~0 as cl cca : as ~m CO 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3:3 3. 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.mm.mmmmm° �3333333333333333333333333333333333 N N N N (,4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N: N N" N N-" N Q w 00 00 00 w 00 00 w w 00 00 00 w w w w w w w w 00 w 00 w w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 • 00 00 t d 0 E cl cl z cl a a tn cl L. 4) u z N N O M d R z m u 0 a A ai v v � v m L y 'V V1 v C � O W Cl L O N O m z u M O cl L - CO oj -" U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U_ U U U U U U _U U U U U U -U ' U U• U. U. ..a ...a ...� ...� ..a ..a ...� ,..a ..� ..a .� ..a a ...� .•a .a :..a ...� ..� :..a .-a a . C£ al N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N"N"N.NN:N:N;N;N+N. 3k t �t �k k Xk �k it 4t :t 4t 4L 7t 4t 3k * Z 4t U it 4t Xt 4t 4t # :. 4k fit ; E 3 yk 44 H N 4 y y h N H N Y 4 4 4 Y 4 +V!-. N. VY l, N Y Y Y Y Yci >✓ a a a O c G 0 c >~ c c P ti£ CP Q (y H h y H N O d d O 0 0 N N > O N N O D N- O` 5. y. NGJ > > > > > > > > > > >Ni - - - --�----i G G eo E rGi .�. ..0. r0. .� — r—Oi — — �—Ci — — — .F.� — ..fir — — — ..0.. — —�—.—�i!.t-"i. HFHHHHHFHFFHHHHHHFHFHHFHHFFFF.H.E•�tFF!F-� �M �O � z AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA•AAAA;AEA� a,aaaac+.aaaaaaaa•aan,aaaa.o.a.aa�.aaa,a=alaa;a.; U L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0"O O'O.O`O O`g�g'O�gS�' S S S p 40. = S S_ S S S S S S S O O O S S S S O _O O O O O O O O:O�O'Oi0�0lO•' N h 00 M [}' 00 O� O N i- 00 O% O N M �' N r- " 00 . ON ' O ! ^ " �t I M O� (e4� C d eM�}} O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p p O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O O:O ^•--;^I^ice.'^. u 4k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O'O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O,O.O O*OO ;' �O �D ��O D �O �O �o cD �D %O %O cD cD �O - '10 �c cD %O �O %D %O %0 c0 %D \O �O 110 %O �O • Z ' %O i Z , "D :. ZD t p cl �] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 b O O:O O`O'O O'O h h h h h h h h h l� h h 1� 1� [� h h h h h h h (� h h h h h h h' h' Ch ' h_ : h' ' r 'CO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N-N N N-N;N:N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N G F N N N N N N N N N N N 2P V' • d' V' : "T V' O ! I i O\ j '\Y'� \p ! ...:. .-: ,gip 00 O .O 1 I. O N t` V' N� V7 \O N � I N N N N N O N ' I : O ! -- O ' 00 i 00 00 M O_ O_ DD 00 ! 00 00-! • 00 M M \O 00 t` I O v \O N M M M M M - O � 40 40 O O\ O\ O\ . O M O\ O\ � O\ , O\ O\ O\ \O M ••-• Q, M O O O •M M en M M \0 \O;\O\O �I\D�\O�M-M N - `N -� :.•-.!.-.,.-. N N-N ,NIN Nj IiA N -� 00 00:00:00�00;00� 00 00 00 00. : W ! '00100 001 :00!00100100 00 a0 q: O\ rn rn O\ O\ : 00 : o. 0\ rn rn rn r O\ 10\ 1 C\ , ; O\ 1 ON. O\ rn rn rn : fit" 't' �F ; V' ;11 ItV ct v N eM M M en: M M M M e41 M _en:M M en; en M en; en 1 4_ . _l LL- U. . l . 1 : a • P- � wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwL" wwww,www.w�w.wlrc.. M O N N N U N N N N N d N N U N N N U N N N G! N N U- N' U Gl 1, y' R F C G G >= U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U riG O O O O O �- 'U," U u.a; aju . 1 U34! �;d Y ;d?%aaaaaaa aac:aaaaaac:a.Ea eN•c Lam' c�u c�O c�c c�a C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C a C C. C' C C C o o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o:o•0 0 U a.a.a.a.awwwwwwwwwwwrL.wwwwcL.U.U.w.u.wu.www,w!w.u.: Q �C1coim W Cq � .�� � —�rnrnt7�nx u G r�a� r- a 'i7 N d >' T c0 cci >.J c. i0`cv R: 0 0 Q -0 >, 3- c�d .-(m c% i N ;.. .: o.a C%1 05 V1 07 C) n _OON � p 0 0 o o❑ x x Y= Y Y Yo G G° Y Y s °' G y a3i p y Lb Lb 0� f/] i2 N N N N N N N N Cn C%1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N. p L 33333Qm���wvn�V)U) ��U)tn EnV)c) En U);u •p D\ ._ p V7 DD N t— �- -- O O O O 07 cM- O \O I O.-"T i O O\. ^ -- ^ O ^ ^ ^ O O O O -- ^ 00 00.00 00 O O O ^ ^'N-en-C-4 — O;^;O; N N N N N 00 l-00 t-- t- l� ( O\ O\ t` 00 00 00 ON O\ O\ O\ M 00 M 00 ON: 00 00 " 00 t� - t� : O\ : \O Q 00 00 00 00 00 N N N N" N,N N" N N" N" N Cl N N N", N N N N:N N;N.N N: t O N E .G s R z R ..a R L d O v R z N N O c Z cc Q.`�]�U�, Q cu W �1 u e � U Q c00 U � •� h CJ cn f-. V) 'O n• �-• N c0 N c0 =• O cd i� z aa00 r x ) a F u � a[i ._ b0 .� w 3 Im Q O L GL N w co Q %L .O 'd aU+ ".� cts Q 01 ' U .D E N _ O ° N� � � � C N c R z - N O N w 0 coN c}V 00 G co 0 .0 ��a:-,U04Q aw0C) cnU u M a cl R L. On N _ V =_ U U U U U a °' U E N �y N�k Ny N+y RIn yL 4E - G O_ 0. F>' -:lEF > U�3 aaao.'- _ C Lr, > > > > > C O t,. > s.. h cA 47 N O 0 0 d 'U O x O � p O u � � O . � (U . O a� d u r 'O a� 'r L1 .. . A A A A A o c v 'o w 0.- 3 3R �° ° e%> 6q7} z a�i a�Oi •- 1 ca 9 o 0 0 .0 ao,a.0.a.a.aadao4134rAwWEn& Envav��nvav�v�rnv��nrA&0 n;tn;E-; E- [GL • O U \O O t- -'T IT It It V' O 8 00 O t- O O M \O M l- It I N 00 O I ON O\ ' O N 47 , 0\ ' O\ O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O-O:O;O;O,C: p 40. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.O O O O O 0;O!O± O O_ Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co O_ a.0 O O_ O_ O O O O O O O O 0 a-a:0 0 aiO, h _O DD N M V V7 v7 O O\ 00 00 O\ 00 N N V' 47 h N N M tt \O O . •-••• " : O ; v7 ; - ' O y �•- _N_N r 00 N O M O O O N \O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O^ N _O O:O\:M(O\N!N' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O'O O 0:O:O:O'Oi0 E 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co_ CoO_ O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O _O O O.O!_OiO'O.O \O \O \O �o \O \0 N N N N \0 \O \O n t'-l- t--mot' N pq p 0 N N N N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O �Y V' 0 0 0 0 O O O O V' O 4 O O O O. a a: O' O ' R r w w 00 00 00 00 d' �' 00 t-r- C` n C- r t d' 00 t� l� n t` 00 ; 00 00 �-- O O O O O O O O O •- ^^ •- O O O �-- O�O^O NV NV' NV NV NV d �R+ R VN' 'T 't � 't VN' -t f � � � � dN' 't � 'T 't It � IT V � NT V � It � � V c iG F . N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N' N N N O -i• vli N i%t; Ul: VI'n N V1 N co to to M-00'" ;;;iCO!NIN.�O'h h h M - O . O O� cn Orn O v� r-. O i O . M ON (7, O+ O O d "oho �o�o00;'�o�o"�o�,� cry MM 00 00 w w 00 . N 00 00 : 00 00 - 00 DD 00 00 00 00 O.. O O% O. O\ ON ON O\ O\ Ch . ON ON O\ ON O%ON N M M M M M M M It It t M:M en M M tM M M CJ v) c=..rs,wwa..u,wu. Lt. Lt. Lt. u..cLLs. wc7www. M O � N N N N N N N N W N N N a.. a, a. a. 6.. CS. a.. a. E CZa. C.. C.. 0.. u a a a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v o 0 0 U wwwwwwwwwu.wwwwwwww .a CO > G G co >' > _r _ v2 65 y 0.1 u: CoM 0 fA aYl t� 0 y im c .0 C 0 ° °' Op N N N N 00 y ° GO)c`ia M< U� g U U bpi i i a o 4 rr� a Q Of) b h V) iVl r- M _ It M M M M OO h O -nM O O O^ N O -- O O O O C.O O N M M CD h 00 h a0 w w O w c0 C, M M m w O, w w h Q N N N N N N c0 N N N N N N N N d N N N b t d .G z a O u � z N N O Q en c of b y cca W t(\xj b ° C� O � C cl z O G co O >, � ►i W ...7 Q .-1 � ec! u C _ G •v' M 0 O co N 67 u y F 33 3 3 o w ¢ U -, � p N s ar x ct7 0U � '• •, W 1= a0i 05 yN Q CIScV Z U c>V . N C O O O 0 cd co p cC T� •.... " U tY � W W U U ILR CJ O O O� 'n 0, � U M O a� ea L bD - O ai C a �3 do E E E , cTa,.1 G ttJ y y WJ CD t+q « y p Oi _N OO p [V fV CV cV N N d N O O G �o z�=E=�>3333333�3��3�33333 O U M M N YJ [Y V1 10 V1 M h M 00 Y1 d 1— M \0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (D O O O O 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p Cl O O O O _O 00 00 en W) \0 end_ N \0 00 h v1 c0 O 00 0\ c0 O 'O O y M 00 en co O\ O Y1 N N O O -n h N M N_ N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O y E pp 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ 0 0 0 O_ O O O O _O O O O N N" \O \D N I0 c0 �o \0 N 10 N �o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 h h h h h O y c7 O O O O O O O r^ r r O O 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 CIS F N N N N N N N N 04 N N N N N N N N N N ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA July 17, 2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CON- CERN: NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Sec- tion 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land De- velopment Code and the provisions of the St. Lu- cie County Comprehen- sive Plan, the following applicants have request- ed that the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commjssion consider their following requests: 1.TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a sec- ond air curtain incinerat- or within the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property: SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 35S RANGE 38 E THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH- WEST 114 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUN- TY, FL Location: South side of Orange Avenue Exten- sion, approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed Road. 2.WILLIAM_ D. MILLER, for ,a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Reside- ntial, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District for the following de- scribed property: 20 35 40 SE_ f/4 OF NE 114 OF SE 1/4-LESS N 235 FTOF W 460 FT AND LESS E 40 FT -AND W 161.80 FT OF N269.44 FT t OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 (7.34 AC) (OR 534-505) Location -West side of South 25th Street, ap- proximately 750 feet south of Cortez Avenue. a.t:UGENE ANO -'U DUNCAN, for a Ch in Zoning from the (Residential, Si Family - 4 du/acre), ing District to the I (Residential, Mut Family - 9 du/acre) ing District for the lowing described 1 erty: 20 35 40 N 225 FT OF 242.50 FT OF SE 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 V AC) (OR 269-1999) Location:West side South 25th Street, ; proximately 750 fl south of Cortez Avenue. 4.CORA B. LAMBERT, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Reside- ntial, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family . - 9 du/acre) Zoning District for the following de- scribed property. 20 35 40 BEG 242.5 FT E OF NW COR OF SE 1/4 OF NE 114 OF SE 114, TH RUN E217.5FT. THS 235 FT, TH W 435 Fr, TH N 10 FT, TH E 217.5 Fr, TH N 225 Fr TO POB (72) (1.23 ACI (OR 222- 1441: 1069-1725) Location:West side South 25th Street, proximately 750 f4 south of Cortez Avenue. PUBLIC HEARINGS willi be held in Commission' Chambers, Roger Poi-. tras Annex, 2300 Virgin is Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on July 17. 2003,1 beginning at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as� possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Stat- utes, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by a board, agen- cy, or commission with respect to any matter considered at a meeting or hearing, he will need a record`of-the proceed- ings, and that,' for- such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testi-I mony and evidence) upon which the appeal is to be based. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Ed Merritt, CHAIR- MAN PUBLISH: July 3, 2003 199752 - "- " �� r.'- - } ' ME R MO. ANDUI�II �. ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT' 7M1-R li TO` Planning and Zoning Commission f �} ,Development Director _ - - _ DATE '`July 10, 2p03 77, l; r SUBJECT: Petn of 250 Emerson Avenge, LLC (lioustc�n Cuozxq, Agent) "For . Change �n Zoning From the AG 1 (AncultG�ai - 1, dt�/acre) and IX `(Industrial, _Extraction) Zoning Dlstricte to the_ PUp (Pfenned >Unit,' \ ,..., DeYelopr .en EMer�ott Estates) Zdning' �isthct and far Preliminary Planned Unit Development. ite Plop A�rovel for the Rsidentiai .P4)ept to.be known as Ei� ersen`Est tesP - P LOCATION: " .' . Eest s�dc: of Emerson Avenue, opprOXitnately' 1,000 feet north of ndrio Rba EXISTING ZONING; ' . AG ;1 (A iculturand iX (Indu trial ', r- Extraction:) PROPOSED ZONING:.. ' PUD (Planned Unit Developmentmeion Estates) ` f LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RU (Residential Urban.) PARCEL SIZE: 24007acres PROPOSED.USE; 720 total units -'541 Singlariiily hpt and 179 .Multiple Family Units. PROPOSED DENSITY: 2:99 du/acre SURROUNDING ZONING: A0�1 (Agricultur6l - . du/acre) . 5 ( 1 tad to the north, south, and west: H (Histbr�o) is located south at the northeasI comer-6 the intfsectitn cif rXris3 I oa aid Emerson Avenue RS�4 (Residential, Slr►gie=Faintly 4 ; d4lcre) js located to.the east. G;(CQmrno�cial, 4�eniel) Zoning is., located to the scUth' at the northwest corner,.of ttie ntersectiprrdf indrio Toad and,Ernorsbn Avenue, SURROUNDING LAND USES:' The existing use of land surrounding 'the =property - residential and agricultural; suPteCl- property { TRA�VSPORTATION IMPACT$ f u RIGHT �I= WAY y ADEQUACY, 'The xis#ing right- I way for Emir: on �4Yenue SCHEDULED, ` IMPROVEMENTS. None ra TYP�OF CONCURRSOMY � I s DOCUMENT REQUIRED:" Certificate of Capacity.ti r t Y STANDARDS OF RENEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 110kb3,..- , ST. LUCIE CO_ UNii`Y LAND DEVELOPMENT:`CODE r !n ;reviewing fhW applioatio�t for prdpo�ed re2oting, 'the Planning Intl Zbring Craketheflowing-. moYirnisiQnhal mcin tons: i 1. WhetheX the proposed rezoning is in confhc# with any applicable. portions } of the ST Lucie County Lsnd Developrr�ent hods; t The proposed, cf�arige in z zoning end petition for hrelimulary Manned Unit Develops 1 m IS cons1stent lwith the St t;ucie :County Land [��veio�rin�nt Gd�e Tiore ale a tot�i o�0 units proposed i�i #ht� dvelopmeit I the�tbjsct v propettywere #oe develrs'pedf the rex�tnum dehiijr ailowl Futut8 Land U$s Cla$�fition Urtan), . oU (Iesidenial 12U0 lath# wcstalb pneibf at 5 dwiling urnts p'er. acre Tle ite'plan ;that is:sub�mtted pert di phis rezoning: to PUt .is'corisistent,wlth the provisions' Qf the trend beuloprni. Code. 2. -111/hethet� the proposed amendment is Consistent with all elements of the. St: Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, 1` " July 10, 2003 Subject: 250 Emerson Avenue, LLC. Page 3 RZ-03-012/PUD-03-009 The proposed Emerson Estates - PUD is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of this Code, the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.1.1 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes maximum residential densities for the RU (Residential Urban) Future Land Use Category as 5 dwelling units per 1 acre. The proposed project is to be developed with a maximum residential density of 2.99 units per acre, therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 1.1.9.4 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes regulations providing that existing on -site native upland habitat be incorporated into required site plans as a part of open space areas, required landscaping, or as a part of minimum yard areas as is practicable is maintained. The proposed project has 2.33 acres of Oak Hammock, which will be preserved in its entirety and 4.55 acres of Sabal Palm preserve area. There is no native upland habitat located on the subject property. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed change in zoning to PUD is for the purpose of allowing the construction of a single-family and multiple -family residential development, is consistent with the surrounding uses in the area. The gross density of the proposed PUD development is 2.99 du/acre, which is consistent with the future land use designation in this area for the adjacent developed areas. Directly to the east of the proposed project is Lakewood Park, which is developed primarily into % acre lots. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; There have not been changes that would require an amendment. The petitioned parcel has been designated with a Future Land Use Classification of RU (Residential Urban), which stipulates that the parcel may be developed up to 5 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is in an area that has seen increased interest in residential and non-residential development proposals. The site is -located within the Urban Service Boundary of St. Lucie County and has adequate water and sewer and roadway capacity available to service the project. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; l'he purpose .of this distrieE; is to provide and protect an . envlronrpegt ;stijtablE commercial agriculture, to ether with such 9ther uses ps may be necessary to and „ prodtaeve„ agricultural surfOuridlitAS-. -Rwcdlarfis1' cfnrsci4te. _.,.x:.i;...a...,.a,a ._ _'�_.: r ,,.���� a�+G �� ��iivar iJl : t/ .rouawi0g:eacn iatnUtied use.corresponeis t0 tie SiCr. 4� code reference described in Sectiorl;3 01,Q(Bj >±he number 899 applies to a"use not ciefrted under s the SIC =code but maybe further defined ih,Sectior 2 OQ QO of this bode:, " . . _ 2 Rermitted Uses � ' i a• A; it 'i production fn a bf Agncultural production Iiyestock A.0nimal specialties &_ r toss c' Agncultural seCvicesao�t ' d• Family day cafe homes ts�s>"„WAC e Family residetltial homes provided that sueh horpes shall not be located Within rad _us `;; r ' k t ; of one,thousand{1.00Oj•feet of another existing such `family re tic horrie ani l proYidea {hat the spensonng agency or b par#mt;nt of Health and .Rehabtfika�ive Services (HI�S)'rioti e , the Hoard of County CQmmisstoneis't the fifie tjf"home.ocGUpancy that the home licensed -is by MRS t9�i` " � d f_ l f. Fishin huntin & tra in toy► , g+ 9 pP g F 9;orestrj h Research Fsdifitie& Noncommercial �• Riding stables �tzs�>4 k. Single fgrnily detached dwellings tessi s 3. Lot Size Regtiirernents hot size requirements shall be' in accordance with fable 1 in Section'.`04A0. , 4. Dimensional Regula��ons. Dimensional requirements shall be in.accordance with Table :1 in Section 7.0.00. 5. off street POrking and Loading Requirements Off- treet parking and I " din requirements are subject ;to Section 7.06:00. 6. Landscaping Requirements. Landscaping reguirements are subject to Section 7:Q9.00. 7.. Conditional Uses a. Agricultural labor, housing. ti Adopted August 1, 1990 94 Revised-T66u008/01/00 Y. ivionuetooa vendors:�> > #� 3 Lot Size Requirements"` } Lot size requirements shall t?e in accordance With Sectio4 U0� 4 " herisional �piiRegulations Diinorlsiohai requirements sjlafl be in accordance With $ection 7.U4 OU,,Y 5 Off=street Pal I-Ij acid Loading,Rr giiiremertts + Off=street parRittg'Ohd loading",requirern�nfs re,subject Secpon ny 7 ; to 7.06:00 { 6 Landscaping Requtremeotsx LandsoaRing requirements are.subject";to Sectiort,7.09 t� f 7• Conditional Uses _ fi a Telecommunie ton towers - suNect "to ttie standards.of 1 Section 7.19 2 (seal 8., Accessory Aocesory uses are subject to the requirements of Section ti00100,'and include .fho following . a D$tachetl inglb family dwelling unit or mobile home, for on=site security purposes -- isey> " r k i Adopted'Aubust 1, 1990 129 Revised Through,pti/b1/00. The pVrpQsp o vs. us;hlumIt ar ju a eav vi in A. , t Permit orQative approaches to the development; of tesiaa001 lend .,reflecting chahges, n the fachnology of farad development, �. allow for the efficient Ilse of l;�nd, Which can re5uit m smaller networks of utilities anzl stredts and h ,' 4herehy lower deveiQpment �o�,ts, ��eA��` C,. All MOP tions that .0 courage ail environtrent ofstable oharacter, compatjblewith-sul rounding r land uses -.and xz �. perm the enhaneemeht of neihbdrhood$through the preseNataoti of natural filatures; the prov�sidn bf underground utilities, arici the provision of`recreation,ars and ope�tpad.' ` Y' 7,09 02 :: AI)THORIZED USES i. A. :. Any permuted, conditional or accessory use in the AgripplM AgnoUltuhab2;5 Agricultural 5 (AG 5),tesiderttial/CotervattQn in the �4griculturat=9 AG 1, , ( )Agricultural 2`5(AC;2 5), Agncultural 5 (AO 5), Residei tiai/CWtei vation (RC), Rasidentiaf, Rsf to 1 (FZi< 1 j, Residential, Mate= `: (lZ 2), Residential, Single i=amly .(RS 2), : Residetiat,. SingleFarYiify= 2asidenttaii Engle*Fati iCy34 (ft, 4), f2esideO1al, Mu1ilpie-Family 5 (RM46);.f�esidehtial, Mobife tesWe -mal; IVlultiple Fa(RM 7), Resic nti 1, Multiple Farhiiy (t tM` g), Rosidehtial,, 1Vltlitiple f aXnily 11(RM 11), and Re idenq% IViuftipllo`-Familyrl (RIVI i ti) bning stricts.ofthis Cote may be permitted i� a Planned Unit Development 1lstnct sub)eet to et�mplte residentit tlerisities, desccibetl 'in Seotiorr . , Adopted qugut .1, 1990 375 Revised Through 08%91/00 Sed Through.0$%01/00 1 Section 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development hundred and one (501) feet in length. The length of a dead-end street shall be measured along the centerline of the street from the its point of perpendicular intersection with the centerline of intersecting street to the end of the dead-end street or roadway. All cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum right-of-way diameter of one hundred (100) feet. If the dead end roadway is five hundred (500) feet or less in length, a "Y' or'T' type of turn around may be approved. If a dead end street is temporary in nature then a temporary cul-de-sac shall be required until the roadway is connected to another street or road. In the center of the cul-de-sac an unpaved island, surrounded by a curb, improved with grass and landscaping that will not interfere with sight distance, may be provided. Center islands shall have a diameter of not less than seventeen (17) feet, unless otherwise approved through the review of the Planned Unit Development. 10. All roadways, exclusive of interior parking and access aisles areas, regardless of ownership, shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any exterior building walls, except for security gate houses or similar security structures located in a private street or road right-of- way. 11. Any pedestrian circulation system and its related walkways shall be insulated from the vehicular street system. This shall include, when deemed to be necessary by the Board of County Commissioners, pedestrian underpasses or overpasses in the vicinity of playgrounds and other recreation areas, local shopping areas, and other neighborhood uses which generate a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic. 12. Access points on all collector or arterial streets serving a Planned Unit Development shall be located and spaced so that traffic moving into and out of the arterial streets do not cause traffic congestion. F. PARKING AND LOADING General Provisions a. The number, type, and location of parking spaces shall be determined at the time of final Planned Unit Development plan approval. The determination of the number of spaces required shall be based on Section 7.06.01(F) of this Code. The number of parking spaces required by this section may be reduced based on substantial competent evidence that the reduced number of spaces is adequate for the proposed use or that parking may be shared by proximate uses that operate at different times or on different days. b. Reserved parking spaces may be provided, in lieu of paved spaces, subject to Section 7.06.02(C) of this Code. Adopted August 1, 1990 378 Revised Through 08/01/00 c Access for etnergenCy dire vehicles shape in accordance with`.N1=RAi;ten(ard� = k _ d No mace than fifteen (� 5) `parl�irl� paces shell tze pernitted in a continuous row . = Without �elriy`interti,pted by:a m(rijmurn`lantlscep'e areaoft;tlscjure:;eat. zs G LIGHTING .; lighting facilities shall be arranged' (n sudh a manner so as tb "preVQnt direct glare dt ha�artlous 4 iAn terference of any kind to adjoining streets `or properttes" H. LAND$CAP(NG AND NATURAL FEATUF2ES J 1 Napve. trees and vegetation ;and ,other, nafural features shall 'bd prascrvetl o the extent practicable. sensitive envronmentai vegetation, trees and; areas sh li be preserved to the extent practicable. •. Adopted. August 1, 1990 379, devised Through O801/Op i Section 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development 3. Landscaping for off-street parking and loading areas shall meet the minimum requirements of Section 7.09.00. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS 1. A minimum of thirty-five (35) percent of the gross area of land to be committed to a Planned Unit Development must be for use as common open space, which may include, parks, recreation areas, bicycle and pedestrian paths and facilities, marinas, swimming beaches, common open space, common landscaping and planting areas, or other areas of public purposes or use other than street, road or drainage rights -of -way, above ground utilities, excluding stormwater treatment facilities, and parking areas. A minimum of 15 percent of any existing native upland habitat on the property, must be preserved in its natural condition as part of the required 35 percent common open space, For each acre of preserved native habitat above the required minimum 15 percent that is preserved in its original state, credit shall be given at a rate of 150 percent per acre towards the remaining common open space requirement. All areas to be dedicated for common open space shall be identified as part of the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development. Areas that are floodways, lakes, wetlands, and stormwater retention areas may be applied to satisfy the total common open space requirement, subject to the requirement that 15% of any existing native habitat on the property must be included as part of the required 35% common open space. As part of the Final Planned Unit Development submission process, the developer or petitioner for the Planned Unit Development shall provide for one of the following: a. The advance dedication of all common open space to a public, or acceptable private, agency that will, upon acceptance, agree to maintain the common open space and any buildings, structures or improvements that have been placed on it. All such dedications or conveyances shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits, including land clearing, for any portion of the Planned Unit Development ;or, b. A phased conveyance of the land to a public or acceptable private agency that will, upon acceptance, agree to maintain the common open space and any buildings, structures or improvements that have been placed on it. The schedule for the phased conveyance of any such lands to be used for common open space shall be a specific condition of approval for the Planned Unit Development. 2. No parcel of land identified for use as a_park or common open space shall be less than one (1) contiguous acre, and all such areas shall_ be physically part of the Planned Unit Devel- opment. 3. Areas provided or reserved to meet any other environmental preservation or protection requirements of this code or other lawful regulatory authority may be counted towards the overall common open space requirement, provided that the common open space meets the Adopted August 1, 1990 380 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development requirements of this Code. SETBACKS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND Planned Unit Developments adjacent to land used for agricultural purposes, or designated for agricultural use on the Future Land Use Map of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, shall provide setbacks from the agricultural land sufficient to protect the function and operation of those uses from the encroachment of Urban activities or uses. K. PHASING A Planned Unit Development may be developed in more than one stage or phase. 2. If a Final Development Site Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners is to be developed in stages or phases, each successive phase shall be constructed and developed in a reasonably continuous fashion. No more than two (2) years shall elapse between the completion of any stage or phase, and the final stage or phase shall be completed within ten (10) years of the date of Final Development Site Plan approval. Extensions of the above requirements are subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Unless otherwise amended by the Board of County Commissioners through the Final Development Site Plan review process, the following sequence of development must be adhered to: a. One or more major recreation facilities and other major amenities, planned to serve the entire development, shall be completed or adequate security posted prior to the issuance of building or mobile home permits of more than forty (40) percent, or other percentage as determined by the Board to be appropriate based on circumstances that include the size of the project and the proposed phasing schedule, of the total number of authorized dwelling units. Recreation facilities or facilities and other amenities planned to serve one (1) phase of a multi -phased development shall be completed or appropriate security posted prior to issuance of building or mobile home permits or the recording of any final plat within that phase. b. No commercial facility shall be permitted prior to the completion of at least forty (40) percent of the total number of authorized dwelling units; and, C. For Planned Unit Developments to be constructed in stages or phases, the net density of an individual stage or phase may vary from the approved Final Site Plan -subject to the requirements in Section 11.02.05. Adopted August 1, 1990 381 Revised Through 08/01/00 A Petition of 250 Emerson Avenue, LLC (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent) for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural-1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development -Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the Residential Project to be known as Emerson Estates-PUD. a c a d i L � �.J e 0 F v 0 a d 4 Q C Q i Q C C V Q E 4 u n i n G i h _i 4 I d 4 inrrr;n Qnnrl LJ �O Yoof Z Z q s RZ 03-012 & PUD 03-009 Fz�This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared June 18.2003 N1W tirY VVI liY by mtl. U Pu�Y 11� �a.M N YW W MwnWII VOMtY.Y4 MiWH10trW Y�1.�tiriNGW. M. ��1 a-aff mom r- �, ?� �1i , ` �.,• .�'i � .��; 4 r i I�Y � F ra k't� .1 (F Is �-. >-.T-S�eln �� �fr - �� y I y S I. dt r E � �-} 1�++-�3 Ii 1 ,•4+ + .r, l_,-Il_ it - i I ,S ✓•' fir D$'0 �' / *� 4� A t -t jb C E t , r r v4 L iC f � t'-_—•_,�' � � �:. f'Y�y Y ' � < 3 � +l r � Yid �I —i k - A � " ( �2_�1t' f,,arl�� s)' (i• r'�1 w S ° j v y, _ r j� • _-1_ tal Lcke onre ( ��, '� � � .}•-ems � - i 44 { ?. t�� 3��`r 1 � Y ,l v I� f • � , Ira s d 1 �9� yr � t a ,� F..- � ! " s3 .^. ° 1� t a " j � � 1�1 3 Y� � •PI - _')) low UP t _ .d 1 ( .( (t ( i t��a�. ,.,� � }}p` ii F� y•,�# ( � ; t�i'�, Yz_.� - � -- E fir. �, JJJ��� {w k�2` `i`w( 'y,�«` �"%�'� ( `.. rt �?+�" ('� ii�� .I � � :Y �:.'..�.•. ~a i .. +e'. 'e: i,. 'p ll ���lyr� � ��k�� '.�_ W I ` �w 1,y y1 `'_ �� � ��_•_ ,Q � b)j �. 9(.t a ` ' I 1 'L (�(i•�::tr >y��'�ii. ���':r u _ ._. ._-. T.ca �+-��� _'. . i. �.)+�;Y.. •..•Y 'l V I � '� �--.c�.: _ -. _. AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 17, 2003 7.00 P.M. 250 EMERSONAVENUE, LLC. (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent), has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - I du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Emerson Estates) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: East side of Emerson Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north of Indrio Road. Please note that all proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commissionkocal 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 July 7, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on July 3, 2003. File No. RZ-03-012 I PUD-03-009 r . OA I July 7;;: In i acce EMER) Change Extxact and foc known ovation• E ,s prior to a scheduled hearinig, r u � i a r, I) C Page 1 of 1 Dawn Gilmore - Presentation before Planning & Zoning on Jul 17, 2003 From: Clara E .com> Iglauer <clarai @'uno� g g J To: <Wismerd@stlucieco.gov> ��; ; f JUL 14 2003 -J) Date: 7/14/2003 11:51 AM Subject: Presentation before Planning & Zoning on Jul 17, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission To the Secretary: I had planned on attending the meeting on July 17 but unfortunately Utilities (Blazak) is having a meeting on the same evening on the infrastructure of water/wastewater in our area. I feel this is a meeting I must attend so since I cannot also attend the P & Z meeting, would you be kind enough to distribute the following statement to all Board Members of P & Z prior to their meeting. Thank you so very much Claire Iglauer For Presentation at Planning & Zoning meeting on July 17, 2003 re approving Emerson Estates for PUD I am Claire Iglauer and I live in Lakewood Park where I have lived for 27 years. I would like to address your item of PUD for Emerson Estates on Emerson Avenue 1000 feet north of Indrio Road and very near to Lakewood Park. I have a question. Where is Emerson Estates going to discharge ether stormwater? I would guess it would be into the Emerson Canal NO.6 and then into the FPFWD's Main Canal No. 1(or is it No. 4) both owned by Fort Pierce Farms Water District. (Heaven forbid that it be into the Seminole Canal NO. 5) Why is this of concern to Lakewood Park? Fort Pierce Farms Water District Main Canal No. 1(or is it No. 4) has a limited capacity. Already draining into this canal are Lakewood Park, Holiday Pines, Spanish Lakes and now the new development Portofino Shores. The Portofino Shores development is creating problems for the county and Lakewood Park as to the impact of its stormwater discharge on the Fort Pierce Farms Main Canal No. 1 (or if it No. 4)..... not to mention its negative impact on Lakewood Park's Eastwood Canal No. 3. Lakewood Park is allowed a discharge of 1 inch per 24 hours into the Fort Pierce Farms Main Canal. We have for the past three years been trying to get an answer from Fort Pierce Farms Water District as to whether they can accept another inch of discharge from Lakewood Park. If it is taking this long to study the impact of our requested extra inch discharge, isn't it obvious that approving more developments to drain into this canal need serious consideration to prevent problems? I would like to suggest that before you approve the Emerson Estates PUD, or any other development in the works, that you find out where they intend to discharge their stormwater and if their plan is likely to be approved by the County, Fort Pierce Farms Water District and South Florida Water Management District. I think that the County needs right now, before any other developments are approved, to assess the future drainage needs of the whole Northern part of the County as to where and how future drainage will be planned. Thank you. file://C:\Temp\GW }OOOO1.HTM 7/14/2003 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 7/17/03 File Number PUD-03-008 and RZ-03-016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager . DATE: June 30, 2003 SUBJECT: Application of Ginn -LA, St. Lucie, Ltd., LLLP, for a Major Adjustment to an approved Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the project . known as Watersong (formerly Ocean Oasis and Gloucester Towne) and a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District and PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) act Zoning District LOCATION: 4900 South Ocean Drive (east side of State Road A-1-A, approximately three miles north of the Florida Power and Light Nuclear Power Plant) ZONING DESIGNATION: HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) and . PUD (Planned Unit Development) PROPOSED ZONING: PUD (Planned Unit Development) LAND USE DESIGNATION: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 28.32 acres PROPOSED USE: 91 Single -Family lots SURROUNDING ZONING: HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) to the north, south, east and west. SURROUNDING LAND USES: RU (Residential Urban) - to the north, south; and R/C (Residential/C.onseivation) to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #8 (7583 S. Ocean Drive), is located approximately 5 miles to the south. UTILITY SERVICE: Fort Pierce Utility Authority will provide water service to the subject property and St. Lucie County Utilities will provide sewer to the subject property. 2• Whethd at�ner�dment �s consistent With all elements of the_ Sti_uei� f County Cpmprehensi�e t�ian, `jIN xT - , z The applicant has den bn frafed that the proposed atneIld ' Would be oons�sterit with all eianente of >the >It l.piiCbmydfpdhensive P�ar`phis Planed Uh�t Weelo�rant (I'Ub) ,Will �eeult in a Je r d rian that which nib ild Was roved uridei the � "" pp f Qa is PUD A lasa th �1 apprpvod within the RU (ResidehtiafUrb n) an eslgttatibr~ e# 4 - 5 sf a/�cra ;Theropo�ac eite plan vas deaigned at a de��i of � 21 du/acre The Ooean - . Oasis PUD was approved at i 1 dwellirj units The a licertis rb osin obi 91 re[derlal ; pp4 p P, `Y urllts, a tota�$r�duot�4� of 20 unite=an 1 % degrease If th 'eu j pt property were tioir loped fit: } its airfiurim tesidetial densir, i2 d �nweili-wouidrbe ps`ible: } . 3 W�hathe�r end the o�ctent to which the proposed.oning ie ihconsistent Huth the.exist�ng and=proposed land uses; , � Thisp�oposed ofiange inornn and tle aecornpany�n� Pr'elirhmary Planned Ur,it DaYelgprertt I sits plan have baen determined to be cor�sist�nt with the general Tana uses in the surbUnd� . area. The future L,and.,lse, M;ps ofthe fit: l�uo9e County Gbmprehen's�v� Plate ihdbate:.tlat AFTER CONSIbERINta THE TESTIMONY PR5-SENT8D DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLU©INS STAFF COMMENTS, Akb THE $fiANDAliSQF REVIEW AS S1T_bRTH` IN:.. SEGTIQN 11 07 03, ST:' LUCK COW TY LAND DEVEL OPMENT Ob4E; I HEREBY MOVE YHAT ' THE: PLANNING'ANDQNINr COMMISSION Rl.C©MMEND'hlAl' THE ST. LC101,:COUNTY,, SOAR O COUNTYCOMMI$SION�RS,DENYTHEApi�LiCA 'ION ql� GINN LA, T, LCIE,- r LLLP, FOR A MAJOR ADJUSTMNT'TO A RtELIMINARY`PLANNED'UNIT DEVELC?PMENT APPRQVAL FC)R THE'PTiOJPGT KNOWN A VVATEISONG PUD, AND F'ORr` A C�y%NQE IN ONINC FROM `THE F IRD (HUTCHINSON ISLAND f IfSIDENTiAL DEV LC�RM NTj- ZONING t. DISI`RICT AND `PUt3 (PLANNED UNIT' DVELOPMNT) BONING DiTRICT TO 'THE IUb (PLANNED UN17 DEVELQPMFNT } -WATER *6NG) zONINC, bf RICT, ..BEDA�7;SP . : [CITI=;#EASON(=) VVHY - RLEAE B SPECIFIC] I 3 b.. Upland"s r Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations northbound right turn lane at Old Dixie Highway and the North Beach Causeway and signalization improvements at that intersection, and the addition of a southbound right turn lane at State Road A1A and Atlantic Beach Boulevard. (2) SHIRD-N - Existing conditions together with the improvement of Seaway Drive to a four lane road from the South Beach Causeway Bridge to Binney Drive, the addition of a northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Ocean Drive and Binney, and the improvement of Ocean Drive in the City of Fort Pierce to a three lane road. (3) SHIRD-S - Existing conditions together with the improvement of either: (a) the Jensen Beach Causeway to a four lane facility, together with improvement of Indian River Drive to a four lane road between the Jensen Causeway and Jensen Beach Boulevard, the improvement of State Road A1A to a four lane roadway from the Jensen Beach Causeway to a point one mile north of the St. Lucie - Martin County line, and the improvement of Jensen Beach Boulevard to U.S. 1 to four lanes; (b) the Stuart Bridge to a four lane facility, together with the four laning of the Ocean Boulevard Causeway from Indian River Plantation west through the intersection of Monterey Road, and the four laning of State Road Al from the Jensen Beach Causeway to a point one mile north of the St. Lucie County - Martin County line; or (c) the construction of a two lane bridge to South Hutchinson Island at the Walton Road corridor, together with improvements of Walton Road to four lanes west of the Savannahs to U.S. 1. C. Level (5) NHIRD - Level 2 improvements plus expansion of the North Beach Causeway to four lanes from north of Atlantic Beach Boulevard to U.S. 1, and the addition of a north bound right turn lane at U.S. 1 and Seaway Drive. (6) SHIRD-N - Level 2 improvements plus the four laning of Seaway Drive from Binney Drive to Ocean Drive or an equivalent improvement, improvement of Ocean Dive within the City of Fort Pierce to a four lane road, and the addition of a northbound right turn lane at the intersection of U.S.1 and Seaway. (7) SHIRD-S - Existing conditions together with two of the improvements specified under Level 2 above. d. Level I (1) NHIRD - Level 3 improvements plus grade separation of the North Beach Causeway and the Florida East Coast Railway tracks, an interchange at Seaway Drive and U.S. 1, or other improvements that will provide at least Level of Service D conditions during the peak season at the Seaway Drive and U.S. 1 intersection, and the four laning of State Road Al from north of Atlantic Beach Boulevard to the Indian River County line. Adopted August 1, 1990 142 Revised Through 08/01/00 4. Lti�a,regyirefnent�,for trlultiple family dwelling uc accordance with` the iots�ze, requ�rent"t$ foi 7;d4,00' 11" Dimet�lorial/Builtl�h� Height Reauirem nts �s avn or resiaenti i dertsittes thet are o ttiitied ;irl this se�tior� a�td the rdqulremehts Of Section ,� U1 Ob, Hutchinson Islbnd L Bwldirig Neiyht-0veriay Zonq �3 �b� Multi Family OovelopMenfi - Dimensional regpirement$ farali lnuihple family tlweliin tJnifs and twa and three Tamil d dHin Utlits ; Yw g shill be in accordance with the dim"ns;bnal eequifern�nts for the � RMI 11 $trict found it T�ible �1.0 m =Section fi 04 l)0, except as follows;' p t. j1) Residential den�itie•shall be as set forth in subsuctiorj 7 "of this Sections x For any structure diet has nit been occupied �cnstrueEed, flir.has rlpt ret:ived a ` \� puiidjng permit; site f lan bt<othe, f CotrOt d veloprtidrrt approval prior to J liuefy 10, h" 195 t(e lequiretrients 0f Section, 4s01.0U� Huthinsoi 'Islend Buff%tit�g sleight Oveilay Zone" shall apply. 12.. Off street Ntking and Loading Requirements f Offstreet:parking.and loading requirements shall be m 2ccordance with Section 7.06A0 Mooted August 1, :199U 143 Revised Through 08/01/00 r' a• avvtwiu 1ata1 iq.Wg arty4vtner provision of this section, ,airy mobi)ehoihe, �ec�eafionai vehicle, ; h or.travel trailer perk pale located in this"district haq,b�--i __ deretl:an existing cenditional4 ° L } fa'Y£t" use Unb� der Section �1 05(G) if slid pnly`if , (1) `the mobile home had Hess erectetl and occupied, orthe regreafional vef�icleorrravel trailer park apage cgnstruc#ed and;used, p06f to the eff"ective tfate of. this Cotic, and., } (2) the mobile home, i'eecrea#iavehcokwfegn ully l; . , se on %thFonfoming u8ffe,tive bete of this Cgde ,. b: No addition to ah e>i s_ng mgbile. home shall be perinittetl unless the`adtlitign meets all, , ;„ -requirements of the l?Mli-5>t)istriet., . c.• No Recreahortal Vehicles Travel Trailer, Detaohed.Singfeamilyt2esidehce, Gless A Niobtle. Hot>ie or additidti thereto shall be petnittd unless thesgtGetignai Vehicle, ?'Gavel Trailer,." Qetached Single cannily Residence, Class q (Mobile Home er ;dditioh thereto meets all applioable retirements of Section 710 16 (RFCgti"IONAL �fNICI.E PARKS) in existing ecreetionai vehicle parks, or S$ctidn 71017 (MOi�ll HOME :BARKS) in existing mbbiia �home perks r s addition iti exiMM14e as of April 98, TO (Ordinance 89,.09j which does not ftieet the " requirement establishes in this Section dial be degmed a noncgnformin structure And.thaii tie subJeet to the provisions of Section 10 Q0,03 however, existing additions "which prise a. threat of imminent danger'to, tie health, safety, or �J�(eifar"of the general public as determined ay the Flre Marshal Rursuant to the Standard for l=1re Safe Criteria for Mobtio Home installations, Sites, and GgmMUh'lties, NFPA 01A=19$ , as applicable, must be brought into cerrapliance or removed I Q . ,ecision of the Fire Marshahmay be.appealed to she Board of Cotes#ruction and"Appeal: _ 16. ` Sea Turtle Protection Sea turtle'-pro#ection requirements shall be ih aC,Gordahce wittl section 6,t)4:02. Adopted August 1, 1990,144 Revised Through 08101/00 _ i f 7:01 00' PLANNED` UNIT DE1/ELOPMENT z , y t 7 Q1.01 PURPOSE n45"yk-i", x ifs The Plannetl Unit Developtnerlt (1�U"D) District is tntt nded'<to 04 .0,e residential land development of superior, quality #hough the encouragement of flekibility and creativity in design options that: �e A. permit crea#ive apprbacMe , to the` development of re idet�tial land .� reflecting phanges 'in the technoiQgy,ofland development; . z r 6. allow for the efficient°use of land, which "tiara result in srnagernetworks of utilities anti streets aril r , therebyllower development costs; "+ C. allow detgn Qptions that ertcour�ge an environment of stable eharac#er, compatible with surrotmding lend users; and, ; 1 D permit the entiahcement of neighborhoods through the preservation of nattirai features, .the provision,' of -underground utilities; and the provision pf recreation areas and open space. f; 7.01.02 AUTHORIZED.USES A. PERMITTEp USES Ahy •,permitted; conditional or acCessvry' use in the Agrictltural-1, (AG-1); Agricultural-2 5 (AG42.5); Agncuitural=5 (AG-5),2esidential/Conservation in the Agricultural-1(AG-1"); Agricultural-2 - Agricultural=li SAG-!i);`.Residential Cdhsenration (RC); Residential, Estate-1• `(RE.1);; Residential, . - Estate-2 (RE-2), ".Residential, Singleanily-2 (R-2);, ptesd•ontiai Single Fafnly (RSj; Restdertittai; Single Fantly=4 (RS=4estdintial, Multiple-Fatrtily:l (RIN=S); Residential, IVtobiie Heine=` - (RMM 5),,Resitlenttel, IVlt ftiple�l=afr ilyr7(Riul 7); Resiilt<ntial, �jiultiple•RINIy-;� (l M•9); esideritial; lVluibpleTFamlly-1 l (RIVI 11); nd Residanti�l Mttitiple�Famly-15 (fiU 1) �oriingdistricte bf this bode" may bept,rmit#ed In a Planned Unit Development Districti subject to complying with Ahe residential densities described in S6ction 7.01.03(B). Adopted August 1, 1990 375 Revised Through 00/01/00 Section 7.01.00 Planned Unit Development B. NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT USES Uses of the types permitted in the Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) District are also permitted up to an amount not to exceed three (3) percent of the gross area of the Planned Unit Development or ten (10) acres, whichever is less. In addition, playgrounds, public and non-public parks, golf courses, country clubs, bicycle paths, racquet sports facilities, riding stables, marinas, clubhouses, and lodges may be permitted in a Planned Unit Development District. 7.01.03 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS Standards and requirements for a Planned Unit Development shall be as follows: A. MINIMUM SIZE A Planned Unit Development shall be a minimum of five (5) contiguous acres of land under common ownership or control. B. DENSITY The maximum possible permitted density of a Planned Unit Development shall not exceed the density reflected in the Future Land Use Maps of the Comprehensive Plan. On North and South Hutchinson Island, the provisions of Section 3.01.03(AA)(8) shall govern. C. AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS Area, yard, and height requirements shall be determined at the time of Preliminary and Final Development Plan approval, except that for any structure on North or South Hutchinson Island that has not been occupied, constructed, or has not received a building permit, site plan or other County development approval as a permitted use prior to January 10, 1995 the requirements of Section 4.01.00, Hutchinson Island - Building Height Overlay Zone shall apply. D. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. The Planned Unit Development shall be designed and located so there will be no net public cost for the provision of water lines, sewage lines, storm and surface drainage systems, and other utility systems. 2. The minimum size of all water mains used, or intended for use, in fire protection activities is six (6") inches. Actual water main requirements will be determined by the St. Lucie County - Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. 3. The minimum size of all water mains used, or intended for use, in fire protection activities, that are located on a dead-end water main Is eight (8") inches. Actual water main requirements will be determined by the St. Lucie County -Ft. Pierce Fire Prevention Bureau. Adopted August 1, 1990 376 Revised Through 08/01/00 I„ `OPEN } 1 i Y W M � a i s rf 1 W a s 5£ l s 9£ 1 AINnoo 3380HO33>10 Ito 7 C 1 i t t h wigS S i t � 4 f i x n-y I tlpnbc' J WIN f� � Oceon. r f'Y Ind�or� o<, f F •=River � ' o f , is i " S SAYS t MOM Waterso'rig (formerly Ocean Ousts and Gloucester Towne) and a Change in Zoning from the HI -D (Hutchtnson Island Resdenital Dlstnct) honing �istrtct aril PUU (Planned Development): .Unit Zoning Dtstrtct to the PUI,J (l�lattned Untt Development) Zoning Distr4ct for the following described � f h prPe'' Location: " 4900 South` Ocean Please note that all proceedings before -the -Planning and Zoning: Commisston/Local. Ptanntng:Agency are electrontcally;recorded If'a p�rs9n decide"s to appeal any dectszon made by therPlunntng atad_ Zoning Cmmtssion/Locul P%trtning Agency with respet:to any matter considered 4 r at such meeting or heartng, he will treed record of. the and that, for such purposes, � .ti_ proceedings, E , may need to ensure'tltat a"verbatim record bf fire proceedings is made, which record includes he .' l testtmon 'and evidence u on which the a ' eal'is to be basea U on these uest.o an a to the Y p; pP P f Y P rt . _;. proceeding, tndividuals 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:receNed in advance `of the publichearing will`also be considered.,, J' Prtor-to'ihiS public`hearing; notice of the same was sent to iill;adjacent property owners,%uly . :. 7,`"Z003; Legal notice was published in The News and �'he Tribune, ";newspapers of gener"al ciretslation in St. Lucie County, "on July 3,! 2003.,' Pile No. RZ-03=016 / PUD-0300& BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS July 7, 2003 J��� COIi COMMUNITY . DEVELOPMENT '��ORIOP DIRECTOR In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that WATERSONG, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District and the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to construct a 91 unit subdivision for the following described property: Location: 4900 Ocean Drive. East side of South A-1-A, approximately 3 miles north of the St. Lucie County Nuclear Power Plant. 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 July 17, 2003, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date -certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. _ If you no longer own property adjacent to the above -described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. Please call (772) 462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number RZ-03-016/PUD- 03-008. Sincerely, ST. L CIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JOHN D. BRUHN. District No. 7 • DOUG COW Disrricr No.-'?. PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. Disrricr No. 4 • CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 Ed Merritt, Chairman Counry Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590 • Planning: (772) 462-2822 • G15/Technicol 5ervices: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 • Fax: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convenrion: (772) 462-1529 • Fax: (772) 462-2132 www.co.st-lucie.fl.us ST. LUCIE COLZNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION' PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA July 17,.2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CON- CERN: NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Sec- tion 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land De- velopment Code and the provisions of the St. Lu- cie County Comprehen- sive Plan, the following applicants have request- ed that the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission consider their following requests: 1.WATERSONG, for a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Is- land Residential District) Zoning District and the PUD (Planned Unit De- velopment) Zoning Dis- trict to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zon- ing District to construct a 91 unit subdivision for the following described property: THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DE- SCRIBED PROPERTY LY- ING EAST OF A 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR STATE ROAD A-1-A. THE NORTH 3000 FEET OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1,2,3 AND 4, OF SECTION 32, TOWN- SHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 41 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE SAME BEING A STRIP OF LAND 300 FEET MEASURED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH EX- TENDING SOUTHERLY FROM THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 32, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 32 AND ON THE EAST BY THE WA- TERS OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND ON THE WEST BY THE INDIAN RIVER, THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT BEING BOUNDED BY A LINE PARALLEL - WITH AND 3000 FEET SOUTH bF THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID SECTION 32. LESS AND EXCEPTING THE NORTH 400 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL CONTAINING 28.3 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Location:4900 Ocean Drive, East side of South A-1-A, approximately 3 miles north of the St. Lucie County Nuclear Power Plant. 2.NESFAT M. MOND, fo � a Conditional Use Per . mit to allow for the retail, trade of undistilled alco. holic beverages as an accessory to the retail sale of food in the CN (Commercial, Neighbor- hood) Zoning District for the following• described property: SHERATON PLAZA UNITI ONE- S 126.01 FT OF TRACT B-LESS RD R/W- (OR 1267-1522:1387-153-. 2) Location:2233 ' North 25th Street (City Food Mart). 3.BROWN RANCH, INC., for a Major Adjustment to an approved Condi- tional Use Permit for the expansion of the Stew- art Sand Mining Opera- tion in the AGA (Agricu- ltural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District for the following described property: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH 38 FEET THEREOF, AND THAT PART OF THE SOUTH- WEST 1/4 LYING EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CON- TROL DISTRICT DIKE LESS THE NORTH 494.63 FEET THEREOF, ALL BEING IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH,-. RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUN. TY, FLORIDA. Location:13999 Indrio Road. PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held in Commission Chambers, Roger Poi- tras Annex, 2300 Virgin-i is Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on July 17, 2003, beginning at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Stat- utes, if a person -decides to appeal any decision made by a board, agen- cy, o.r commission with respect to any matter considered at a meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceed- ings, and that for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of. the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testi- mony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Ed Merritt, CHAIR- MAN PUBLISH: July 3, 2003 199781 Pik t s I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 7/17/03 File, Number SPMJ-03-vQ03 and CUMJ-03-001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. DEPARTMENT,; ® Planning Division • . ,r MEMORANDUM !, i TO `Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager ��IL DATE: June 30, 2003 , SUBJECT: Application of Edgar A. Brown, Brown Ranch, Inc;, for a: Major Adjustment to a Conditional Use Permit and Major Site Plan Adjustment to allow the, expansion of an existing mining operation known as StewartSand Mining Operation at Brown Ranch in ,the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District. LOCATION: 3/a mile west of 1-95 on the south side of Indrio Road.(Tax ID# 1318-143-0026-000/7) EXISTING ZONING: AG-1 (Agricultural —1 du/acre) FUTURE LAND USE: RE (Residential Estate) PARCEL SIZE. Existing'Mining Operation 290:46 acres Expansion' Area 67.49 acres Total Acreage 35.7.95 acres PROPOSED USE: The purpose of the requested Conditional Use Permit is to allow a 67.49-acre expansion to the existing Stewart Sand Mining Operation on the -Brown Ranch. This use would'be authorized under the provisions of Section 3.01;03(A)(7)(i), Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic' minerals, except fuels. SURROUNDING ZONING: AG-1 (Agricultural -- 1 du/acre) surrounds. the petitioned j property to the north, south, east and west. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject property is. surrounded by the Capron Trail Special District to the North and West and RE (Residential ; Estate) future land use designations to the south and east. The existing uses in this area are agriculture in nature with ` row crops and cattle. I FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station 7 (4900 Ft. Pierce Blvd.), is located approximately 8 miles to the east. 4i u e v 3 , F , t June 30, 2003 Petition: Stewart Mining, 4 . Page` 2 File NO.: MJCU-03-001 and SPMJ-03-003 f< } }f UTILITY SERVICE: On site wells will provide water service. On site sewer will,be provided through a septic tank. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of=way for`Indrio 'Road is, 9$ feet; the subject property is located west of the end .of the existing Indrio Road pavement. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: The Florida Department of Transportation -has slated Indrio Road west of I-95 to Kings Highway for resurfacing and construction of 5 foot paved shoulders in 2003. These improvements will not extend to the subject property. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit: STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH INr SECTION 11A743, ST. LUCIE.COUNTY LAD DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether .the proposed conditional use is in; conflict with any applicable portions W the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use is. not in conflict with any applicable portion of the.St. Lucie County Land Development Code, :subject ao the special conditions cited below. Section 3.01.03(A)(7)(i), AG-1 (Agricultural —1 du/acre)Zoning District, allows for sand mining as a conditional use, underthe general heading of mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels. The petitioner is proposing an expansion`to the approved Conditional Use1or the Stewart. Sand Mining Operation at Brown Ranch. -On November 5,1996, via Resolution 96.185 the - Board of County Commissioners.approved a conditional use permit to allowforthe mining of sand on 280t acres of land within the Brown Ranch,- In addition, oniNovember $,1996, the Board of County Commissioners granted approval of a'Class II Mining Permit for a period of time not to exceed 20 years for the subject property. This Mining Permit included two 40- acre pits that totaled 80 acres in size. A minor modification to the Mining Permit was granted on October 28, 1998 that increased the size of the Phase 1 pit and decreased the size of the I a June 30, Phase ►Y Petition: Stewart Mining Page 3 File No.: MJCU-03-001 and SPMJ-03-003 v" 1 I it but kept the tdtal acreage at 80 acres and did not required Board approval. On pit, p 9 q pP anuary 21, 2003, the Board approved a major modification to the approved Mining Permit ncreasing the Phase II pit by 21 acres. The proposed expansion to the Stewart Mining Operation involves the disturbance of uplands to the west of the existing Phase I pit for a proposed plant facility and material storage area; expansion of the mining for the Phase II pit to include an additional 67.49 acres and an additional 16.45 acres to the east of the Phase II pit. A review of the conditional use permit and site plan indicates that the proposed mining operation will not be in conflict with any portion of the Land Development Code. Staff is recommending the following condition of approval in order to ensure that the existing approved Mining Permit is also modified to reflect the referenced modification to the Conditional Use Permit: Prior to commencing any operation of the mining efforts on the 77.59 acres of land, the applicants shall be required to obtain an approved mining permit from the St. Lucie County Public Works Department that -is consistent with Section 6.06.00 of the Land Development Code and 11.05.01 of the Land Development Code. 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 property is currently be utilized for a sand mining operation and the proposed adjustment will increase the proposed mining area by 77.59 acres. 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; There are no public facilities servicing the proposed area. The subject property is located outside the urban service boundary. This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. The subject property will be provided water and sewer through an on -site well and septic sewer system. Indrio Road in this area is a two-lane facility, with sufficient capacity to support the proposed use. The area surrounding the subject property is primarily agricultural in nature with row crops and cattle. 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional -use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The subject parcel can be generally described as improved pasture, with two low quality freshwater marsh systems. The majority of the site consists of improved pasture that is currently utilized for cattle grazing (78.21 acres). The dominant vegetative species within the area consists of natal grass (Rhynchelytrum repens) and bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), other species include purple flatsedge (Cyperus retrosus), pennywort (Hydrocotylesp.) and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). There are a few scattered cabbage palm (Saba/palmetto) trees located within the pasture area. c June 30, 2003 Petition: Stewart Mining Page 4 File No.:WCU-03-001 and SPW-03-003 The physical characteristics of the pasture within the expansion area and the surrounding mine site have been altered over the years as part of the regional agricultural practices. Networks of ditches and, canals are .found within both the expansion area and previously permitted mine boundaries'. These ditches and canals have been and continue o be utilized by the agricultural industry to control ground and surface water levels in the area. Typical practices of the surrounding ditches and canals will be to discharge to another'bn=site" canals as necessary based on Ahe various crop needs: There are two,freshwater marsh systems located within the expansion area, comprising a total of 1.95 acres. The dominant species is bahia grass, other herbaceous species include soft rush (Juncu effuses), Asian coinwort (Centella asiatica)i pennywort, dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), dayflower (Cornmelina sp,), maidencane (P. hemitomon), duckweed (Sagittaria lancifola),.pickerelweed (Pontederki cordata), and various sedges. Both of the freshwater marsh areas .show evidence of. impact due to cattle grazing and agricultural ditching. The hydrology is variable, as the surrounding canals and ditches effectively drain these systems; standing water is only evident after high rainfall events. The proposed expansion site and previously permitted mining site were closely examined for' the occurrence or potential for occurrence of the Florida sandhill`crane (Grus Canadensis pmtensis); burrowing owl (Specotyto cunicWeida), and 'Audubon's crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii). The expected probability for onsite nesting of the caracara and sandhill crane is deemed low, due to the lack of suitable. habitat. The Crested caracara has been documented nesting in, the Dickerson Mining Site loeated on the north side .of Indrio. Road; west of 1-95. The proposed expansion area of the Stewart Sand Mining Operation is located within the secondary zone'(5,015 foot zone) outlined by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. To ensure the survival of this species staff is recommending the following condition of approval: Prior to any mining activities within the expansion area, the applicant shall submit to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resource2 Division a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the :Crested Caracara or an appropriate form of approval from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are two isolated wetland systems located within the expansion area. These wetlands will not be impacted by the expansion of the mining operations. However, a total of 2.69 acres of freshwater marsh were impacted by the mining activities associated with the previous expansion of the"Phase One Pit. To date, no wetland mitigationhas been provided' for the wetland impacts. The applicant submitted a wetland mitigation plan for the previous wetland <impacts with this application. The applicant is proposing; to mitigation the wetland impactsin the following manner: 2.13 acres of wetland creation and 1.55 acres of wetland enhancements to compensate for the 2.69 acres of onsite freshwater marsh impacts. The proposed mitigation area is located in the northwestern corner of the expansion site. A low quality, minimally functional 1.55-acre isolated wetland will be restored and expanded to include an additional 2.13"acres :of created freshwater marsh. The goal of the mitigation plan is to re-establish the wetland hydrology and vegetation in this area. Nr June 30, 2003 Petition: Stewart Mining :Page 5File No.. MJCU-03-001 andSP J-)3- 003 , The applicant has submitted a reclamation plan that states that upon the completion of the mining. activities, formal reclamation ;.operations will commence with 90 days. These procedures will include grading, mulching and seeding, in the upland areas, as well as sloping, stabilizing and contouring the final side slopes of the excavated lakes. Final grading shall be completed within one year of the cessation of the mining operation. Planting will be completed within 120 days of the final grading. Upon completion of all reclamation activities on the site, two water bodies will remain. The Phase' l pit will result in a" 55.69-acre water body, which will be utilized as a reservoir for agricultural activities and as such no littoral zone will be planted. In addition, the Phase II pit will result in a 106.08-acre water body. Approximately 10% of this water body will be planted, with a littoral shelf planting of herbaceous species. The applicant has indicated that they are expecting the remaining littoral shelf will vegetate naturally. In order to ensure that the wetland restoration survives-and.the littoral shelf does vegetate, staff is recommending the following condition of approval: If the total herbaceous cover has not reached 50% of the improved marsh area, within one year of planting, an additional 1,000 plants shall be required to be installed in order to enhance the wetland. The additional plants shall be comprised of at least two other species than those currently proposed such as: Spike rush (Eleocharis cellulose), Arrow -Arum (Peltandra virginica) or Sand Cordgrass (Spartina baker). COMMENTS The petitioner, Edgar A. Brown, Brown Ranch, Inc., has applied for the requested Major Adjustment to an existing Conditional Use Permit and Major Adjustment to an I existing site,plan in order to expand the existing Stewart Sand Mining operation by`77,59 acres. The subject. property is located approximately 3/a mile wet of 1-95 on the south side of Indrio Road within the AG-1 (Agricultural —1 du/acre) zoning district: This particular use would be authorized under the provisions of Section 3.01.03(A)(7)(i), Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuel, The proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The property is currently be utilized for a sand mining operation and for agricultural purposes (row crops and cattle grazing). Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review asset 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 petitionto the Board of County Commissionerswith a recommendation of approval, subject to the following: conditions: 1. Prior to commencing any operation of the mining efforts on the 77.59 acres of land, the - applicants shall be required to obtain,an approved mining permit from the St. Lucie County Public Works Department that is consistent with Section 6.06.00 of the Land Development Code and 11.05.01 of the Land Development Code. 1 f { June 30, 2003 Petition: Stewart Mining. e Page 6, File No.: MJCV�03-001 and SPMJ-03-003 }1 4 x 2. Prior to any mining activities within the expansion area, the applicant shall submit to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resource Division'a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Crested :Caracara or an appropriate form of approval from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. If the total herbaceous cover has not reached 50% of the.improved:marsharea, within one s year of planting; an additional 1,000 plants shall be ; re%quired to be installed in order to enhanoe the wetland. The additional plants shall be comprised of at, least two other species than those currently proposed such as: Spike rush (Eleoeharis cellulose), Arrow -Arum (Peltandra virgnica) or Sand Cordgrass S artina - Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter,. cs >; H:\wp\eonditionaluse\wynne.aircurtain.conuse.stfrpt.doc cc: County,Attorney . Public Works Director Environmental Resources Mike•Harvey, Engineering Frank Stewart Chryl Ellinor Edgar Brown j i i I -UeNt � l l�5 Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, x INCLUDING STAFFCOMMENTS, 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 EDGAR & BROWN, BROWN RANCH,INC., FOR A MAJOR ADJUSTMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND 'MAJOR ADJUSTMENT TO AN EXISTNG SITE PLAN TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE STEWART SAND. MINING OPERATION IN THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL.'1 DU/ACRE)'ZONING DISTRICT, BEOAUSE:,. [CITE REASON (S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING ,THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN" SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY:LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,I HEREBY MOVE THAT ; THE PLANNING AND,ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE,ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF 'EDGAR A. BROWN, BROWN RANCH INC., FOR A MAJOR ADJUSTMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND MAJOR ADJUSTMENT TO AN EXISTNG SITE PLAN TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE STEWART SAND MINING OPERATION 1N THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL -1 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON (S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] i i I i � t 1 u Section 3 01 .3 4 Zoning District Use ReguWidrts l i 3.01.03`, ZONING DISTRICTS -N A. AG AGRICULTURAL'- 1 1. `Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protectan environment suitable for productive" commercial agriculture, together with such other uses as may be necessary to, andi compatible with productive agricultural surroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a maximum of one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre. The number in "Q" following each.identified use corresponds to the SIC: code reference described in Section 3.01.02(8). The number 999 applies to a use not defined;under the SIC code but may be further defined in'Section 2.0000"of this Code. 2. Permitted Uses P. Agricultural production, -crops (oi) b. Agricultural production -livetoz� stock &animal specialties c. Agricultural services oia. d. family' day care homes. iow e. Family residential homes providedthatsuch homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand `(1,0,00) feet ofanother existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency.or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies he Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancythat the home is licensed ' by.HRS. (sss) i f _ "Fishing, hunting. & trapping cosy g forestry toed h. Kennels, (o762) is Research Facilities,Noncommercial (ersa) ; j . Riding stables: (7999) k. Single-family detached dwellings. (999) 3. Lot Size -Requirements Lot size'requirements shall be in accordance with Table,1 in Section .7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in Section 1.04.00. 5, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements - Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to :Section 70600. 6. Landscaping Requirements I _ Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7 09:00. I 7, Conditional Uses I a. Agricultural labor housing, t999i . Adopted August 1, 1990, 94 Revised Through 08/01/00 I - I I 7 t r Section 301.03 14l �F ry Zoning District Use Regulations b. AircrG: storage and equipment maintenance. (45e1) c. Airports and flying, landing, and takeoff fields: t45e) d. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet ofanother such -` family residential home. t999) e. Farm products warehousing' and storage. (4221/4222) f Gasoline service stations. (seal) g. Industrial wastewater disposal. (999) h. Manufacturing: {1) Agricultural chemicals (287) (2) Food & kindeed products (zo) (3) Lumber & wood products, except furniture (ea) i. Mining and quarrying of nonmetalic minerals,' except fuels. (14) j. Retail trade: " a 1) Farm equipment and related accessories. (999) (2) Apparel &accessory stores: tse) k . Sewage disposal subject to the "requirements of Section .7.10.13 t999) L Telecommunication, Towers -subject to the standards :of Section 7.10 23 (999) M. Camps porting and recreational (cos) 8. AccessoryUses Accessory Uses `are subject to he requirements of Section 8.00 00, and include the following: a, Mobile homes subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. b. Retail trade and wholesale trade -subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity. i i Guest house subject to "the requirements of Section 7.10.04. (999) I I I I ) , I Adopted August 1, 1990 95 Revised Through 08/01/00 —....�— z U c� O O N, c c: Orr 0 • L W 0 L1J \'S it I it 3 ` r i J �✓ / j N W�,. - - VE t,sp�w C e i -.' l�� 3P13 i I i-..._. y30Mr3T6 rLS3lg1 — �- - 0'j - taw SOU v $' 1 SFOUTi... I------- F li W Q 1S la nV - Ob Krill '05iIGlyPAFtK iOu N33MCA I..- AY _"Oa awa bOlAlff- AVV AVXHDM sOlm CIL — ..-.OrON310Mn3S.._ 4 g h W "__3tl{j3jV-id583ri7` _ W ix } avar-aev�3iaor- m m / _ - - --p -.-y __ --- OVOiI ._ $' . 1M113311 Z oiou «iws»oae Z O U i orou raps 0 I I ! VOIJ 3DOi9NDUL - . � I I j : I OVOU WX" U3Or3Ncr '• W i • i ' Otl ONOIOM tr30 �. W Z OD :I m cr - � I Or0i1 033N5 K C a +-, p I Q Ll" 7 I sL-� lvtnJ Z CIO O - L O IVNVO. a- ' i / W W / I d-: S b£ 1 5 S£ 1 S 9£ 1 AiNnoo 3380HO33)10 A Petition of Brown Ranch, Inc. for a Major Adjustment to an approved Conditional Use for an expansion of the Stewart Sand Mining operation... CUMJ 03-001 & SPMJ 03-003 This pattern indicates subject parcel qis, Map prepared June 25, 2003 Tiffs map r- been a.PW W90—WPl--q end relerenoe ptsposee VVn% every eflat hes Deer made to PMAde the moat ascent end eoasete Warmelion possible.2 is ratintended for use w a log* WWjV doo—L Land Use Brown Ranch, Inc. CUMJ 03-001 & SPMJ 03-003 This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared June 25, 2003 Wa i.n pos l".4Is W iM.&d f usa - a "p bhd+W do—,.t Rrnwn Rgnch. Inc. CUMJ 03-001 & SPMJ 03-003 This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared June 25, 2003 m+ nw rm been cwPw ar 9 » W WwmV wd mkPt wm mob. WN.wW~tmbwmadoaUftW—dwd�v. Morin - poaei , X Ie nd irdwW tonne m a N* b." tloax -C N to, . . . . . . . . . . X IfSIiN it ihll�� It tv If it �[-.t�,�tt !1 �3 AGENDA -PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION • July 17,; 2003 7.00'P.M. i EDGAR A. BROWN, ,BROWN RANCH, INC,, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Major Adjustment to a Conditional Use Permitand Major Site Plan Adjustment to allow - for the expansion - of an existing mining operation, known as Steward Sand Mining Operation, at Brown Ranch in the AG-1(Agricultural =1 dulacre) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 13999 Indrio Road. , Please note that all proceedings before the Planning and Zoning CommissionlLocal Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by , the Planning and Zoning CommissionlLocal 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 whiekthe appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the f proceeding, individuals testifying dating 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 thepublic hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing-, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners July 7; :2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation .in St. Lucie County, on July 3, 2003 - II L File No. CUMJ-03-001 & SPMJ-03-003 www.co.st-lucie.fl.us J t t ST. LU . E COl(NTY PLANNING AND .. 2.NESFAT M. MOHD, fo n ZONING COMMISSION a Conditional ,Use Per I PUBLIC HEARING mit to allow for the'retal : 1 AGENDA trade of undistilled alto- July 17, 2003 holic beverages , as an ' athe retail accessory to t sale of;food in the CN TO WHOM IT MAY CON- (Commercial, Neighbor- hood) Zoning District for CERN: the following. described (.property: NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Sec- tion 11.00.03 of the SL SHERATON PLAZA -UNIT . Lucie County Land De- ONE- S 126.01 'FT OF veloprrient Code 'and the. TRACT BLESS RD RAN- provisions of the St., Lu-i (OR 1267-1522;1387-153-. cie County Comprehen- 2) sive Plan, the following applicants have request• Location,2233 North " ed that the St. Lucie 25th Street (City Food County Planning and Matt). Zoning Commission consider their following 3•BROWN RANCH, INC., requests: fora Major Adjustment to an approved,. Condi- 1.WATERSONG, for a tional Use Permit for the ' Change in .Zoning from ' expansion of the; Stew - the HIRD_ (Hutchinson Is art Sand Mining-0pera- aand Residential District) `lion in the AG-1.(Agricu Itural - -1 du/acreVZoning ' Zoning pistrictand the PUD (Planned Unit Qe District ;for the following velopment) Zoning. Dis- ' described property:- trict to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zon- ;THE WEST 1/2 OF THE ing District to construct SOUTHEAST 1/4: LESS THE NORTH 38 FEET a 91 unit subdivision for thefollowing described THEREOF, AND THAT perty property; PART- OF THE SOUTH WEST. 1/4 LYING EAST THAT OF THE OF THE CENTERLINE OF .PORTION FOLLOWING DE- SCRIBED PROPERTY LY- ' THE FORT PIERCE .FARMS WATER CON INO EAST OF A 100 TROL DISTRICT : DIKE FOOT WIDE RIGHT -OF- 'ROAD LESS THE NORTH 494.63 FEET THEREOF, WAY FOR STATE ALL BEING IN SECTION A 1-A 18, TOWNSHIP 34 THE NORTH 3000 FEET SOUTH;:: RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE`COUN OF -' GOVERNMENT . TY, FLORIDA I OTS 1,2,3 AND 4, OF SECTION. " 32, TOWN- SHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE Locationa13999 Indrio 41 EAST, ST. LUCIEL. goad. COUNTY, FLORIDA,; THE ,PUBLIC SAME BEING A STRIP <HEARINGS. will OF LAND 300 FEET be held in Commission MEASURED FROM -Chambers, Roger Poi tras Annex 2300 Virgin NORTH TO SOUTH EX- TENDING ; SOUTHERLY is Avenue, Fort Pierce,." FROM THE NORTH LINE Florida on July:17, 2003, beginning at 7400 P.M. OF SECTION H,E ' BOUNDED ONTHE or as soon thereafter as NORTH BY THE : NORTH :, Possible: BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 32 AND ON PURSUANT TO Section THE EAST, BY THE 'WA 286.0105, Florida Stat- TERS OF THE ATLANTIC utes, if a person -decides OCEAN ` AND ON THE to appeal any decision ' WEST : BY THE INDIAN made by, a board, ages- RIVER, THE SOUTH cy, or, commission with LINE OF SAID TRACT respect -to any matter - -BEING BOUNDED BY A considered at a 'meeting PARALLEL r._'WITH or hearing, he wi11 need -LINE - AND 3000 FEET SOUTH a record.of the proceed- - — OF THE NORTH togs, and that for such BOUNDARY LINE OF he,.may need - ..putpases SAID SECTION 32, to ensure that a vedw. tim record of. the pro- I LES$ AND EXCEPTING ceedings, is made, which t THE NORTH 400 FEET record includes the testa• ` THEREOF; mony and evidence upon which the appeal ' PARCEL CONTAINING ` :istobe'based. : 28.3 ACRES, MORE OR " LESS. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Location:4900 Ocean ST. LUCIE COUNTY; Drive, East, side of South ' FLORIDA A-1-A, _approximately 3 R /S/ Ed Merrill.. CHAIMA miles north of the St. Lucie County Nuclear PUBLISH:' Jul 3, 2003 199781 y Power Plant. G i t Planning andloning Commission Review: ;07/17/03 FileNumber Wnl)3-00'9 <' ME M O R. A VD.0 M DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Development Director DATE: July 11, 2003 SUBJECT: Application of Nesfat M. _Mohd for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the retail trade of undistilled alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) as an accessory to the retail sale of 'food in the ON (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. LOCATION: 2233 North 251h Street. - ZONING DISTRICT: ON (Commercial, Neighborhood) FUTURE LAND USE: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 0.33 acre PROPOSED USE: Retail Sale of Undistilled Alcoholic Beverages (beer and wine) as an accessoryto the retail sale of food SURROUNDING ZONING: ON to"the north and south, RS-4 (Residential, Single- Family — 4 du/acre) to the west' and ,east. SURROUNDING: LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the.property is some commercial and residential. The Future Land Use Classification of -the immediate. surrounding area is RU :(Residential Urban). FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #1 (2400 'Rhode Island Avenue), is located approximately 2.5 ;miles to the south. UTILITY SERVICE:' The subject site is located within the water and sewer facilities area of the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (I=PUA). Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use. U MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE, PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.031 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 NESFAT M. MOHD, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE RETAIL TRADE OF UNDISTILLED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (BEER AND WINE) AS I AN ACCCESSORY TO THE RETAIL, SALE OF FOOD IN THE CN (COMMERCIAL, j NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING DISTRICT, :BECAUSE..'. [LIST CONDITION(S)] MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND ,THE STANDARDS OF. REVIEW AS SET FORTH] SECTION11:07,03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE II THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF NESFAT M. MOHD, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE RETAIL TRADE OF UNDISTILLED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (BEER AND WINE) AS AN ACCCESSORY TO THE RETAIL SALE OF FOOD IN THE CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING DISTRICT, . BECAUSE... [CITEREASON(S)`WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] y Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations ` 1 5. Off-street°Parking and Loading Requirements Off-street;.parking and loading requirementsare subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are.subject'to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a: Car Washes (Self Service Only) - subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.22. (999) b. Day care = adult (e322) - child ,(ew) C. Postal services. t43,1) d. 'Retail trade: (1;) Gasoline services - accessory to retail food stores .underSIC-5411, t999i _ _(2) Undistilled alcoholic beverages accessory to retail .sale of food. (5921-F-XdWfor liquor) e. Telecommunication towers.* subject to the standards of Section 710.23 (999) 8. Accessory` Uses - Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00 and include the following: i a. Drinking places (undistilled alcoholic beverages) accessory to an eating place. (wq) b, One dwelling unit contained within the commercial building, for on -site security purposes. 999) I II � 'I j I j Adopted August 1, 1990 115 Revised. Through 08/01/00. -4490— z 0 �, 2! 0 .� . A4, U) (D -s ta Al Is Al ON CAIG-Vk "AW Eli ON V—jj- cc cr 00 z 0 0 n _j orw M" bi6ki- jmi -iiiiii onow 36owsmul cr LU > avoil ima w3ov3H co cr < ovou arps z < 0 Ikz.j z In cr s oc I s 91 1 s 91 1 kLNnoo 3380HO33>10 ;b Zoning /55 156 157 156 137 1 136 1 135 1 /34 /33 Nesfat M . Mohd 9 7 6 5 3 2 I 6 5 /0 !2 l3 Sheraton Boulevard CU 03-009 This pattern indicates subject parcel E 16: 6 /7 1 !B 19 20 71 8 Juanita Avenue B 9 7 6 1 5 4 i 3 2 i l 10 10 // 4-a 12 14 15 16 1 17 l8 /9 N l3 N Q) Valencia Avenue (/) 8 9 7 1 6 5 1 4 3 -p LO a N i2 14 /5 /8 d IS9 120 N 11 l2 � !3 o San Dieco Avenue o z 8 z _9 7 6 5 4 5 2 1/ 1019 10 l2 14 151 /6 /7 /8 /9 120 /l 1 /2 /3 Barcelona Avenue 9 7 6 5 1 4 3 2 10 0 l2 14 1 /5 16 171 /8 /9 120 /l 1 12 !3 C & S.F.F.C.D Canal C-25 Map prepared June 20, 2003 TM MW hes been cWOW la 9sexWOMVQ " felerenoe PZW OW N Whig way ~ ho bW - topaNe Ne n)W -t W sOCUie seamsioo possible, i 1.nd Mended 1m die. a W01 bkN*lg Goameti. Land Use /55 1 /56 157 158 137 /36 /35 134 133 Juanita 140 141 142 143 144 149 146 147 146 /45 Q) Sheraton 36 2 35 2 34 2; 33 2. 32 2_ 3/ 21 30 2/ 29 2( 28 /9 Tropic Nesfat M. Mohd I- I ------ / Avenue Boulevard N 0 N m l8 9 l7 8 /6 7 15 6 14 5 !3 4 12 3 2 /0 Boulevard C & S.F.F.C.D Canal C-25 N L 0 >,Plana E Blvd U RI 9 7 6 5 3 2 ! 6 5 10 1/ 12 14 15 16 17 1 18 /9 20 71 8 /3 Juanita Avenue e 9 7 1 6 15 4 /0 151 Il l2 14 /5 16 1 9 /6 /9 120 13 Q) Valencia Avenue 8 9 7 1 6 5 1 4 3 2_ 10 i 11 � l2 14 15 /6 1 n 1 18 /9 120 N Il l2 /3 San Dieco Avenue O 8 z _9 7 6 5 4 3 2 /0 L17--- /4 151 I 16 /7 /8 /9 120 E /2 Barcelona Avenue _ 8_ 9 7 6 5 1 4 3 2 /0 0 l2 14 1 /5 16 /7 1 18 /9 120 l3 C & S.F.F.C.D Canal C-25 CU 03-009-�. GI.% This pattern indicates Map prepared June 20, 2003 subject parcel Ih,nWhaaba� � .�r� ptxp . WH. wW eR d has been -da 10 p wWB " mml Wretil and —M. krWr Ion POSWbW. ale W Ww" for d a NOW badna d� A Petition of Nesfat M. Mohd for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the retail trade of undistilled alcoholic beverages as an accessory to the retail sale of food in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. 9 71 6 5 3 2 I 6 5 155 l56 1 157 158 /0 l2 137 136 135 134 /33 /3 Juanita Avenue 140 141 142 143 144 149 148 147 146 145 36 27 35 26 34 25 33 24 32 23 3/ 22 30 21 29 20 28 /9 CU 03-009 This pattern indicates subject parcel I -'�' 1 fl15 /6 A 1 l8 /9 20 71 8 Juanita Avenue 8 9 7 6 1 5 4 1 j 2 10 r/ _ l2 14 l5 16 1 /7 a� Valencia Avenue Cn 8 V) 9 7 16 5 1 4 3 2_ ! /019 � L LO N %2 l4 /5 /6 1 /7 1 18 19 120 N !! l2 � l3 4- 0 San Die o Avenue L 0 0 z 8 Z _9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 l 1019 /0 L!3 l2 14 151 /6 /7 /8 /9 ( 2012 Il 1 Barcelona Avenue _ 8_ 9 7 6 5 1 4 3 2 / /p 9 _ /0 0 I/ l2 14 1 15 /6 /7 1 /8 /9 120 11 1 /2 /3 C & S.F.F.C.D Canal C-25 Map prepared June 20, 2003 ki—b n Pam• 4 b nd t*—W 1a — a a IV* b"V 0ocurwt r■ 155 11% 1 157 IM 137 136 135 134 /33 Juanita Nesfat M . Mohd 9 71 6 5 3 2 I 6 5 /0 l2 /4 /5 l6 17 1 18 /9 E71 8 l3 Avenue Juanita Avenue ■ � r r r r r-� r r� r� 3 r r r - r r� - � r 1 ■1 1- - a_■� �} i ■� # 15�x A/ Qs 67 O } 2 r 18 /9 120VL a l2 ule�arc �,t /a}e.z r W Avenue CU 03-009 ------- 500' boundary This pattern indicates subject parcel Barcelona Avenue Map prepared June 20, 2003 Ins Ump hu been aWOW for 0a<■r■Wmw*q ■q fWa PwDasee ant. N WhIe emy egad hu been— w W de u■ mat wren am acw■e Nbm,sepn P..R".1 b nw Mended tar — . a Wg* bk."dxu . 137 ` 136 4i. POW, O tt ' 48 ry47 J 149 • _; .. .145 45zi 6' ' ��2 118 Y9 ( .s 44 26 .VM4 r 24 y93 ,� 22 , •, ft3`. 4 .� 12" 3 01, t 198 ''got,d ZOS� 906 202 ,204 2Q5, C &.S.F.F.C.D Canal C-25 " i 9 1 6 .' M410 i 20 1.3 3 12 /4 I (� 1 16. 17 pff � •r . 8 fi 9 Z 6 5• 4 l56 13 , r -a 7 . 6 5. 4 3. 1 ^i 1�i• �g o --Y > lit i1 14 Ir../y 16 C. & S.F.F.C.D Canal C-25 GCE cOG �j tr J BOARD OF COUNTY �= y COMMUNITY I COMMISSIONERS DEVELOPMENT ,, �OR10P D I RECTO R C July 712003 In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are.hereby;advised that NESFAT M. MOHD, has, petitioned St, Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the retail trade 6U undistilled alcoholic beverages, as an accessory use to the retail sale of food in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District for the following described proy: pert Location:' 2233 North 25th Street (City Food Mart), THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The rlr. i$.public hearing `on the petition-will'be held at Z-00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on July 17, 2003, County Comimissioner's Chambers, 5t. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virgcnia Aveuue; Fart 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 jonin - Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior tq a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning'Commission and County Coinmission�on any case' qutside of the scheduled public hearings) You may speak at a public hearing, or, provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Conunission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any mutter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record;gf the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that: a verbatim .record of the proceedings is trade, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the 'appeal .is to be based. Upon the request :of any'party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be, ''sworn in. Any -party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. 'If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date -certain. Anyone with a disab%lity requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the. St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428.. If you no, longer own -property adjacent'to the above -described parcel, please forward this notice to the new, owner. Please call (772) 462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number CU-03-009. Sincerely, \ ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Ed Merritt Chairman JOHN D. BRUHN, District Nc: 1 DOUG COWARD. District No. 2 PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 FRANNIE HUTCHINSON District No. 4- • CLIFF BARNES. District '•; 5 ` County Administrator - Dou4los M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Adrninistrarion: (772) 462-1590 • Planning::(772) 462-2822 GIS/Technicol Services: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fax: (772) 462-1581' Tourist/Convention: (7722) 462-1529_ • Fox: (772) 462-2132 www. co: st-lucie. fl . us T rr l- CI O, O N %0 N N .+ N 1 1I00 N11N dr G M wl -N eq N N Q�T tt `1 spy V O to +n eqf M M �O �A V M 1I9 �NI- - N-. - --. N N � eV�OIV�'(N�� «+ � Vim' M �V � � N?.• �M M +~ .N. .N. .N+ I�o %o %o %n "t 'v g %0 eV �a,o �v 40 �v � o00o !`O (%no``T rnaa`a, 0, 0%0%aa`oIo o�O v(v v�v d <P v v,v•v -�v � — M M MiM�M;M fHlj IM,M M I M IMF •� a+a.ataja ay. a a s a.a a,a a ¢ia•.a a'a :a a,a a a; !a a a a a a a ! (; �,Iw,w,wlw,w�w�z-�wldiwlw�w;wiw;wiwlU,wlwlw(w�w(wiw{`w�Iw!w� ,w w _ _ w_ �w w w N _O U NI N N N Ni Ni ! I Nt N, N N O aa;a;oia:w;a,a kk t,Z C � � V o,Cl'x..`C r.X:r C C; x.C'C -: C C C G.0 `C�. i ! t -V � 0 0 0 0 0 0'� o,ea.o o.o 0 0 0•0 �•o.o 0 o;p o o!o 0 0 0 ;o!o•o 0 0 U;-w+w;w,w w:wlWlw;a,w w;w w,w U. r�.I W!w w;wlwta.w u.:u.{P. wgw� # ,wTwlw w u. I a - .QT� �:�I VII LYi .b .?�-QIL114,1'(•,7!�-1' ylL.l V11 T(F-71U i�; ! ! !Itoo Oi O 00( Q\ wiWlw:wiw °O. ! I gI¢{ O •s U!U I oI �1 °'ii V �i a 'd �'-:� O w.i � O d3i � �! �'i7 �i >+•� rsi�, d:oa�oa!oaXI Cc o Aiw���xi__ _}�x NM!n M M(M�MiiV1�l� NINI.-sir-+�NINIMIININ N NIN V1�NI�D!N NINI'N{M(NIN� N�NIv'� i> !�F d o o,oio,olo!d o(o!dlojo 0 olo�o(o#o c+olo'o o clolo 0{III o d b ;'C O ''[•,. 0 M.N NIN :O!N M'tMVIN �!�iNiN!Nly ,O NININ Ot�;NIN00 !- "' 3 tn..o'o 0 0 o+o.olo 0 00 o:oio,o o b•o;o o,c b o oicol {dIo of (--N en OO+N �•-s t- o R�00 vi `1� vQ 00 N'%OIVIh+O�'O O% 00` 00' V olo 0 ololp !SZ Z p 61 (oIo 0 01 ,0 0 oIo'o�olIo oI o I {w O I 0 Oi0 b!O O 0 O!O�S7�0,p�g O 8 -. FO OIO © OIb,OIO O, O I RO'O b'O OIC� G'?'Ot0 O O ORO10 O O"O O_EO OHO b OiiO C. 0 O i M blO n M l-;t- 818, "� .0 to to %ol iN v1'N(O �p Njooi AlNN N(�-•'I Vl QEN+O,�--� b o 4 b) o O b O l0 0 of O O j ;Io;olo o. ,oio o(olc4�0�0�ololq_jolo 8ZI, o alo�$!0 o+o;ol0 040 oloRo,oloJololo�o�o bl'� o o`o:o+0 0 0l o o I li C I, A (I , o0 0o bo 0o r I t` i oo { oo I t- ; oo ao oo I oo (00 00 00 !` , oo ' e 00 0o I r oo I o0 oo II 00 00 M CI N N!NiM I N N M7NIN N N N N,N M NjN N N M N M N N 4N N I cn en M:MIM,M.en M!MiM M,en MiM,M M M!M M M M M M�M � ��'�.� V' �.'a• 'V',�I�{d' atlb• e} V'i� �'d' V � tt a '� o 0` i, s ti �(o � vryryv�� N M N 00 G N{o0 N - g000 00 0o 0 O O _ ��-- i�. - rININ�NiN • ;� � w•wiw w;c o' C , N • 00 a;a. a ai U w;w w wrG S,fs.d d if ° - � M � bv'u •M'� 1{ ... 7 , z z ti• � W U•w z U:w �•�iC 'L w _u :e a W :oo 0 d h t afr �I� O"NIV = O w i 0{ � IryIE9 MiN C Is C p w+OO N.� N w<<• '0 3•n o o b oc tOI O!< OTC pp cr' cc e cc ib'oboc A 0000hh;r I •R N'N M M r W M:M M en!p : aa! T�O N NNNN NN 42, V}N��M+ r r 'r r r r. r r r r r r r r r r e} r r r�.,r �Irnl�o' �o %o %o �o .•!�o �o �o �° o_ h V� C% a o� h �0 T _ t a � 1��I� a "I O� O� iIM M 1 M O� � � a' t 1 (� i '�t V '�t et 1 f!O , `V• I M O it V t M cn •1 MI M M M M OlM M}Mrn 00 M IM M IM�M M M •d'. M a M v M "t M .v M ff a >'•a aya a a� ' �z;liw1 41oA%o�wr ;,-41 'wl� 'fib • al ,�I'� �cpq u = 0 d 0, Gi dy v; a� VW. � U U 1 0. •O 'G 'd G U U yY -.'c0I'°C dlts.a'a` �"a. aa., .a!a a ( ia.aaaa t`ta� C.0 �i� C' XIr O O O O O' i a); O. 0 0 0 f O= O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 4 W'W W w:WrW, tA•W;wrw,mlalCg�w-w�wW K>•r W ` •c�vjvl � I i !�o► { cYl o:k r �`iin a�i vj �y� ' !, M C,4 rn ' Ia 1 0 a lz �. aidlw,N } d J �ofMl O'O,Opo�iiiiO , ��M'MIh;Nl�O#hI%0 iM ronj !b�0 1 b ��} i I� NibV,O'0o�v1 "._�Oa' �N�N,h O ' M { O C iYi d LYi p V°`'-V'I V°i'� 000 h. IMI.MI i I.N MiN��-• IN(N( IM,M q. M M •-= lLr ia. •-•• co a �� U � � i .w,b •8 .d' E ie � � Imo. ° a �' 1 � �' � 1 I ° � 4. •^" tV N a) O f �-"' f•7 a� .� Iz`( z fa ai a 1�• a.� ter a� a v�'' I vi «� tom+ 7IN�Ni INiMi Q� (NI N�bh�`•'!Mt (��°O�MI (c�I�IdM. M N n N OyCi_ +O(Of0 OiI�-+( ICiC O!O`O'O O!C ICIO CI }O 0 O rO, — > OEM V'1 M:O� �O 'd'. ,h O%.[-fr- M,d' I 00�0� �O C-4 to .-. - ,M O i00'M�CIel ON 00} 001 �M'O�h 00 ON O M N- > O:CI O O'O OIGj fO;OIbiC O. O"(6 ;6*6i0 }Ci0}C _ _.-.. O� t %O 00 100 v) ' v'r t eY ' �D O� l� I Vl t > �p!g' g!$!glo IOb{g.. O O.'�fO�-0 !� O�O rA g� - ___�_- O� cn O S v1 > O O" O O I ,O O'O p�O 0 0 �O 0 v1 � V` - 00, 0 00 I i h O r h rA �bj N I en V* 00 pppp >� IN.. h OOIaO 01 I I 10i0 M Oi O O CC O -' 0 800 ( �O � N O M 00 > o or o�glo�g l Io�oio o,oib101o �o o fo�o olcoo Ia b o Iho oboe o:ohih,oh o0o iolo! (ojo 1 M N M�M�MIM M NpN'M �M M M N M MI ImiM M�M- !M +�- ( M MIM «�� M`M o soh M q,o {q M IM oba N M 0 000 N M o 2 N m S coo N. M 1 Mltni MlM M M'M M'M .M at+et eY O! V. r v--{ `T, 'at �!a {�. ��yy•�} -. .+.-r: N Minh �O SG �O �O N e} .-r N N �� M M M t t ST. "LUCIE COUNTY P PLANNING AND 2 N ESPAT M. MOHQ, fo� ZONING COMMISSION a Conditional Use Per•. mit to allow for the•retai( I 1 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA trade of undistilled,alco- July 19,.2003 hotic beverages as an to the detail ,,' accessory" sale of food in the CN TO WHOM IT, MAY COW (Commercial; Neighbor hood) Zoning District for CERN: ( the following• described a NOTICE" is hereby given (property. =" in accordance with Sec SHERATON ` Pf AZA-UNIT tion 1 L00.03 of the St. ONE- S ' 126.01 Lucie County Land De TRACT BLESS RD::RIW- velopirient Code and" the 1267_' 22:1387-153-I provisions of the St; Lu- ZOR cie County' Comprehen- sive Plan, -the following location:2233 North applicants have request• ed that the St. 251h Street (City Food .Lucie County 'Planning and Mart). Zoning Commission 3.BROWN RANCH, INC., consider their following for" a Major Adjuslrnent P requests: to an ; approved Condi- 1.WATERSONG, for a tional Use Permit for the expansion of the Stew - Change . in Zoning_ from art Sand Mining Opera - the HIRD (Hutchinson Is- ion in the AG 1 (Agricu- land Residential District) Itural 1 du/acre) Zoning Zoning" District and the for the following Pt1D" (Planned Unit De - velopment) ; Zoning ".Dis- Zoning described property: trict to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zon THE. WEST; 1/Z OF THE ing "District to construct 1SOUTHEAST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH 38 FEET a 91 unit subdivisign for THEREOF, AND THAT the following described PART OF THE SOUTH - Property: WEST 1/4 ,LYING EAST THAT PORTION OF THE OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE FORT' PIERCE FOLLOWING DE SCRIBED PROPERTY LY FARMS WATER CON - TROL DISTRICT DIKE 1NG EAST OF A -100 FOOT WIDE- RIGHT -OF- LESS THE NORTH 494.63 FEET THEREOF, WAY FOR STATE ROAD WAY ALL BEING IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 34 l THE NORTH 3000 FEET SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. iUCIE COON-� OF GOVERNMENT TY, FLORIDA ` LOTS 1,2,3 AND 4, OF 1 ` SECTION 32, TOWN- SHIP 3S SOUTH, RANGE Location:13999 Indrio ` 41 EAST, ST, LUCIEI Road COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS will SAME BEING A STRIP Of LAND 300 FEET be held in Commission 'Poi. I MEASURED FROM Chambers, Roger tras Annex, 2300 Virgin I NORTH TO SOUTH. EX TENDING SOUTHERLY is Avenue, Fort Pierce,. FROM THE`NORTH LINE Florida on July 17, 2003, beginning at, 7:00 P.M. 017SECTION 32, BOUNDED ON THE , or as soon thereafter as NORTH BY THE NORTH Possible. V BOUNDARY OF SAID { SECTION AND ON PURSUANT TO Section THE EAST BY THE WA 206.0105, Florida Stat- utes, if a person•decides TERS OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN,AND ON THE to appeal any decision . WEST BY ' THE INDIAN , made by a board, `agen• cY, or, commission with RIVER, THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT respect to any matter BEING BOUNDED BY A considered at a meeting � or hearing, he will need LINE PARALLEL _WITH — — AND 3000 FEET SOUTH a record of the proceed = OF THE NORTH ' ings, and that. for such purposes, he may need BOUNDARY LINE OF . 40 ensure that a verba- SAID SECTION 32. l i tim retard of the pro- ` (LESS AND: EXCEPTING ceedings is made, wh)ch record includes the testl- THE NORTH 400 FEET THEREOF. mony and . evidence upon which the appeal PARCEL CONTAINING is to be based. f I 28.3 ACRES, MORE OR PLANNING AND ZONING ` LESS. COMMISSION Location:4900 Ocean Drive, East side of South l (ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ` A-1•A, approximately 3 �S/ Ed Merritt, CHAIR- miles north of the St. Lucie County Nuclear MAN PUBLISH: July 3, 2003 PUBLISH: Power Plant- I �I 199781 G June 30, 2003 Petition: Treasure Coast Tractor Services, Inc. Page 2 File No.: CU-03-011 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for Orange Avenue is 202 feet. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use is in conflict with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(U)(7)(g), U (Utilities) Zoning District, allows the operation of an air curtain incinerator as a conditional use, under the general heading of solid waste disposal. On June 6, 2000, via Resolution 00-121, the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning application by Treasure Coast Land Clearing and Treasure Coast Tractor Service for 9.9 acres of land from the AG-5 (Agricultural — 1 du/5 acres) zoning district to the U (Utilities) zoning district. In addition, at the same public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners approved the operation of a single air curtain incinerator, via Resolution 00- 122. On March 10, 2003, the petitioners submitted an application for a lot split of the subject parcel. According to Section 7.10.12(C)(2) of the Land Development Code the minimum lot size for the operation of a Land Clearing and Yard Trash recycling operation is 5 acres and the maximum size of the facility is 15 acres. The proposed lot split would reduce the acreage permitted for the proposed land clearing and yard trash recycling operation to less than 5 acres in size, therefore, making the request inconsistent with the Land Development Code. Further, the proposed lot split would in effect make both air curtain incinerator sites non- conforming. Even though the petitioners are requesting that the lot split would be 18.445 acres, approximately 4.95 acres would be in Utilities Zoning and 13.495 acres would be in AG-5 (Agricultural — 1 du/5 acres) zoning. The use of the additional 13.495 acres of land owned by the applicant would require an additional rezoning approval from the AG-5 (Agricultural —1 du/5 acre) zoning district to U (Utilities) Zoning District, prior to the granting of any Conditional Use Permits to allow the operation of a Land Clearing and Yard Trash Recycling operation on the site. As the overall site exceeds 15 acres in size, the entire site �y -8}fix t d June 30; 2003 Petition: Treasure Coast Tractor Services; Inc r Page3 File No.: CU-03=011 { cannot be utilized for the operation of the Land ' Clearing and Yard Trash Recycling }i j operation. The applicant is proposing to place the second burner on,the eastern portion of the site that under the proposed lot split is to be owned by Treasure Coast Tractor Services1ric. In the application by Treasure Coast Tractor Services; the applicant's indicated that the proposed use of -the second air curtain incinerator would be #emporary, only for six months, in order to clear the eastern portion of the site from he existing vegetative Iantl clearing debris that has accumulated on the site. 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on nearby. properties; The proposed conditional use is expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. Within, the last few years, since granting the first conditional use: permit for this site, the applicant's were cited numerous times due to excess smoke .and continuous smoke PC curring from the burners. In addition, the ctarrent facility has not menthe assurances that were given -to the Board of GountyCommissioners `to ensure tha#the facility would not have an .undue negative effect on the surrounding properties. 1'he improper use of this facility, has caused a number of nuisance calls to the County's Gode Enforcement Division as well . as to the State Division of Forestry. i The State Division of Forestry has stated that a number .of stop work orders were issued in order for the operation to redesign/rebuild the, trenches to meet regulatory standards. In, addition, on April 7 of this year due o vege#ative stacking a "massive" fire was started from a spark from the pit. On October 1, 2002; the Florida Departmentof Environmental Protection issued a stop work order due to the operation not having the appropriate permits from the Department.of Environmental Protection. Staff previously requested that the applicant provide written verification from the County Code Enforcement Division, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Division of Forestry that all -code, violations had been solved: To date, the information was not provided Ahereforestaff:is unable to completely justify approving this petition without the appropriate data to verify no code enforcement activities were still,ongoing with`regards to this site. - 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, There are no public facilities servicing the proposed area. The subject property is located outside the urban service boundary. This conditional use 'is not expected to create_ significant additional :demands on any public facilities in this area. The subject property will be serviced water and sewer thorough an on -site well an- d'septic sewer system. Orange Avenue in this area is a two-lane facility, with sufficient capacity to support the proposed use. June 30, 2003 Page 4 Petition: Treasure Coast Tractor Services, Inc. File No.: CU-03-011 The area surrounding the subject property is primarily agricultural in nature with citrus groves and ranches within the vicinity of the operation. 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 anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The environment has been impacted by smoke and odors from the existing operation on the subject property. In order to ensure that no additional air pollution would result from a second air curtain incinerator being operated on the subject land parcel, staff requested that the applicant submit an air quality report indicating existing conditions, prior to the firing of the first air curtain incinerator, after the start of the facility and then the cumulative effects with a second facility being operated. The applicant failed to submit the requested information therefore staff is unable to justify approving a second facility being operated on the site, without having appropriate documentation to support the request. In addition to the request for an air quality report, staff requested information on the type of burner being proposed, a site layout indicating where the burner would be placed and details on how the burner would be operated including certifications. This information was not provided with the application therefore staff is unable to thoroughly analysis this petition and is unable to make a favorable recommendation without the required data to analyze the proposed use. Please refer to attachment "A" for some aerial photographs of the site and what currently is on this site. As these photographs indicate the land itself is not being sufficiently cleared to offset any negative results of the burning of the vegetative materials. COMMENTS The petitioner, Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc., has applied for the requested Conditional Use Permit in order to operate a second air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris on a 9.9 acres of land located on the south side of Orange Avenue approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed Road. This particular use would be authorized under the provisions of Section 3.01.03(W)(7)(g), Solid Waste Disposal An air curtain incinerator as defined by Chapter 17.256, F.A.C., is a portable or stationary combustion device that directs a plane of high velocity forced draft air through a manifold head into a pit with vertical walls in such a manner as to maintain a curtain of air over the surface of the pit and a recirculating motion of air under the curtain. The- air -curtain -incinerator -is' -designed to destroy trees, brush and stumps in a safe controlled burning process. The documentation submitted supporting the applicant's request, indicates that the property owners are in the process of applying for lot split on the subject property. The original rezoning request and conditional use permit was for a 9.9-acre parcel of land. Under this scenario the applicant would own less than 5 acres of land zoned "U" (Utilities) and containing the right to request a Conditional Use Permit. Under Section 7.10.12(C) of the Land Development Code, a Land Clearing and Trash z i t1 f 1 1 June- 30, '2003 Petition Treasure Coast Tractor Services, Inc. Page 5 File No.: CU-03�011 F Recycling operation must have a minimum of 5 acres. Theref'ore,','the lot split would effectively create a non -conforming lot and therefore not permitted byahe requirements of Section 10.00.04 entitled "Non -Conforming Lots of Record" i The petitioner has "indicated that the hours of operation for the air curtain -incinerator will be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m;; Monday thorough Friday, and will be temporary for only six months., According, to the Florida Department of Environmental regulations, outlined in Chapter 62-156, F:A.C.;"the land clearing debris cannot be ignited before 9:00.a.m. and must be extinguished one hour before sunset. Staff finds=that this petition does not meet the standards of review as -set forth in Section 11.'07003 of. the St. Lucie County Land Development Code 'and is in conflict with the. goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff, recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of. County Commissioners with a " recommendation of denial based upon the reasons set forth throughout this report. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment cS cc: Edward W. Becht, Esquire Lawrence Vickers, Treasure Coast Land Clearing, Inc. ` Cindy Adams Ricky Farrell i i Y N Suggested motion to recommend approvaI/denial of this requested cpndition I use. } MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, f` z= INCLUDING STAFF °COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS .OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN ` SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING ANDZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT TH„E ST.'LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF. I TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., FOR A CON OI TIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF AN AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR IN THE U; (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE,.. [CITE REASON(S) WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO DENY: \ AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11..07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LANDDEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVETHAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE OPERATION OF AN AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR IN THE (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE... [CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC} - I - i I I I III t > t k z i r f E L� Page 2 � }f June 6, 2003 ; Zoning/AC!,} r, 2. Reports of ex cessive"smokefmm the site. phis waseeported as an ongoing concernand was confirmed by staff site visit. The issue was resolved after the in- ground air curtain incinerator was replaced with" an above ground air curtain incinerator allowing, for a more , efficient burning process'. ,. 3. `Reports of, trucks traveling to the site were not. "covered. Staff .called the Sheriff's Departmeno ask that Orange Avenue be patrolled and any improperly covered vehicles . be cited.- - 4. - Reports that the site.had no Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permits. This " was confirmed "and a Stop Work Order was posted. This issue was resolved after the DEP issued:a permit. 5. In April, 2003'a second.air curtain incinerator was located at the site. Code Enforcement posted the site with -a Stop Work Order. This issue wa resolved after it was -confirmed that only one of the two air curtain inctnerators would be in Qpecation. Other concerns expressed to the County about the Orange Avenue site include the stacking and density of material stored tand, the potential for a large fire and'the; depositing` of material from companies other than Treasure "Coast Tractor/Treasure Coast Land Clearing. The Orange Avenue site was the first"air'curtain.incinerator location approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on our experience to date with the Orange Avenue site, County staff will conduct a thorougM.review of any new,application before any recommendation is made Ao the Board of County Commissioners. ' Please'be- advised that there 'is no certainty that we will provide a positive recommendation, It will be entirely incumbent upon you #o demonstrate that the problems and issues associated with the Orange Avenue facility will not be repeated. Sincerely, - Ray ,azny As stunt Cou t A inistrator - RW:dlt c: Board of County Commissioners Doug Anderson, County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director Dennis Grim, .Code Enforcement Manager _ Ms. Cindy Adams Mr. John Talley 1©t21 7724b1©069 T C TRACTOR PAGE 01 } �� i f TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. { 1210 PULITZER ROAD 77Z 464-2582 FL PIERCE, FL 34945 ST.LUCIE'00UNTY 5/22/03 ATT MR. RAY WIZNY 8 MRS. FRANNIE;HUTCHINSON •DEP 00 FAXED THIS LETTFJi OVER TO ME YESTERDAY, I;'THOMT IT VERY INTERESTING THAT SHE THINKS SHE KNOWS SO MUCH,, HOST OF THE THINGS SHE HAS LISTED HAS NOTHING TO 00 UITH TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, WE.MAY HAVE A BURNER QN'SITE BUT IT IS'NOT HOOKED UP. FOR POWER, THEREFORE THERE IS KNOW WHY THAT WE ARE BLWING. I INFORMEO_CINDY AQW YESTERDAY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PERMIT SO THAT WE CAN CLEAN UP OUR SIDE, GET A LOT SPLIT AND"WVt bUR PIT. IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS AS LONG AS WE MOVE. WHICH WE ALL OM THAT IS T SHE I5 AFTER,' MY�QUESTION IS.. CAN WE MOVE TO MR.SCHUMANN RD PROPERTY 109 AC. AM GET A AGREEMENT FROM "THE �QU FOR THE UtIl-M ZONINtI? WE RAVE 'BEEN WA.mm 10 HEAR FROf1-DENNIS ROM SINCE THE FIRST OF'THE,YEAR, NE SZEMS TO. BE PUTTING ; US 'OFF ME TO TREASURE COAST LAMS) CG� ATT"EY : EDDIE OW, THEY ARE MAKING SURE THAT NOTHING WILL CAUSE IHEH TO LOSE THEIR PERMIT ,•SO OUR COMPANY IS PUT ON :THE OACK BURNER WHILE !AN PAYINGFOR S11S,000.00 BURNER. MY ATTORNEY'RICK t=ARRELL WILL SACK IN TOWN ON;UISONESI]AY 5J29/D3, i HOPE THAT HE CAN GET SOME 4UES7lONS TAKEN CARE OF POR ME,:BECAUSE ALL MY CALLS - ARE NOT GETTING ME.ANVWERE: V,11409 BEEN TOLD THAT THE COUNTY HAS A,HEARING EVERY OTHER MONTH $0 1 MUST HAVE BMt PUT OFF 2zrl AEU NGS ALREADY. THE REASON FOR THE LOT SPLIT AND MOVE IS QUIT CLEAR, WE OO NOT WANT ANY PART TO .00 WITH A COMPANY THAT CANNOT COMPLY WITH"'THE RULES AND GOOD STANDARDS OF RUNNING THE PIT. OUR 'SIDE HAS BEEN INSPECTED BY THE FIRE MARSHALL AND, OUT PILES ARE StPAATED THE WAY THEY SHOU! D , BE S0, THAT IF A SPARK GOT :OUT OF;; HANO IT fAi1lD 8E PUT' OUT. WE WEtCOME`A INSPECTION EVERY DAY IF CINDY AOAMS HAN7S ITt ALSO WE HAVE NOT. HAULED ANY. MELALEUCA,RUI�BER,OR AUSTRALIAN PINES TO BURN. SHE HAS CALLED IN AT TIMES THAT. THERE IS NO 1100M FRDM US ,GOING ON, BUT THEY' HAD 7'PILES BURNING ON THE RANCH .AND QTHER PLACE'S AR"D HER. ME, EVEN CALLED 0EP OUT AND ''TO HER SURPRIZE WE WERE NOT SING AND pEP WAS NOT VERY NAPPY WITH HER, :ALONG i lTTl A Foi OTHER OFFICALS« I ALSO N07ICE SHE USES. ADAMS: RANCH STATXONARY BUT ONLY HER & HER HUSBAND SIGN IT, I THINK SHENEEDS 70 •GET.HERSLLp `k 'IFE r - - • ,. SHE EVEN RAN INTO CARTER'S AND, TOED TWO'DEPUTIES EATING THEIR •t:UNCH 10,0EY 2lUT AND DO THEIR JOB BY FOLLOWING OUR TRUCKS. IAM TRYING, TO RUN A BUSINESS WITH THIS WOMEN TRYING TO START SOMETHING EVERYTINE, WE TURN AROUND ,,.I KNOW SHE HAS TO r BE BROTHERING EVERYONE UP THERE AND DEP ALSO. A.LL I WANT TO 00 IS GET THIS COMPLETED AND MOVE ON,'AND TAN SURE YOUR OFFICE SHOULD WANT TO 00 THE SAME, SO NE DON'T HAVE TO HER FROM HER. CEREL , II DORIS VICKERS' i i I :rrabibnby T C TRACTOR FACE t75 J� k , From:IFUDEPT. OF ENV. PROTECTION 56l 681'67� G5121/2003 i2:18 �4?7 P.Oa?/011 � ,3, F 5 d� � {i+ 6—t3-2EM 8:2fIW PMM AD" RANCH INC M AGI W7A a r � Ch: UM AM ALTO 1,31 ADAM TII 23503 OrAup Avenue A. Fort Pierce, Tlorlda 3045 Qn VIA FA I'AND MAM �C2tIPT �>SClIJEB�'1rD Rl�'1I'F)'lirT ,. Thous 7 t o, DUWA Air Ptapam Ahasinistiator, 9oitdieast Dietidct Dcp�rraestt.of�avi�o;�tal Pro'teeticc 400,,Not$ Convoam,Aveauand Wesi Palm Smash islorlckt 31401 lto: latent 61wo, DEP Piie NO. 111011040 t Ac Des W. TWIll. We arm Wli* i t revowe to the latest To Issue souse iNvA in DEEP Vita N=b4r 1 l 14110.06M%illy In the Aasao-.af Mr. I',%%UVoa VICIMra and 'I`rsaiure Costa Thow 3esvisoe, lac, W: rcapeat8eats that A13I' decay this pewmit A1+1� it is Aot shad cat the face df t ,. Intm To ItB e o ne%t cw ntIy an Oh ' cw�+3ia ittoh antic ea :the servo I�octy 'OpaAftg vadmr A permit Issue -ter 7vfs'. khm xeIleypf �, 7taaittra Coeae I.aad Clcatimg. ?n�. sad Treun.•*e Coast ?raota�r Sergio_A A'G %ve had rswaesow ' prvble�us is goz•btima wlttn make and odors frm We aptcseioet sine it &as Uegttn to curate; urea af.ans-h W ie lout aiz condM ma0 fad whet tho p evotiing Wk ►ts are out of the =aud their baiursater opsxtes Out of cosupliaaca, we believej, s c aAd odors cram ft efts cops, strsigbt Wo oft; hoiaa, . additiom, a3 we wilt describe, wa iUkisys fist this . inch oW4r has bolas operated to Babe in a numtter Vehich does n6t comply aith toproprla s. . Ttsantrn Colag Lastd Cloatiag, ins. iatd Tram Coast ` raicim• SoMpe, Inc.' ObWw d'a Caaftdoeal Die Permit {"CiJP"} 6ota st Luads Cotmry or the apem qou of an air CtA* t mwMaw In 2660 (Roolution.No. DO-OA- Gidmd). Site* It. Taney and 3&.'ViCZ m I` joidtly owit bo property and joiatiy Stud for :the CUP mad appear to j6i4y aperatc the l milts or, wo bmlistre they s�tould not be iraated rs indspeAd top ttota for the Mom of the ' PEP pamit in quest art hero. Aft abtaia this MM, taey operated the iadanuo: without the M i i 05.'22/2a33 10:21: 7724610069 T C TRACTQR'' PAGE 03 r,«n:FL:eEPT. 0F�: FR01`C;It1 ry561 661 MO0512112(J? 12'I8 #017 rOQ4ro1T 3{ 4 G-12--= a .12AM FT4aJ. ADAu3 RANCH INO 772 del 6$74P.3' 4 z u mra Tit&. Dista iot Air Frog Msy 9, 2003 additional state psamta required for over a yca, 4PMWU ,oeoem 9V3 a We" (in violation of tL: I cur), and waa *iwd to chink the site Acr4it The ewnaig vVetri cJWe by St 4UoSe Cotmt� Code Enfbrobmeut aad Sru�ed by; tha Count to abut down"slis she 9* 6VIU&is "WbM � the c6nd fiov use Pea k only wljc; v one. i]toy Yvsss dte fbi lhia t►ctivity" ttvp or thxee lima♦. x It: addtti�4. I heve been told by Iar_yl Sps�eto, Forest Mere 8upaevax for"t1a Divider of ForegW,► to they navebaea otaed to Abut tloo.l:y that, Cy oa mt:stavus opo� baoaiias of cokmAve Mokefrolm their lua =xior The CUP xqt ea that uta hams `of vpsast oa bs briutod to 7 40 wm, to SW4 p:ca. M— On6 y through Friday, thet £ua+-.may riot: Ua i�uited to 9,00 . a m , mum bs "poor e�dshed gns twtabafbxe sonnet .� mur;erous'o.eSops; t fmily"iw rvltnossal kuiug on this Oita eiier tho'Vdis Tee locked end w �maka "mpg a stiglLt, catxsns tr;rrible entokeyaiatad �Y- 1 FSuaUy, In "O iober 2002, tha Dipi�sat of FanvltronmcuW I+r.0troboa xesver!'t lotoer to ,St. ZrtlCie Couety COilCetniIIQ i3►e lsnpaopR tt�e Ci eD,a7r r t>zsxio J.O�iLtOj$tDI OA t}1lb ±ltQ xmd its.opat�toRa `were fbrned t9 crorse aparatloae'at ttsp; time, •\ $ubsequnnt to tlua orier the DkP has leered Mr Tallay 4P tit m operate "an aic rood �taca s ct u 3admasi4tor. Thin p it this bi tli� egg pert e" s yra>:. tb titAs, v`e J LV e R t1111S7l", ire 04 A �, 2CO3, W ywo bl ed 101• lht * tinge wo, vex•. told by the ,St Luwp Cool Fide Dtatefbk that a "Oft" the aa , ' inci tos 3gaE�ed s+urounding Immd debts stoned oai "the Ate tpep fe'A d that Yisis I was, i>nnnsniblp ta: e�ctangtitis t. Ia,addiizod..vm"Apra I8 2003. et epptexirritaely $;3q a A.. this Sit IA* emxttM s}�ick 61aK't amolce. It fs taY undaistaneiing of.thG �iar�v�a atmdas hoc air c "iacfneraiaeo . that vial* Nona ,Rra not pe:cq,R'.ad mnre theg ;ems mh"" to ew a= hour. wpul$•epgeer tS1lla:aSd9MoA3 aECObd"tbb0 eraadarda. These &" forced usfilo dose be&PvA W` do a>1d to 4 on our I* cauditionh* fly, ein;a ties Canaat eseflpe;hs smoke md. odors k tbs �ta*t df afarIharaa'the amtlle pertaeateit t s+u the bonne tls uxli tu.6 04 tt Ate, oa Apeil"72, 3003, tiio s3ca wen emittitlg a','tftick, opagpa gmY Make. olosdiy Im excess of the "tees aciuutas par hour" nmi 90w statufar8. We',aheerred it siatllRr plume of smoke on Mey Ii 2003, no Im,44 olearing deters ot=" st fts alto amttime9 oo>+ta W Au*giaa >? ov ' j dacl Mel tc®. vyWch orSsea homed leave offetuiire odorss itot.wdlke bu tfzg rubbz lire ftdl leaves ottr $,poet iwd eywbu�, RIC dew. Again, d9s vr6uld appear to not amply I#Adi:the 05/22l2003 10:21 7724515069 T C TRACTOR, Pr4iE , From:FL.DEPT. ENV. Pf7l7TECTION 561 681 67 _ 06/21/2003 '2 19 tiC17 P:O05/011:n s� S-13-2W 6,M4 FROM ADAMS F2440i INC 77Q Ala'1 `07 tt h ihoam' Tittle, Diseat Air hoo m 9, 4 May 2001 we liva imd Wmj- in two a,erkuiaual ii-A of 5t x ucio tbunty. W. know thv4 prop mod, opeat bsrrniag � sUar+lblt and an �ntaatpet{ of a,�iatlltntt, Wa iuuderstaad slad-are eaIweti to ove' ebaxe Of E;e9 and ttcWiti, 1Na have Cbtile Ua thu �roalizatica that,sit MOtn b4.Zft%tW3, ao mtta ahOw well bWt,ttm :peribcosstotiy'odalx wbrm apexittatl oorrewKXp. r* epplloimt * trot dotal ao 6 date. and we 6 not ba Ta 6e an be rel eol apou to opaaDe a ,. seaaelt•iatiaeratori It tuaazsae ttiggi$cat1tly bets tlwt ha iias oieraDed the:£usc '»teabtse, vve do npt\bei>ave tliiis tipplt"M ahonld be gratliiidQ a eeaamd inc3netaior<p�eemit. ; . Even nm deys in wli oh It eppearx thu $tt ut aeratoe3s oPeaabAR..in cumpltance, tke imeA ind :are asttied by tlsa tevefLmY fly wbsc!s ogYto m. prppetn+ and itxw QZ�C home WC laaiievt that tl eeeoad ittcias�ato:, pvra At�EI it �,1,i � 1fl c poea ae with ' all ladYs and rngttlat aja, iA stznply teo atieb ark oft & ita ae1atDbrs. ' e41so, nztd is light of rise above wo tt: rradttlty "qui st *it e=,j aad local >awg xugWetia fire operation of inoineramss ba.o>stbidw,stnft tile.opmztm of this i i�ttj ia.4 als0 I*wst that the iWdvhta at t1:ae site lttaprt ded and sup�fii d ex Ievel wi�iCh is Co�7itstOstt whit $eir sand plat i�}1Ltt�t�J .t6 ow, ,�iaAm", a and`lAoal . tegutarioad oat Jnat At state muotn C5'• (7i%a ask" that Yorr +tY advive ns 9fY Y+ hxludiaS htAuirt�s aad �` meatiags, Y dais pamtit "- 4tw Zf you would 9m, to dlsoas:o the I bsdcva#iow m have eel-iiztth is ft UNW whh at, plow$ do not to;ive w 1 Wl at the z=bor above ; .wttk SiavctslJ , •ram- R Ahr Lee ARleaas,;1T Ad' FJ01�63�Yt I i j j . i r F .y a t F t :-- ...........� �; ,,fir:: _. _ .._. ... .. _ __ �;. '1Y:i_-k >. ^�'[tt� '(1^y ...w'nmmr.^+rF<� �'qy Y:r!P A!?4` vy..: f .;`�W,!erwlY )]/:. .. '4 Ce .. � R �+�p y � �� ., a .. _ i �_ - �' � - � � ' � � .. � � \ , yet M ..1 ,_. .. - ,. .. .� �,. i - `.., .: �. ,.. � � '� ,. t. _ .. ,•:- .. "= �- :,,. _. � . � .. .- ::_., � ... .., , — ,_ _ - i w. . �. �� _ _� � _ .r �- �, } 9 _ � � - _ . � �� _ .. .j' a � i� '� � i..,•Xc? � ', % } ` � { .. r` � � s.S✓'b�Po..a }y'� 3 c y t a ,�p1_`_�.Iii 'JX"`'�•_'^• .�ar.M �kl � i Section, 301 03 'Distnct Zoning Use Regulations W lJ UTILITIES 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for utllttes, transportation, and communication facilities, togetherwitti such other uses as may be compatible with >; utility; transportation,.and communication facility'surroundings. The number in "O" following ` .each identified use corresponds to'the SIC code reference desc "bed' Section 3.01 02(B). `The number ;' 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be'further:defined in Section 2,00:00 . of this code. _ �> ?. 2: Permitted Uses a. Air transportation services (4M.e52) b. Agriculture, including`fifarms, groves, and ranches. < 01.02) c; Communication. (ae) d Electric services (461) e. Elect(ictransmission rights -of -way. (491) f. Gas pipeline rights -of way. g: Gas production and distribution (492) h. industrial wastewater disposal. (sss) i. Railroad, rapid;rail transit, & street railway transportation.,(ao.41) ' j. Sanitary services(ass) %k. firansportation 'services (47) i L Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (sss) M. Water supply and irrigation systems. t494.49>> n.. Water transportation (aa) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00, ' 5. Off-street Parking and Loading `Requirements Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00, 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a. Airports, (ase) b. Electric generation plants. (as,) C. Gas productionplants. iasz) d. Land clearing and yard trash recycling operations - subject to the provisions of Section Adopted August 1, 1990 130 Revised Through 08/01M0 Section 3.01 03¢ Zonrng District Use Regulations ,.t , 7.10.12. (sss) e Natural or manufactured gas storage and distribution pointsjasz) f: Protective functions and their related activities,,--; Correctional institutions g. Solid waste disposal: (4453) h: .'Outdoor shooting ranges, providing site plan approval is obtair' according to the provisions of Sections 11.92.07 through 11.0209 and Section .7.1019 of this Code, t9ssi 8. Accessory Uses i �. Accessory uses are. subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00 aril include the following: a ' Automobile and truck rental services. b Restaurants. (Including the sale of alcoholic beverages for on :cohsumption premises only.) (999) i � i ,l•_ l i I i k i i j i I I Adopted August 1, 1990 131 Revised Through 08/01/00 N U_ • i -+ -- Z U) Y ) p > �! 4-j — 1 (jU( n ' �fJ �- O �—� Q p N / `i N 1 r p !. a 7 CIO U0 U d Q)� P M mum R33tlO ".OU _-Otl.NN3 y/ ri - W �,►CAW - � �. i0rn310( • 1 L. - � z O p 7. 3xYS�lq- - 3i 'i T-aucf / LT a C •� f� "': by Nt111 $ OliZ34i33T .G PARKWA .1 ..i. �i� w3h cu sNlw3r � -� OTOU 1k.0 WOUTL r�[ A► s� roc r�' �.. g� IT , — - o/Oti 31G+w3S a n w - .YN3AV WSWK3 O.Otl NOISNNOP / Y�y.- � w n O� _ mob -No sww ou ►ii "tab o OiOu OtlY03160Y _ _ � .. _ iinxn Z - O.Otl N1►51UOtl8 1 // 1 Z U 1 a.ou NNE O I i a:ou 3tii 3�ivu" U o.09 3OOft"Ou1 cc s O.Ou 3.N.3 tl30►3H > cr 1 z W W I ON OWION W" W M hl I M cr I O.OU 033RS O.O, M011n3 K G Q 1 Z i i Ci W O ` w / / ' ` � g pO� n /V (1) p 1 I S ►£ 1 S S£ 1 S 9£ 1 AiNnoo 3380H033N0 ''t A Petition of Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. -Lawrence Vickers for a Conditional Use to operate a second air curtain incinerator. N U O Z N.2L.R.0.0. Conol No 63 Orange Avenue 0 n �o 0 Z 6 (U z V1 4. V: (n dY V' 0 0o 0 V (A N.s.L.w.M.o. C U 03-011-� GIs This pattern indicates Map prepared June 23, 2003 subjectparcel „ s mW has been ca,wed kmge—mpWm*V and .et— PSPoses N M" wn eNort his been rnede W Me mom amen &V aaaaate carnation poamde. § is not Oenao0 for use as a WOWY bkK" daas . Zoning Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. - Lawrence Vickers A -5 0 Z N.S.I.R.D.O. Conol No 63 (ir�nno 4vcni to C U 03-011 This pattern indicates subject parcel Map prepared June 23, 2003 TNS mep hn been COapled tar general W—V " retererge purposes orW ' T whte eery eeot has been —do to pwide the most tusk em eomWe 1\V� Ykermktion poswbW, k is no nt..W to use ae a N bild g tloomerk. Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. - Lawrence Vickers Land Use r 'o Z N.2L.R.O.D. Cool No 63 nrnnne Avenue C U 03-011 This pattern indicates cis Map prepared June 23, 2003 subjectparcel nse map has bean CMOIor 08r WPW.*q and reference prspoees , 7� 7 WWI.e.y anon fus been mesa b proNoe me rrwel—rd and acoorels I`I Mpmel'xYi possible, A is nol inlenned for use as a legal y binGnp Ooc meN. j v Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. - Lawrence Vickers a ----- --------------1 Z 1 2.97 3.78 2.97 1 N.S.L.R.0.0. Conot No 63 nrnnnp Avpnt tp CU 03-011--------500' boundary V////This pattern indicates /// subject parcel GIS Map prepared June 23, 2003 TNs map has been O-Vled br general W-.'.g and reterenoe PxP— eM' 7� T WhW every ma enon has been ade provide the most a erg" a ste 11 \VI adenlWiorl pid osee, a is not Mended tar- . a legaey bW f ocvn& V dp. Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. — Lawrence Vickers ��»►.�esc�,�--=- ._ .ram. � -- -- ..f. „i, eta ,,,,,i,17e►r... « {:i.�7C:: !:«:7:�•.fi i�S7N...w ••ii :i7r.7r. f «. «« M—C "•�•'7'•�'•i... sis�ss � '�faiif�� QU 03-011 /T This pattern indicates / subject parcel g :rwt1 ur..rl.!•r+. GIS ;....�� Map prepared June 23, 2003 This maw has Deer oonpiled br general plarvrq and reference WwOsee orYy. 7. T While every OW has Deer trade to provide U. mos1--1 end ewC WY "M (i_ poseiDle. it ie M nt.-O d J. use 9, a legally U.&np docvrent. AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 17, 2003 7.00 P.M. TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICES, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent), has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operadion of a second air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: South side of Orange Avenue Extension, approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed Road. Please note that all proceedings before the Planning and Zoning CommissionlLocal Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning CommissionlLocal 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 July 7, 2003. Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on July 3, 2003. File No. CU-03-011 ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA July 17, 2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CON- CERN: NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Sec- tion 11.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land De- velopment Code and the provisions of the St. Lu- cie County Comprehen- sive Plan, the following applicants have request- ed that the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commjssion consider their following requests: 1.TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a sec- ond air curtain incinerat- or within the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property: SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 35S RANGE 38 E THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH- WEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 35 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUN- TY, FL Location: South side of Orange Avenue Exten- sion, approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed Road. 2.WILLIAM D. MILLER, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Reside- ntial, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District for the following de- 1 scribed property: - 20 35 40 SE 1/4 OF NE 114 OF SE 1/4--LESS N 235 FT OF W 460 FT AND LESS E 40 FT -AND W 161.80 FT OF N269.44 FT OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 (7.34 AC) (OR 534-505) Location:West side South 25th Street, < proximately 750 fi south of Cortez Avenue. 3.EUGENE AND=:lESUE DUNCAN, for' a Change in Zoning from the RS 4 (Residential, Single - Family - 4 du/acre) ,Zon- ing District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple - Family - 9 du/acre) Zon- ing District for the fol- lowing described prop- erty: 20 35 40 N 225 FT OF 242.50 FT OF SE 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 0 AC) (OR 269-1999) Location:West side South 25th Street,; proximately 750 fl south of Cortez Avenue. 4.CORA B. LAMBERT, for a Change in Zoning from the RSA (Reside- ntial, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, du/acre) Zoning District for the following de- scribed property: 20 35 40 BEG 242.5 FT E OF NW CDR OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4, TH RUN E 217.5 FT, TH S 235 FT, TH W 435 FT, TH N 10 FT, TH E 217.5 FT, TH N 225 FT TO POB (72) 0.23 AC) (OR 222- 1441: 1069-1725) Location:West side of South 25th Street, ap- proximately 750 feet south of Cortez Avenue. PUBLIC HEARINGS will) be held in Commission Chambers, Roger Poi-. tras Annex, 2300 Virgin- ia Avenue, Fort Pierce,j Florida on July 17, 2003,1 beginning at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Stat- utes, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by a board, agen- cy, or commission with respect to any matter . considered at a meeting or hearing, he will need a record of -the proceed- ! ings, and that,' for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testi- mony and evidencel upon which the appeal is to be based. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Ed Merritt, CHAIR- MAN PUBLISH: July 3, 2003 19 752 CYNTHIA AND ALTO LEE ADAMS, III �4a,vidl Mr. David Kelly Planning Manager, St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 25305 Orange Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34945 (772)466-6170 July 10, 2003 20M IFJUL In Re: 2nd Air Curtain Incinerator, Lawrence Vickers d/b/a Treasure Coast Land Clearing, Inc. Dear Mr. Kelly: This letter is in response for a second air curtain incinerator on Orange Ave., scheduled for hearing before you on July 17, 2003. Based on past and present problems, we respectfully ask that the planning and zoning board vote against this request. In response to your letter to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), dated May 7, 2003, wherein St. Lucie County requests Air Quality Reports at the existing site with the current single air curtain incinerator, we would like to point out that tests can be conducted on one given date, and be within air quality standards, but we can't be assured of the air quality when all tests are finished and permits are granted. In other words, past conduct of this one air curtain incinerator concerns us. A DEP approved machine is only as good as the operator operating it. Overloading a machine, weather conditions, and not removing the ash that is generated, will cause a machine to operate out of compliance. We have received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Vickers attorney, a copy of which we have enclosed, informing us that they are now seeking a `temporary' permit. We feel any type of permit might set a precedent, especially since it is Mr. Vickers desire to sell "his half' of this operation to someone else. David Kelly, Planning Manager July 10, 2003 Page 2 The present Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as written, is "ripe for abuse". We have observed many different land clearing companies using this site, and as a result, a landfill for land debris has been created. An aerial photograph was taken by St. Lucie County code enforcement a few weeks ago and is available for inspection according to Dennis Grimm. We encourage you to view it. One company that has been observed using this site is licensed to do business in Palm Beach County as well as Martin County. Copies of his occupational licenses are enclosed. As of the writing of this letter, he was not yet licensed in St. Lucie County. His business is quite active in both Martin and Palm Beach County. We would also like to point out that at the September 2002 public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, we made it clear, in Mr. Vickers presence, that we considered the Port St. Lucie Tractor/Wynne Ranch air curtain incinerator to be a special circumstance, and that we would vehemently oppose any more air curtain incinerators on Orange Avenue. St. Lucie County is the only county on the Treasure Coast, including Palm Beach County, that has a permanent air curtain incinerator site. We have requested from DEP names of any other counties within their southeast district that has a permanent site, and to date, other than Port St.Lucie Tractor, they know of none. We have been told that a chipping/mulching machine is now on site and that under "U" zoning is allowable. Looking at this whole operation, we have to wonder if "light industrial" would be more appropriate? Are there not areas of this county already zoned for this type of business? Sincerely, Cynthia Adams Alto Lee Adams, III enclosures RICKEY L. FARRUL ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A. 1595 S.L. Port St. Lucie Boulevard Purl St. Lucie, Florida 34952 772-335:5,15 f 779-3.17-34M Faa .June 25, 2003 Mrs. Cynthia .Adams 23505 Orange Avenue Fort Pierce, Fl. 34945 Rey Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. Laurence and Doris Vickers llear Mub. Adamb. 1 have been requested to send you this letter on behalf of my clients, referenced above. This letter is to confirm to you that my clients are seeking a temporary burning permit for their property located on Orange Avenue Extension, It is my client's long-term intent to move the burning operations to another location in St. Lucie County as soon as all of 6%. iiec_essary permit,, and approvals can be contained. Sbould you have any queitions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, is ey . Far - RI-F/l;r cc Client .f. PIf C• ¢�sab PALMBEACH COUNTY 07-01-2003 10:28 TAX COLLECTOR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE License Year: 2001 License Number: 13421 Fee Class: OS012 Status: ACTIVE Business Name: EDDIE HUGGINS LAND GRADING CO Owner Name: HUGGINS EDDIE Business Address: 2520 SE WILLOUGHBY BLVD City: STUART State: FL Zip: 34994-4734 Phone: ( ) - City Limits: NO Fee Period: ONE YEAR Mail Address: PO BOX 1348 City: PALM CITY State: FL Zip: 34991 State Cert: Orig Issue: 02/23/2001 RENEWED Exp Date: 09/30/2003 Delq Pers Prop: Number of: 20 Type of Business: EXCAVATION System - 2.3.9 License Maintenance 2001 - 13421 cornrnents ISSUE DISTR 2001 02/23/2001 03 6882 63.00 One Year e Click on the hiahli ahted record leb Bush Governor Department of Environmental Protection OCT U 1202 Southeast District P.O. Box 15425 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED John Talley Treasure Coast Land Clearing, Inc. PO Box 1132 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 L. David B. Struhs �•:, is � ar;� �; �^ Secretary WARNING LETTER WL02-0017AP56SED AP - St. Lucie County Subject: Construction/Operation Without a Valid DEP Permit Dear Mr. Talley: The purpose of this letter is to advise you of possible violations of law for which you may be responsible, and to seek your cooperation in resolving the matter. Subsequent to the inspection on August 12, 2002 the Department has discovered that a violation of Florida statutes and rules may exist. The inspection revealed an air curtain incinerator may be operating in Ft. Pierce without a valid DEP permit. Section 403.161 (1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation to fail to comply with any rule, regulation, order, permit or certification adopted or issued by the Department pursuant to its lawful authority. It is a violation of Rule 62-210.300 Florida Administrative Code to fail to obtain a valid Department permit prior to construction or operation. The activities observed during the Department's field inspection, and any other activities at your site that may be contributing to violations of the above described statutes and rules, should be ceased immediately. Continued activity in violation of state statutes or rules may result in liability for damages and restoration. In accordance with the August 12, 1997 Department's "Settlement Guidelines for Civil Penalties", and based on the Department Air Program's Civil Penalty Matrix, the penalty which would be proposed in this case is $9250.00 plus $250.00 for the Department's costs & expenses. You are requested to contact Rich Hofmann or Laxmana Tallam of this office at 561-681-6622 or 681-6632 within 15 days of receipt of this Warning Letter to arrange a meeting with Department personnel to discuss this matter. The Department is interested in reviewing any facts you may have that will assist in determining whether any violations have occurred. You may bring anyone with you to the meeting that you feel may help resolve this matter. "More Protection, Less Process" Treasure Coast WL02-0017AP56SED Page 2 of 2 PLEASE BE ADVISED that this Warning Letter is part of an agency investigation preliminary to agency action in accordance with Section 120.57(4), Florida Statutes. We look forward to your cooperation in completing the investigation and resolution of this matter. Sincerely, Melissa L. Meeker Date Director of District Management Southeast District MLM:TT:rh 41111 cc: Dianne Spingler, DARM, DEP, Tallahassee(Dianne.Spingler@dep.state.fl.us) Air Enforcement Files, DEP, West Palm Beach Ray Wamy, St. Lucie County (wazny@co.st-lucie.fl.us) Jeb Bush Governor Department of Environmental Protection OCT Q IV Southeast District P.O. Box 15425 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT RE UERff// �DO�6�D /)1 9, � � Lawrence Vickers Ft. Pierce Tractor 1210 Pulitzer Rd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 G... David B. Struhs Secretary WARNING LETTER WL02-0018AP56SED AP — St. Lucie County Subject: Construction/Operation Without a Valid DEP Permit Dear Mr. Vickers: The purpose of this letter is to advise you of possible violations of law for which you may be responsible, and to seek your cooperation in resolving the matter. Subsequent to the inspection on August 12, 2002 the Department has discovered that a violation of Florida statutes and rules may exist. The inspection revealed an air curtain incinerator may be operating in Ft. Pierce without a valid DEP permit. Section 403.161 (1) (b), Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation to fail to comply with any rule, regulation, order, permit or certification adopted or issued by the Department pursuant to its lawful authority. It is a violation of Rule 62-210.300 Florida Administrative Code to fail to obtain a valid Department permit prior to construction or operation. The activities observed during the Department's field inspection, and any other activities at your site that may be contributing to violations of the above described statutes and rules, should be ceased immediately. Continued activity in violation of state statutes or rules may result in liability for damages and restoration. In accordance with the August 12, 1997 Department's "Settlement Guidelines for Civil Penalties", and based on the Department Air Program's Civil Penalty Matrix, the penalty which would be proposed in this case is $9250.00 plus $250.00 for the Department's costs & expenses. You are requested to contact Rich Hofmann or LaXmana Tallam of this office at 561-681-6622 or 681-6632 within 15 days of receipt of this Warning Letter to arrange a meeting with Department personnel to discuss this matter. The Department is interested in reviewing any facts you may have that will assist in determining whether "More Protection, Less Process" Ft. Pierce Tractor WL02-0018AP56SED Page 2 of 2 any violations have occurred. You may bring anyone with you to the meeting that you feel may help resolve this matter. PLEASE BE ADVISED that this Warning Letter is part of an agency investigation preliminary to agency action in accordance with Section 120.57(4), Florida Statutes. We look forward to your cooperation in completing the investigation and resolution of this matter. Sincerely, ' -\&--( 6I'L- Wlissa L. Meeker belte Director of District Management Southeast District MLM:TT:rh cc: Dianne Spingler, DA.RM, DEP, Tallahassee (Dianne. Spingler@dep.state.fl.us) Air Enforcement Files, DEP, West Palm Beach Ray Wazny, St. Lucie County (wazny@co.st-lucie.fl.us) Department of Environmental Protection Jeb Bush Governor 4pnLl 15, 2003 Southeast District P.O. Box 15425 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7000 0600 0024 1599 5486 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED John Talley Treasure Coast Land Clearing, Inc. PO Box 1132 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 David B. Struhs Secretary WARNING LETTER WL03-0003AS56SED AP - St. Lucie County Subject: Unauthorized Open Burning at Treasure Coast Land Clearing Dear Mr. Talley: The purpose of this letter is to advise you of possible violations of law for which you may be responsible, and to seek your cooperation in resolving the matter. A field inspection conducted on April 8, 2003 by Rich Hofmann of our Department indicates that a violation of Florida Statutes and Rules may exist at the above described facility. The inspection revealed unauthorized open burning that was ignited by sparks from an air curtain incinerator. Section 403.161 (1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation to fail to comply with any rule, regulation, order, permit or certification adopted or issued by the Department pursuant to its lawful authority. It is a violation of Rule 62-256.300 for any person to suffer or allow any prohibited open burning. The activities observed during the Department's field inspection, and any other activities at your facility that may be contributing to violations of the above described statutes and rules, should be ceased immediately. Continued activity in violation of state statutes or rules may result in liability for damages and restoration. In accordance with the August 12, 1997 Department's "Settlement Guidelines for Civil Penalties", and based on the Department's Environmental Legislative Reform Act, the penalty which would be proposed in this case is $1000.00 plus $250.00 for the Department's costs & expenses. You are requested to contact Rich Hofmann or Laxmana Tallam of this office at 561-681-6622 or 681-6632 within 15 days of receipt of this Warning Letter to arrange a meeting with Department personnel to discuss this matter. The Department is interested in reviewing any facts you may have that will assist in determining whether any violations have occurred. "More Protection, Less Process Printed on recycled paper. Treasure Coast Land Clearing WL03-0003AS56SED Page 2 of 2 You may bring anyone with you to the meeting that you feel may help resolve this matter. PLEASE BE ADVISED that this Warning Letter is part of an agency investigation preliminary to agency action in accordance with Section 120.57(4), Florida Statutes. We look forward to your cooperation in completing the investigation and resolution of this matter. Sincerely, V). � N - I-, I L-,- C, �6'5 Uohn Moulton ate Acting Director of District Management Southeast District <�/ JM:TT:rh cc: Dianne Spingler, DARM, DEP, Tallahassee (Dianne.Spingleradep.state.fl.us) Air Enforcement Files, DEP, West Palm Beach Michael L. Adams 25501 Orange Ave. Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34945 July 11, 2003 Mr. David Kelly Planning Manager, St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Regarding; Proposed air curtain incinerator for Orange Ave. Dear Mr. Kelly, In light of the history of the current air curtain incinerator, I am opposed to the expansion of this activity in St. Lucie County. When the first operation was permitted, I was told that there would be little to no noticeable smoke and that the site would be regulated. I had no reason to object at that time. The current operation, however, has on many occasions caused a smoky haze to lie over my home and surrounding area, affecting my family. We have been negatively impacted and do object to the installation of another unit. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely Michael L. Adams ! JUL 1 1 '03 1 �� -.lV.wul V NATHANIEL G.14ARRISON 111 TERESA A. HARRISON 24551 ORANGE AVE. FT. PIERCE, FL. 34445. July I5th, 2003. Mr. David Kelly Planning Manager, St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce. Florida. 34482-5652. Dear Mir. Kelly, The purpose of this letter is to support the opposition of another AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR, to be located on Orange Ave., in St. Lucie County. The current one has been operating for some time, and has had an impact on the quality of life for those living in the area. The smoke haze that has been generated from the current one, along with the impact the debris trucks from this county and surrounding ones, leads M to believe, the infrastructure is not currently in place to control, monitor or support a second unit. We appreciate any consideration in this matter, in ensuring the quality of one of the last remaining large green belt areas in St. Lucie County. Sincerely, Nathaniel G. Harrison 11 l re-ep's0. (A Ci�tTthO� Teresa A. Harrsion Cto 22500 Okeechobee Rd. Ft. Pierce, FL 34945 July 16, 2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Board 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 In Re: the matter of 2nd air curtain incinerator on Orange Ave. Dear Members: Regarding the above -referenced matter, I feel that to date this operation has had an undesirable impact on this "ag" community. A company vehicle, driven by an Arcco employee, on Sneed Rd., had $250 worth of damage caused by a pine tree limb that fell out of one of the trucks going to this site. This limb was 10 feet long and thicker than a baseball bat. It just missed hitting the drivers' side windshield and I shutter to think what his fate would have been if this limb had hit and gone through the glass. I was on the scene in less than 15 minutes and when I entered the property where these trucks enter, no one would claim responsibility. I live southwest of this site, so my home has not been impacted like the homes on Orange Ave. However, I have witnessed excessive smoke emissions on Orange Ave., as recently as this year. I am concerned about the future of this operation and feel that it should not be granted an expansion. Sincerely Robert Adams Mark A. Harrison 24909 Orange Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34945-4339 772 464-9235 Fax 772 461-5334 mharrison@adevco.net July 16, 2003 Mr. Davis Kelly Planning Manager ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING DEPTARTMENT 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida RE: PROPOSED SECOND AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR SOUTH OF ORANGE AVENUE AND WEST OF SNEED ROAD, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear David: As a resident and owner of 10.15 acres west of the above mentioned site owned by Lawrence Vickers, may this letter serve as my opposition to the proposed second air curtain incinerator. I moved from south Florida to avoid exactly what Treasure Coast Land Clearing is attempting to expand. My greatest concern is that Lawrence Vickers d/b/a Treasure Coast Land Clearing, Inc. maybe setting a bad precedent to expand into other uses that could degrade the environmental quality of the Adams Ranch where I have my homestead and office. They have created too much smoke, I do not want more. I will be glad when their existing permit expires. As the former President of Florida Ranch Tours, Inc. that hosted over 30,000 visitors from around the world from 1997 to 2001, expanding the incinerator will negatively impacts the one of the most attractive parts of St. Lucie County that tourist would find offensive. Thank you for your attention on this matter. ;on Tr A. NORTH FORK PROPERTY OWNERS To: St, Lucie County Planning & Zoning Board Reason: Ordinance No. 03-19 The North Fork Property Owners supports this change. Originally the North Fork Property Owners were instrumental in having the AR-1 Classification included in the current classifications. The AR-1 Classification was put in place to allow the continuance of agricultural pursuits during the whole scale zoning changes in the 80's. The property owners who found their agricultural zoning changed were assured that they would be grandfathered in regards to activities allowed on previously Ag property. Under the at that time new AR-1. We told many to try to keep Ag zoning just to avoid what is occurring now. Agricultural properties are covered under the Florida Right to Farm Act F.S. 823.14, (2) The Legislature finds that agricultural is a major contributor to the economy of the state; that agricultural lands constitute unique and irreplaceable resources of statewide importance; that the continuation of agricultural activities preserves the landscape and environmental resources of the state, contributes to the increase of tourism, and furthers the economic self- sufficiency of the people of the state; and that the encouragement, development, improvement, and preservation of agriculture will result in a general benefit to the health and welfare of the people of the state. The Legislature further finds that agricultural activities conducted on farm land in urbanizing areas are threatened based on the theory of nuisance and that encourages and even force the premature removal of farm land from agricultural use. "It is the purpose of this act to protect agricultural activities conducted on farm land from nuisance suits." 4. (a) which states in part No farm operation which has been operation for 1 year or more since its established date of operation and which was not a nuisance at the time of its established date of operation shall be a public or private nuisance if the farm operation conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices. Florida Statute CQ "Farm product's means any plant or animal useful to man and includes but its not limited to, any product derived therefrom. F.S. 212 (34) Means the production of plants and animals useful to humans including the preparation, planting, cultivating, or harvesting of these products or any other practices necessary to accomplish production through the harvest phase, includes aquaculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, forestry, dairy, livestock, poultry, bees, and any and all forms of farm products and farm production. Florida Statutes 187.201 (a) Goal Florida shall strive to expand its food agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry and related industries in order to be a competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Florida Administrative gode 9J-5.003(3) Florida Administrative §ode 12D-1.002 " livestock animals kept or raised for use or pleasure etc. Preamble (Laws 1998, 98-313) amended which states in part "WHEREAS" it has been the declared policy of this state to conserve and protect and to encourage the development and improvements of its agricultuml lands for the production of food and other agricultural products, etc. We believe that under section 1-14-16 that (e) only that portion that states with agricultural classification pursuant to Section 193.461 be excluded. Not all properties that raise livestock have that classification. You are being overly restrictive which mattes it arbitrary and capricious. The right to Farnn Act is not restricted to only properties with agricultural classification. These statutes were enacted to protect agricultural activities when' areas become urbanized. "When other folks not used to agricultural noises move in. Horses whinny, cows moo, goats baa, baa. chickens go cock a doodle do, breeoing activ�. birthing etc." f u Restricting this to agricultural classification is contradictor to statute. Sincerely. Patricia A. Ferrick Governmental Representative cclfile 124 3-03 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney �A C.A. NO: 03-912 DATE: July 9, 2003 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 03-19 - Amending Section 1-4-16 ("Definitions") to Exempt Animals on Property Zoned AR-1 with Agricultural Classification Pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes BACKGROUND: Attached to this memorandum is a copy of proposed Ordinance No. 03-19 which would amend the exemptions found under the definition of "Public nuisance" in Section 1-4-16 to add animals located on property zoned AR-1 if the property has agricultural classification for tax purposes pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. On March 4, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners amended Section 1-4-16 to provide that repetitive animal noise which lasted for five or more minutes will be considered a public nuisance. In recognition of the animal noise inherent in many agricultural operations, the Board exempted animals located on property zoned AG-1, AG-2.5, AG-5, PUD where livestock is permitted, or property on which livestock is permitted as a nonconforming use. The exemption was not extended to AR-1 because of the widespread location of such property throughout the County and the fact that these parcels are more likely to be located adjacent to non-agricultural uses. There are parcels zoned AR-1, however, which are the site of bona fide agricultural operations meeting the requirements for an agricultural classification for tax purposes under Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. It would appear. appropriate, therefore, to further amend Section 1-4-16 to exempt animals located on such property. The proposed amendment also makes it clear that the provisions of Section 1-4-16 shall not be construed in conflict with the"Florida Right to Farm Act" as set forth in Section 823.14, Florida Statutes, a copy of which is attached. County staff has received several letters from Charles Crooks regarding the use of dogs in agricultural operations. Copies of those letters are also attached. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward proposed Ordinance No. 03-19 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Attachments HY/ ORDINANCE NO.03-19 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1-4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES AND COMPILED LAWS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 1-4-16 ("DEFINITIONS") TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC NUISANCE" TO EXEMPT ANIMALS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED AR-1 WITH AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 193.461, FLORIDA STATUTES; FURTHER AMENDING SECTION 1-4-16 ("DEFINITIONS") TO EXEMPT BIRDS AND LIVESTOCK LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED AR- 1; CREATING SUBSECTION 1-4-16 TO EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN SECTION 1-4-16 SHALL BE INTERPRETED TO CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIDA RIGHT TO FARM ACT, SECTION 823.14, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. WHEREAS, Section 125.01, Florida Statutes, authorizes a board of county commissioners to adopt regulations which promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the county and to adopt ordinances necessary for the exercise of its powers in accordance with law; and, WHEREAS, Section 828.27, Florida Statutes, authorizes a board of county commissioners to enact ordinances regulating the possession, ownership, care, and custody of animals; and, Shah words are deleted; underlined words are added. (4 91-, M-nC-4 m �-• o n F— x> D 1"D CL m ca .. Cr ca cy CD r- aj -rt .:< 0 3 CD r-•.) C) L.a c- r �� F-- Ln ;n: T-- Erl G• —1 c3 m M aC--j M c G`• H M C. m r- Ln L-..I LT! G7 S� H _-4 WHEREAS, on August 25 , 1987, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 87-27 which established animal control regulations for the unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County; and, WHEREAS, on March 4, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 03-10 which amended Section 1-4-17 (Public nuisance prohibited) to establish a time period beyond which animal noise will constitute a public nuisance; and, WHEREAS, in recognition of the animal noise which is generated by agriculture operations, Ordinance No. 03-10 also created an exemption under Section 1-4-17 for animals located on property zoned AG-1, AG-2.5, AG-5, or PUD where livestock is permitted, or property on which livestock is permitted as a nonconforming use; and, WHEREAS, it is appropriate to extend the exemption under Section 1-4-17 to animals located on property zoned AR-1 with agricultural classification pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED bythe Board ofCounty Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: PART A. CHAPTER 1-4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND COMPILED LAWS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IS HEREBY AMENDED BY THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC NUISANCE" IN SECTION 1-4-16 AS FOLLOWS: Section 1-4-16. Definitions. As used in this article, the following terms shall have the indicated meaning: Public nuisance. (1) Any animal which: a. Attacks passersby or passing vehicles without provocation; b. Attacks any other animal; C. Is repeatedly at large and not under restraint; d. Damages private or public property; Struekrtit. ough words are deleted; underlined words are added. 2 0 O O F'1 --3 M m Un L•1 0,.. C. Repetitively barks, whines, howls, chirps, caws, or whistles for a period of five (5) minutes or more so as to disturb adjacent residents, except the following: 1. aAnimals located on property zoned AG-1, AG-2.5, AG-5, AR-1 with agricultural classification pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes, or PUD where livestock is permitted, or 2. Animals located on property on which livestock is permitted as a nonconforming use;, or 3. Birds and livestock located on property zoned AR-1. f. Causes an annoyance in the neighborhood by acts such as overturning garbage cans, defecating, digging holes on other than its owner's property, or such other acts as are generally regarded to create an annoyance. (2) Any activity, such as, but not limited to, the feeding of wild animals or fowl which: a. Causes the fouling of the air by odor and thereby creates unreasonable annoyance or discomfort to those in close proximity to the premises where the animals or fowl congregate; or b. Causes a sanitary nuisance as defined in Section 386.01, Florida Statutes. (3) Nothing; in this section shall be interpreted to contravene the provisions of the "Florida Right to Farm Act", Section 823.14, Florida Statutes. PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby superseded 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 Sty words are deleted; underlined words are added. 3 G C3 x m M. m G.n 3 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 circumstances. PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, Florida. 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 Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32304. PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State. PART G. ADOPTION After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows: Chairman Cliff Barnes AYE Vice Chairman Paula A. Lewis AYE Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson AYE Commissioner John D. Bruhn NAY Commissioner Doug Coward NAY PART H. CODIFICATION Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the County Code 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. Struck through words are deleted; underlined words are added. 4 n oa co 0 x m 0-- s> m w m PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this /9Aday of August, 2003. BOARD OF COUN IMISSIONER& ATTEST: ST. LUCIE TY ORIDA 'A DE TY CLERK eHAIRMAN C ' , APPROVE S TO FORM AND - C0RRECLTN BY: (' COUNTY T RNEY g:\att7y\ordnance\2003\03-19.wpd 0 0 0 m v~ m m U1 [4J 143 Str=k Nnengh words are deleted; underlined words are added. 5 # . OA r i k June.$0, 2002 Winn Dixie Package Store q x Page 2 CU-03,010 fi i the east is iRM (Residential Medium)' and to the west is "RU fb (Residential Urban) and COM (Co. ; FIREIEMS PROTECTION: Station # 7 (4900 Ft. Pierce Blvd.), is located approximately one mile to the west.. UTILITY SERVICE: St. Lucie County. Utility provides waterand sewer to the site. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS -RIGHT-!OF-WAY ADEQUACY: N/A 'SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: N/A TYPE OF CO,NCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Certificate of Capacity, I STANDARDS OF REVIEW ;AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT,CODE In reviewing this. application for proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in `conflict with any applicable portions of , the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed.conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.' Section 3.01.03(S)(7)(k), CG '(Come I .11al General) Zoning District, allows liquor stores as conditional uses, The proposed location is within an established shopping center(Indrio Crossings Shopping Center) and just to the north of the existing Winn Dixie Supermarket' location. The subject area is zoned for the proposed commercial use. The applicant is not requesting onsite consumption of any alcohol beverage. - 2. Whether,and-the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on nearby properties, - Thel proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The proposed site is located within an existing shopping center (InddoCrossings Shopping Center) next to the W inn Dixie supermarket and is zoned for General Commercial businesses. The proposed establishment will be owned and operated by the Winn Dixie Company. It will be completely separate from the existing Winn Dixie Supermarket and will not have an entrance from within the grocery store. In addition, the applicant has indicated I ! I �t that the ro osed acka a store will em to one.full-time mana er-arld two to three part - that p p g P y. g p time employees. The hours of ,operation for the package store Will be between 8:00 am and 10:00 pm, Monday through`Saturdayand 1:00 pro and 8:00 pm on Sunday. 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 Indrio Crossing Shopping Center. was reviewed any proposed impact from the center was identified.:Therefore, the proposed use will not have a negative impact on any roadway network within the vicinity, of 4ho shopping center. The proposed property receives water and sewer from the North County Utility at the time that the -Indrio Crossing Shopping Center was reviewed,'th- applicant demonstrated that sufficient capacity was available to meet all future uses within the shopping center: 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 notanticipated to create adverse Impacts on the natural environment. The Indrio Crossing' Shopping Center is built and the proposed location will be within the existing building footprint allocated for the Winn Dixie Supermarket. COMMENTS The applicant, Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., has applied forthe requested conditional use permit in order to operate' a liquor store within the Indrio Crossings Shipping Plaza for property located at 4870 N. Kings•Highway in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District. The retail trade. of liquorfor off=site consumption is`allowed as a conditional use in the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners. 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 Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.' Attachment cs cc: Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. - Noreen Dreyer File i i Section 3.01.03 y I Zoning District Use Regulations 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 surroundings. The m nuber in "O" following each identified ::use corresponds to the SIC code reference described `in Section 3.01.02(8). The number 99R applies to a use<not defined under the SIC code but maybe further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses - a. Adjustment/collection & credit reporting services (7az) b. Advertising Upi c. Amphitheaters,(m) d. Amusements & recreation services -except stadiums, arenas, racetracks, amusement parks and bingo parlors nsi e. ; Apparel & accessory stores tsar , f. Automobile dealers t56r g. Automotive rental, repairs & serv, (except body repairs) ps,.M754) h. l3eauty,arid barber services try► I., Building .materials, hardware and garden supply cszr j. Cleaning services rusr k. Commercialprinting rr' 1. Communications - except towers r4% M. Computer programming, data processing & other computer serv. p3n n. Contract construction sere. (office & interior storage only) asnsnn.` o. ' Cultural activities and nature exhibitions tMr p. Duplicating. mailing, commercial art/photo. & stenog serv. (TU) Cl; Eating places tse>> r. Educational services - except public schools (si) S. Engineering, accounting, research, management &related services ten t. - Equipment rental. and leasing services tm u: Executive,' legislative, and judicial functions tsi�ssrs3rsu9sasrs) V. Farm lalbor and management services (o W. Financial, insurance, and real estate (ws,f62J83wr LW) { X. Food stores (U) y. Funeral and crematory services nzsr Z. Gasoline service stations (m4i j ' - aa. General merchandise Stores (s3) - bb. Health services (so) cc. Home furniture and fumishings twi dd. Landscape & horticultural services (m) ee. Laundry, cleaning and gamtent services (m) ff. Membership organizations - except for religious organizations as provided in Section ` 8.02.01(f) of this code cesr gg. Miscellaneous retail (see SIC Code Major Group 59): (1) . Drug stores ooi) Adopted August 1, 1990 118 Revised Through08101/00 :l Section 3.0 103 i Zoning Uishict Use Regulations (2) Used merchandise stores (s93) (3) Sporting goods (sm) (4) Book & stationary ts942mmi (5) Jewelry (5944) (6) Hobby, toy and games (5945) (7), Camera & photographic supplies (s94e) (8) Gifts, novelty and souvenir "s i (9) Luggage & leather goods (s94e) , (10) Fabric and mill products (s949) . (11) Catalog, mail order and direci selling (s9s,mm) (12) Liquified`petroleurrgas (propane) gwq (13) Florists 6M) (14) Tobacco (5993) (15) News dealers/newsstands (s994) (16) 0 tical goods lases) MY Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) ISM) hh., Miscellaneous personal services (see SIC Code Major Group 72) (1) Tax returnservices MO (2) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) n199f ai. Miscellaneous business services (see SIC Code Major Group 73): (1) Detective, guard and armored car services (MI) (2) ` Security system services (r3e2) (3); News syndicate (rim) (4) Photofinishing laboratories trim) (5) Business services - misc. triai Mobile home dealers tsvt kk. i Mobile food vendors (eating places, fruits & vegetables -retail) (ass) 11. Motion pictures peg mm. Motor vehicle parking - commercial parking .& vehicle 'storage. (rs2) nn. Museums, galleries and gardens te4) oo. Personnel supply services (ra) ` pp. Photo finishing services (7384) qq Photographic services (722) I rr. Postal services (43) SS. Recreation facilities (999) ft. Repair services (ie) uu. Retail .trade -indoor display and sales only, except as provided in Section 7.00.00. (999) I - vv. Social services: (1)Individual & family social services (e32=9) I (2) Child care services (eas) (3) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services (eas) ww. Travel agencies (4724) xx. Veterinary; services (m) 3. " Lot Size Requirements - II _ Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. Adopted August 1. i 1990 119 Revised Through 08/01/00 t 7 Section 3.01;03 Zoning District Use) egu a tions 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. (m) 4.: Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) - free-standing. (sea) c. ' Disinfecting & pest control services. (Mz d. Amusement parks. (M) e: Go-cart tracks. rim) f. Hotels & motels. (roi) g. Household goods warehousing and storage -mini -warehouses (sea) Marina - recreational boats only. carat is Motor vehicle repair services - body repair. (rsa) J. Sporting and recreational camps. UM) k. Retail trade- (1) Liquor stores. ") I k-. Stadiums, arenas, and race tracks. (m) I. Telecommunication -towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 iwl 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section '8.00.00,,and, include tt ue a. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages as an accessoryuse to a restaurant and/orcivic, social, and fraternal organizations). b. One single-family;dwelling unit contained within the commercial Wilding; or a detached single-family dwelling or,mobile home, (for on -site security purposes). ` C. Retail trade: I j (1) Undistiiled alcoholic beverages (accessory to retail sale of food). - if Adopted August 1, 1990 120 Revised Through 08/01/00 I i U -•- z N O N O p CO l X N O N c E •°�►W o �( • � \ c try �� Q c— P N tl3ARl "F33u7 I' 9 L£ �„ N W St9 �' r G.. .1 l 1 , s awtt id is WILMS mm PARK AV wo IS o8 0 9 w33w W H '-.3r'- 4 -wOV AVM-B011V3 £tL Arwx7A� SOraw £lL °Voti 310WA3s g TAM W N 31901r- Crow lump oral Hlniw*n al _ I O Grow it 3�- ovo8 3ooRIM10vi 0 U I I - j O : I °row IMO MIN I _- W � W n Ow Gumtr30 �.. W � �I c tn I °r°w W3ws \� � I I QI YZ� 1rN1J _ L / VNV / i / Y / W W / / y r M / 3 P0- ' n I i I I S d£ 1 5 S£ 1 S 91 1 N ALNnoo 3380HO33AO "', A Petition of Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. for a Conditional Use to operate a liquor store within the Indrio Crossing Shopping Center. .. M /2 1-1N /5 i 4 b 9 9 San Carlos Drive N �\ \ \ �1 �\ 8 — \ IJ \ yes Igloo" IY "I\ J N J /1 C 2 \ J a Q) 2 6V) 2 Is '�� � 2 l2 ' Miramar Avenue Miramar Avenue 20 /s // 12 '° o • to to ie 9 O� \ u 6 11 6 u g}� C i= �O (! �Al 9 p \ O�\J 1 \ 5 � 5 l2 i 5 6Q \ et ' 8\ 6 i 4 /J I a James Road o 2a \ ono s , Q ) .16 l5 /I /J /2 7 B 9 to Santa Barbara Dr Z v 1l 12 /J M C 0 N s U 0 <� ro /s N 9 0 Q_ / C 6 0 V) 5 3 � ,_ Q% Q J J 2 � Indrio Rood 0 t o Z - - 0 V) C Cr 0 C U Y C U 03-010 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel con GIS: sp �.. Map prepared June 16, 2003 This mhee been vaed krnerat 9eplsrWrp entl relerence purpoees any. ' T A?" e+«Y anon has been made to Po+ide Na most cunenl end exurate N :,wmetwn aosswe. n u n« tuerwed V use ee a �eeeM' unava downent. Land Use n 1 12 1 I, 1 a 1 -15 San Carlos Drive Zb N 0 p - u /2 /J N /5 � I L C � N James Rood 0 vc 16 /S N U /2 T 8 9 to 11 Santa Barbara Dr If 12 13 14 L a rt Y L v CI— -0 Q 0 . Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. /2 ff T 8 �0 \ Z e 8\ O 5 ee� 6 \ OG 5 9 C U 03-010 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel Map prepared June 16, 2003 ma map naa baa, cwOW f r 9enaalp "mV and reWa purposes .«af ay N Whie weX.d nee n.er, made to provide " mO t cones and soave,. mVm Pion posy *. a Is M iaa W Im use ae a iegeay WI&V doaanaa. 7nninn Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. FRI l2 13114 15 I Son Carlos Drive I ? L I a 20 9 4 v t C a N 12 /J N /S F I = Q. cn James Road 0 C I. ,$ 15 H /J 12 a L I 7ta y p // Miramar Avenue n ,2 rJ 14 a� L p o 9 8 CL 7 Indrio Road CU 03-010 This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel GIS Map prepared June 16, 2003 Ttw nMP tM been OMVW W 9en W wwrlku aW reterenoe .. «�. N WNW W" effort ryes been made to prande Cie rroslaare'. accurate inIOM Ion pmdA. C Is ra ireended V uae es a WQ* WWP* p do —aft. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. i! 12 131141 15 4 � !6 � H San Carlos Drive aa) \ V) 3 9 H .tom, p iei d Q ♦�rn James Road ♦0 c 2Q' 6 pG s 9 !6 15 !t !J !2 ♦ N ♦ E E C 7 8 9 10 .`. ! I a 1I. i7 Miramar Avenue Miramor Avenue F1nK cU 03-010------e500' boundary This pattern indicates subject parcel This pattern indicates subject bay within parcel �T} 1 p. T �h 6lrK 63 3d t u s, L1me St 55 1 f3 F st �liYeQ n St �p f �sE$_'t 5 I q1! y 3 Jf 'Avaea€ado S t r u.a�.. s4 p Y w�rYi3 A'I�� M St N' ET 8B E9 JJ 5 3 Ip Map prepared June 16, 2003 TM map has been oWOW for General P6�n7 end refW—s PutPoses 0* N W Wa every ~lies been made to provide ere most Durant end aoarue ihldmalbn pow Ne. a is not Int— d fora as a leg* bkx*V domnern. a l2 t4 �5 :1 '6 Aliy a q AIM -�� II `aJ� at- .li_• 1 \ Q 5 � h J6� � �\ � ro z ,� .e -�s',1l g � �( .ero� < "kill ✓ I i' � ` 3, t"7J s � ,2 n I F6 w .'r- L tt �'... - • - 'w ..y.. ;_ r ar yi / . 2 t -,-A j� . w 59 i s5$ 6Q G+ 62 63 5 •t ',�7'R hY4'e }� Y f N /� i h°" .1- fyfy 12^'tv 3�!.; r65i wkt�1, ;�Ir.� �"T �// j 4.• �.9" �'f F ��. i,'r�,''' -p <.t,: .q. i r(i rF. n y �' ''�' `�a.�� ✓� .���,• 1�. � `�'hli�' {. �. a + rt p t. 9 Y %'t�� le a •C+.�YI, ` }^�I• r:. t-4 9 '. 't Y Env c �, i.-. `pS �. �' � ,•R l .s.�.. �� / J r; .r.' i '�. -^ 22 �k ..•� i9 (� _,l � •• r �, i,. 6, tom, St Man o �(ty LS :i ° -- E �1_"'� �'• .♦ k _ s Y: tom. r►,,. ::4. J a ` � � J9 ... LL .29' JJ - 1r' J2 3S _sa 35. lu _>,. � � 's) •4`;g- L' z - IN .� 't��i'�Jy a'_ LK i�+4.LL 5 1i Lq•`. t y t y Y @ < •• t _ S t4 ';4 , k � � M _ i '��i° .. Y�`1' '� l ,., 'r� t: 'S• at e �' � 4+b f v+. � i A P �' i'.p t t-` -.fi- ` i is < 4`� "ra.-ii0 �'�y..- y} , ��ap tia•l., ,�, ` C �, 4¢ \��€ � � y '� " �: i s ' 1. � -:,"5. a A7`y ' • t t ' � - .t.a _. , ., m `�''C �� �: "- (� }�. ��• � . } sirlr, L� �ti ,e�"� � s '�.5 L .L � �. - 'k `_: �4- �;� � *t �: v� ' .-�' i 4 .. k."'-^' e � ` w''4'ti•it �a -" € ,-• u'=.: w _ a. •-'! V h- t' f , ' ,iP' 7.. ' � c . : t ,• ':. a.,:. � �. ...•i < < l ...a; �s4hr •. 4y�i6 "�, a t ' 4 h AGENDA i PLANNING" & BONING COMMISSION 'YLl4 j -µa, rev..il a July 17, 2003 � 1 7r00PM > Nz- WINNDIXIE STORES, INC, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a retail liquor store for ihe_ offsite_consumption of distilled and undistilled alcohol within the CG (Commercial General) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 4870 N. Kings Highway, Indrio Crossings Shopping Center., Retail Building «D, Please note that all proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local 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 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 rantedan opportunity.;to cross-examine any individual testifing 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 July 7, 2003., Legal notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on July 3, 2003. i Y - File No. CU-03-010 I ,I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS July 7, 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �OR1aP In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a retail liquor store within the Indrio Crossing Shopping Center in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 4870 Kings Highway 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 July 17, 2003, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing'upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date -certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above -described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner-. Please call (772) 462-1960 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number CU-03-010. Sincerely, ST. LUCIIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Ed Merritt, Chairman JOHN D. BRUHN. District No. 1 • DOUG COWARD. District No. 2 • PAULA A. LEWIS. District No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. District No 4 • CLIFF BARNES. District Nc County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590 • Planning: (772) 462-2822 G15/Technicol Services: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fox: (772) 462-1581 Tourisr/Convention: (772) 462-1529 • Fox: (772) 462-2132 www.co.sr-lucie.fl.us .- a 2 WINN DIXIE STORES, INC.,' for a Conditional use Permit to allow f¢r the operation, of a retail liquor k _ store within the InAno Cross( Shopping Center in the CG ',(Commercial Genera 7W OO District', for 0120 • NOTICE OF ' 0120 NOTICE OF the foilovinng tlescr'rbed propeity , MEETING MEETING .. THAT CERTAIN PIECE, PARCEL OR TRACT OF LAND SITUATE; LYING AND_.BEING IN THE CITY OF FT ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND' PIERCES `ST LUCIE-.. COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE•, PAR ZONING COMMISSION. TICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PARCEL I July 17, 2003 THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF, THE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NORTH SOUTH;;;RANGE WEST ,1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP :34 39 .EAST. ST. LUCIE COUNTY; NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section FLORIDA LYING EAST OF SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROAD IS.R: 713) AND NORTH 11.00:03 of the St. Lucie County Land Oedelgprrlent I Code and the provisions of the St Lucie County OF INDRIO ROAD;'•LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREF ROM THE EAST 818 FEET OF THE SOUTH 228:17 Comprehensive Plan, the following applicants have FEET. requested that the St, Lucie County Plann(rtg,and +' ' Zoning Commission consider their following re-- PARCEL2: quests: 1.260 EMERSON AVENUE, LLC (Houston Cuozio THE WEST 26Q FEET OF THE EAST 818 FEET OF THE SOUTH 22871 ".FEET OF THAT PART OF THE . Group; Agent), `fora Change Zoning from the SOUTHWEST 1/4' ;OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF ,in AG-1 {Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District -to the PUD '(Planned Unit Development Emerson Es• SECTION 13 TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING .NORTH OF INDRIO ROAD IN St. LU- . fates) Zoning :District and for Preliminary Planned t CIE COUNTY, FLOflIDA. denti 1.r It ojecm t be known aan sEmersoroval nEst tessi_ PARCEL 3: PUO for the following described property: _ PARCEL 1: EAST 613 FEET :OF THE SOUTH 228.71 FEET OF THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 14, NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP N SOUTH RANGE ;39 EAST, LYING NORTH OF IN - , TOWNSHIP 34'SOUTH RANGE 39 EAST,ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA, DRIO ROAD LES$ AND •EXCEPTING 'THEREFROM i LESS • AND 'EXCEPT• THE I SOUTH 50' ACRES THEREOF, qN0 LESS AND',,EX THE WEST 450.71 FEET OF THE EAST;463.21 FEET OF THE SOOTH•208,71 FEET. CEPT THE EAST 80 FEET AND THE WEST 9$ -FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD AND CANAL RIGHTS' OF WAY. THE ABOVE -DESCRIBED PARCELS CONTAIN A TO - TAL OF 33,272 q -RES, MORE OR LESS, `AS QE- TOGETHER WITH:; SCRIBED, PARCEL2: ALSO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 34 RANGE' 39 EAST ST.. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA- LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 80 FEET,AND. THE SOUTH, RANGE. ,39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING EAST OF SUNSHINE STATE WEST 95 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD' AND CANAL RIGHTS;OFWAY. PARKWAY, FEEDER ROAD (S.R. 713) AND NORTH OF INDRIO•ROAD;=LESS ANQ EXCEPTING THEREF- TOGETHER WITH; i ROM THE WEST 458.71 FEET OF THE EAST 46321 FEET OF THE SOUTH 20$.71 FEET. PARCEC3: Location:4870 Kings Highway, THE SOUTH 50 ACRES OF'THE NORTH 112 OF THE NW •1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWN$HiP U SOUTH, 3 EDUARDO LEAL, for a, Change in. Zoning from the AG 1((Agricultura(- 1 du/acre) Zoning D(striet to the RANGE 39 EAST,' ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORI - LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 80 FEET AND THE IL (Industrial. LiOht) Zoning District for the follow. Ing described property. WEST 95.FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD. AND CANAL RIGHTS OF WAY. : A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION: 36, TOWN- 10,020,849 SQUARE FEET OR 230.047 34 SOUTH, RANGE W EAST, BEING MORE SHIPCONTA(N$ PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ACRES,MOP,E OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH• THE NW 114 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTIO, 36, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS` i THEN •1/2 OF THEN 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE N1N THE SOUTH 200' OF THE WCST 250 FEET AS CON- TAINED IN DEED IN OR BOOK 79, PAGE '179, PUB- 1/4 AND THEN 1/2 OF THE N 1/2 OF THE SE'1/4 OF THE NW 1A AND THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF:THE LIC RECORDS OF, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS ALL ROAD AND. CANAL RIGHTS OF SW 1/4 OF THE. -NW 1/4 OF SECTION-_14, TOWN. WAY SHIP 34,SOUTH, RANGE 39 ST; SAID LAND LY• IN G AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY FLORIDA : PARCEL CONTAINS 34.33 ACRES MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOW. iNGDESCRIBED PROPERTY: Location:East sida` of Kings Highway, approBi- mately:1/4 mile north of Angle Road. THE EAST 1780 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THEN 112 OF THE N 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 114; - PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held in Commission! Chambers,,Roger Poitras Annex, 2300 Virginia- Ave-1 - , AND THE 'N 112 OF THE N 1/2 OF THESE 114 OF ,THE NW 1/4; AND THE S 1/2> OF THE NW 114 OF nue, Fort Pieree, Florida on July, 17, ;2003, -begin-- ningat 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, -RANGE 38 EAST; ST. LUC(g COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING WEST OF THE, PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if a decides decision FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT person to appeal any made by a board, agency, or commission with respect to any CANAL NUMBER 5, THE SAID EAST 1780 FEET BE• ING MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH matter considered at a meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such LINES OPINE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL purposes, he may need .to ensure that a verbatim OR record of the proceedings is made, which record in- cludesMORE the testimony and, evidence upon which the i TOTAL = CONTAINS 240.067 ACRES, MORE OR appeal is to be based. LESS. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Location:East side of Emerson Avenue, approxi- mately 1,000 feet north of Indrio Road. ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA_ /S/ Ed Merritt, CHAIRMAN PUBLISH: July 3; 2003 - 199798 I u1jul I IVInAm SUBJECT TO PLAWNENG & ZONING CQMMISSION APPROVAL St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING July 17, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Ms. Hammer, Mr. Hearn, Ms. Morgan, Mr. Trias, Mr. Merritt, and Ms. Hilson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Lounds and Mr. McCurdy (Both with Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner III; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO OANNSS ON A??RBV A4 COINM 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. Grande disclosed that he had spoken with representatives from the Ginn Co. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 2 SUBJECT TO PLANNING & eeZONING Mr. Hearn stated that he owns property within 500 feet of the petition for 250 ROWIWII SJJ Nnt�`�PgWAL so he would be recusing himself from that petition. Chairman Merritt welcomed new members, Ms. Stephanie Morgan and Ms. Pamela Hammer to the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly explained that there was an application for a Change in Zoning for an Eduardo Leal that was advertised but would not be heard. He stated that it was determined that the Change in Zoning was not necessary. Chairman Merritt made an announcement to be sure that anyone from the public who may have attended regarding that petition was aware that the application was withdrawn and would not be heard. No other announcements or discussion. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 3 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES —.TUNE 19, 2003: COMMISSION APPROVAL Mr. Grande stated that he believed that on page 5, the last sentence should read, "leased" not lessed. He also stated that at the bottom of page 22 it should read "lane" not "land" and on page 24 should read "not' instead of "now". Mr. Hearn stated that Ms. Diana Waite needed to be added to the list of others present at the meeting. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 4 UNOFFICIAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 2: WILLIAM D. MILLER — File No. RZ-03-020: COMMISSION APPROVAL, Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items 2, 3 & 4 were in regard to three separate applications for three adjacent pieces of property. He stated that they were being presented as one petition, but they would require separate votes. Mr. Flores stated that these were the applications of William D. Miller, Eugene and Leslie Duncan, and Cora Lambert for Changes in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family — 9 du/acre) Zoning District for approximately 10 acres of property located on the West side of South 251' Street, approximately 700 feet south of Cortez Boulevard. He continued that the purpose of the requests are to allow the development of the properties for multiple -family uses up to 9 dwelling units per gross acre. He advised that the surrounding zonings are RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/acre) to the west, north, and east across South 25,' Street. He continued that RM-9 Zoning is also located to the east across South 25"' Street, with I (Institutional) and PUD (Planned Unit Development — Lake Forest) to the south. 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 petitioner was present. Mr. Pat Murphy, President of Hoyt C. Murphy Realtors, stated that he was there to represent the landowners and the company who is interested in purchasing the parcels. He advised that they feel it is a logical request and good location for a condo or townhouse development. He stated that there are other similar developments in the area, Villages of Lawnwood and Key Colony. He continued that they feel this type of development would be the best use for the property and is within the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use guidelines. Mr. Akins questioned if the property to the south was the Greek Orthodox Church. Mr. Murphy stated that it is not a church; it is an adult living facility. Mr. Akins questioned if they were south of Cortez. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicants would have to submit a PUD (Planned Unit Development) request for their review if the three parcels were rezoned. Mr. Flores stated that they are only requesting a change in zoning at this time, but they could submit a straight site plan for Staff's review. Mr. Hearn stated that he thought a PUD would be required on these properties because of not having the road frontage. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Ruth Jones, of 2718 S 27th Street, stated that her property is adjacent to the subject parcel. She advised that she also owns a few parcels on Brantley Road. She stated that she bought a double lot so she could have a single-family home there. She also stated that she checked out the area and found that they were all zoned for single-family residences. She advised that she is concerned about 25th Street and the traffic issues. She continued that there are many accidents in this area and there aren't any traffic lights. She stated that this type of development would P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 5 WIWI 11V1MLO' SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL increase the traffic tremendously. She also stated that she believes most of the homeowners in the area are totally against changing these properties to multi -family. Mr. Glen Carraway, of 2270 Bell Avenue, stated that he owns four lots on 25th street, just north of the subject property. He stated that there is no reason that the petitioners couldn't develop their property with the existing zoning. He continued that he feels the applicants should have submitted a plan along with their rezoning request. He advised that there is too many "what ifs" based on this request. He also stated that his four lots would be negatively impacted if multi- family homes were to be built on this property. He questioned how Brantley Road would be developed into 25th Street. He also questioned how the proposed development would affect drainage in the area. He stated that he is also concerned about what kind of buffering would be put in between the multi -family area and the existing single-family residences. He continued that with this standard rezoning request they have no assurances over what will happen to the property. He also stated that there is too many permitted uses under the new zoning and would recommend that this application be denied. Mr. Jim Davis, of 2805 Brantley Avenue, stated that his property is between 28th and 29th street. He advised that there are many young families living in the single-family environment in that area. He stated that they are concerned that this type of multi -family environment could become duplexes, triplexes, and Section 8. He also stated that they are worried about the increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area. He advised that an increase in pedestrian traffic could also cause an increase in crime in the area. Mr. George Burenga, of 2819 Surrey Woods, stated that he is concerned about not knowing what they are going to build on the property because there is no plan. He also stated that he would like to see a plan before the zoning change is approved. He continued that there are many people who didn't come to the Planning and Zoning meeting but are planning on coming to the Board of County Commissioners Meeting. He advised that his wife already has to wait to make a left onto 25th street to go south to work, sometimes over ten minutes. He stated that this type of development would greatly increase the traffic in that area. He also stated that there are many accidents at the Cortez intersection and they feel a traffic light would be needed. He continued that there is a pond where they live and their pond has been substantially lower since the senior center was put in. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande stated that this property is 9.8 acres and he thought if it were ten acres it would be required to have a PUD to develop as multi -family. Mr. Kelly stated that was not correct and there was no minimum acreage requirements to have a PUD. Ms. Hilson questioned what the price range of the multi -family homes was anticipated to be. Mr. Pat Murphy stated that they would probably be between $120,000 to $150,000 townhouse or condo project with garages. He continued that this project would be more equivalent with the larger units at the Villages of Lawnwood. Chairman Merritt questioned why the applicants requested a straight rezoning instead of PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mr. Pat Murphy stated that developers were looking to contract the property. He continued that there were some valid, logical points made to request they submit a PUD. He also stated that they want the neighbors to be happy with the plan. He P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 6 unurriPIHLmom SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMM .,3SION APPROVAL advised that they feel the project to be an asset to the neighborhood. He continued that the land use plan anticipates that it will be multi -family and that is what they are looking for. Mr. Akins questioned if the applicants would be opposed to resubmitting a PUD (Planned Unit Development) request rather than a straight zoning change. Mr. Pat Murphy stated that he has not spoken to the applicants about this, but if that were what the Planning and Zoning Commission wants, then he would make them aware of that. Ms. Hammer questioned what the cost of services per single-family unit in the unincorporated portion of the County is. Mr. Kelly stated that these issues are reviewed each time they go through the impact fee process. He advised that several of the impact fees have been reviewed recently but a couple were established a few years ago and they update on about a five-year schedule. Ms. Hammer requested that in the future they receive a breakdown of what the cost for an average home for the County to provide the services to that home. She continued that she would like to see that anything they are approving is paying for itself. Mr. Kelly stated that they would take care of that in the future. Chairman Merritt stated that in the past the breaking point was $120,000 per unit. Ms. Hammer stated that was what she was looking for. She also stated that she is concerned about the surrounding residents rights. She advised that these residents have lived in the area for a very long time with the RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) zoning. She continued that she is concerned about more than doubling the density as well as doubling the number of children being put into the schools. Mr. Hearn stated that since they don't know how the property is going to be developed in the future with a straight rezoning he could not support the request. He continued that he would have preferred to see a plan and have the neighbors feel more at ease before doing a straight rezoning. Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of William D. Miller, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-9 (Residential, Multiple -Family - 9 du/acre) Zoning District because I feel very uncomfortable, as I think the neighborhood does, not knowing what the plans are for the property and I would recommend that they come back with their plans for a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and then we'll address it at that time. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-2 (Mr. Grande and Mr. Trias voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 7 UNOFFICIALW - SUBJECT TO — File No. RZ-03-0213AMM.,s10N ,?" 1AL Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items 2, 3 & 4 were in regard to three separate applications for three adjacent pieces of property. He stated that they were being presented as one petition, but they would require separate votes. The applicants' representative, Mr. Pat Murphy, withdrew agenda items 3 & 4. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 8 UNOFHUTAL. SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 4: CORA B. LAMBERT — File No. RZ-03-022: COMMISSION APPROVAL Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items 2, 3 & 4 were in regard to three separate applications for three adjacent pieces of property. He stated that they were being presented as one petition, but they would require separate votes. The applicants' representative, Mr. Pat Murphy, withdrew agenda items 3 & 4. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 9 viavl 1 1W1/ LW - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM 5: 250 EMERSON AVENUE, LLC. (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent) - File No. RZ-03-012 / PUD-03-009: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item 5 was the application of 250 Emerson Avenue, LLC (Houston Cuozzo, Agent) for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the Residential Project to be known as Emerson Estates — PUD for property located on the east side of Emerson Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north of Indrio Road. He continued that the surrounding zoning of AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) is located to the north, south, and west. He also stated that H (Historic) is located south at the northeast corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue, RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/acre) is located to the east and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning is located to the south at the northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue. Mr. Flores stated that the applicant is proposing a residential development of 541 Single -Family Units and 179 Multiple -Family Units for a total of 720 units with a proposed density of 2.99 dwelling units per acre. He also stated that the Land Development Code requires that 35% of a proposed PUD must consist of open space and that this proposed PUD maintains 38% (91.03 acres) of the project area in total open space. He advised that an oak hammock preserve area consists of 2.33 acres, sabal palm preserve areas comprise 4.5 acres, wetlands and wetland buffers account for 5.54 acres, lakes account for 31.0 acres (12.9% the recreation area contains 3.98 acres, and the remainder of the open space is provided through lake buffer areas and perimeter landscaping. He continued that the balance of the project of 150 acres consists of those areas designated for residential development. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan are compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. This petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Flores advised that conditions could be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration as a part of final approval. Mr. Bobby Klein stated that he represented the petitioner 250 Emerson LLC, which is the developer. He also stated that it is a 240-acre PUD (Planned Unit Development) with a density of three units per acre, with a maximum density allowed of five units per acre. He continued that this development only utilizes 60% density and they have a plan that provides for a variety of housing types. He advised that they have worked closely with the Environmental Services Division in an effort to preserve the appropriate areas of the property. He stated he would like Mr. Ken Natoli to present the details of the plan. Mr. Ken Natoli, Houston Cuozzo Group, stated that they have five different housing types in their plan to accommodate diversity of the potential owners. He continued that they have tried to treat all of the units with the same level of amenities. He advised that they have 91 acres of open space, which includes an oak hammock preserve, sabal palm preserve, and substantial buffers along Emerson Avenue. He also stated that they have an internal sidewalk network for everyone to get around the project and access the recreation areas. He continued that they would also be a bus turnoff so school buses can exit off of Emerson Avenue without holding up traffic. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 10 UNU r UTAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL Mr. Klein stated that they have put a lot of time and effort into this plan. He advised that staff has found that the proposed zoning designation and site plan are compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. He also stated that staff has determined the application to be consistent with the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. He continued that they would respectfully request that they recommend approval of this project. Mr. Grande stated that Mr. Klein stressed the point that this development would be at 3 units per acre, fewer than the five allowable units. He advised that if this request were not approved, under the current zoning of AG-1, this property has a maximum of one unit per acre. He continued that he believes they are asking them to approve this plan and increase the density. Mr. Klein advised that he is referencing the under lying zoning but he believes there are some other zonings there as well. He also stated that he understands Mr. Grande's point that if there were no plan that is how it could be developed. Chairman Merritt questioned what the under lying land use on the property was. Mr. Klein stated that the future land use is RU (Residential, Urban), which allows up to five units per acre. Ms. Hilson stated she would like to have a figure for the prices of the townhouses and the homes they are projecting. Mr. Klein advised that the home prices would range from $125,000 to $250,000. He continued that he believed the town homes would be at the lower end and the single-family units, as you get to larger lots, would be at the higher end. Ms. Hammer questioned if they could address the issues raised by correspondence regarding the discharge of the storm water. Mr. Richard Cabrera with CCL Consultants stated that the issues were with regards to drainage in Lakewood Park. He continued that apparently with the Portofino Shores development they are experiencing some adverse impacts. He stated that one of the first things they did was make inquiries with the SFWMD and FPFWCD. He advised that the property is designed to drain so that all of lakes will come down to the lake in the southeast corner and their discharge point would be into the FPFWCD Canal No. 5. He also stated that the control structure is being located by the FPFWCD because they are unsure where it is at this time. He continued that there would be no impacts to Lakewood Park. Mr. Akins questioned if this was the same property that was before them last month. Mr. Klein explained this is not the same property and that property was to the south of this subject property. Mr. Kelly explained that the previous request for Alicio Pina. He continued that there have been several applications in the same general area but are different sites. Ms. Hammer questioned if the maintenance of the single-family homes would be individually maintained with their own sprinkler systems, or would it be a community system. Mr. Cabrera stated that they have not really decided that yet, but there will be irrigation for all lots. Ms. Hammer stated that she is concerned and that residents be encouraged to use drip irrigation when that is feasible. She also stated that there have been some advances with using recharge water for irrigation. She continued that they should look at all of the environmental issues that could project and prepare for the future. Mr. Trias questioned if the project only has one way in and out, and if staff, the fire district, and any other individuals have found this layout acceptable. Mr. Natoli stated that it has been addressed and in the northwest corner they have a secondary emergency access point. He P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 11 unurrKPIAL""' SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL continued that the fire department had them increase the size of their cul-de-sacs. He advised that engineering has also reviewed the plan and this is why they have a secondary means of ingress and egress access. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Susie Caron, 8500 Indrio Road, stated that it is a beautiful development, but it is misplaced. She stated that they have a ranchette on seven acres with horses, chickens, cows, and roosters that crow at five in the morning. She also stated that there are beautiful buffers on Emerson, but there are none between their properties and this proposed development. She continued that she understands they are only looking at 2.9 units per acre but it doesn't fit into the general area. She advised that it is consistent with Lakewood Park, but not with their property and the farming properties of their neighbors. She also questioned what the time frame, start to finish, would be on this development. She stated that her major issue is roads especially since there are not any plans to expand Indrio Road anytime in the near future. She also stated that Indrio Road is single lane highway and an evacuation route that already has serious problems with that road. She advised that 720 more students in Lakewood Park Elementary School would not be possible. She stated that she would like to see the road studies, which show this is not going to cause a problem because she doesn't agree. She continued that she doesn't feel this development is needed because there are a tremendous amount of vacant lots available throughout Lakewood Park. Mr. Frank Stewart stated that he has one home in the middle of fourteen acres. He continued that he would see about fifty houses only ten feet from his home if this plan is approved. He also stated that he did his homework when he moved into the neighborhood because everything around his property is AG-1. He advised that he doesn't believe they have their best interests in mind. He questioned if any board members stood to make a profit over these developments. He stated that he has lost faith in the county. He also stated that one house per acre he can live with and would still allow for a developer to produce and upscale community with only one house on an acre lot. He continued that if this were to happen there would not be traffic, crime, or school issues and the value of his land would not diminish. He questioned if this PUD would be sewer and water, or septic and well. He advised that he believes the ten -acre site, which was previously owned by his father, may be contaminated and should be looked at. He continued that the area already floods when it is the rainy season and he is also concerned about all of the discharge into the canal. Ms. Hammer questioned how Mr. Stewart got into his property. Mr. Stewart stated that he has a culvert off East Seminole Road and Miramar. Ms. Hammer questioned what happens to the pond on his property during storms. Mr. Stewart stated that it is topped out all of the time and floods when the rains are heavy. Chairman Merritt questioned if any of the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission had a monetary interest in this project. Each of the members stated they did not. Mr. Grande stated that he believes that Mr. Stewart is heavily and emotionally involved in the situation and doesn't take it as an insult. Mr. Gordon Case, Holiday Pines, questioned if this subject property was using the water when figuring the average of home density per acre. He advised that he believes the homes would be closer than the average 3 houses per build able acre. He stated that he has lived in Holiday Pines for eighteen years. He also stated that they have their own water and sewer district and is concerned that this project will be tapping into their systems. He advised that he believes all of these developers will be feeding from the Holiday Pines water and sewer districts. He continued P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 12 unumbIALMOMM SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL, that their system was not built as a north St. Lucie County sewer and water district. He stated it was built for the containment of one five hundred home subdivision. He advised that he is also concerned about salt -water intrusion into their water district. Mr. Dominick Scotto, 8600 Indrio Road, stated that this is the third piece of property around them that has come up for development. He stated that he is concerned about the impact from the increased traffic on Kings Highway. He also stated that they live on about 3 'h acres and has a lot of trees. He advised that he is concerned about the density of the proposed project. He continued that the townhouses, the highest density, are on the south end of the property, next to those who live in the lowest density. He advised that he is concerned about his property values as well. Mr. Jay Macomber, 8680 Indrio Road, stated that he agrees with Mr. Scotto. He advised that his property is right on the corner of this project where the'highest density is going to go. He continued that his backyard would have a view of a much higher density than three units per acre. He advised that he moved out of town so that he would have room around his home. He stated that he has exotic birds that make a lot of noise, but he enjoys his country lifestyle immensely. He advised that he is not against the building of a development because that is their right, but the fact that it is a high -density housing development doesn't seem fair. Mr. Robert Caron, 8500 Indrio Road, stated that he believes that there should be a complete overview of the impact of a proposed development and the surrounding areas. He advised that he feels this would cause many problems with emergency evacuations; sewer, water, and many other issues should be addressed. He continued that there is a lot of land further east that could be utilized and doesn't understand why they have to develop so densely out west. He stated that this isn't the lifestyle they bought into; he lives on 7 '/2 acres and would like to see everyone build like that. Mr. Sam Waters, 5151 Emerson Avenue, stated that he is right across the street from this project. He stated that it is going to be overly populated in that area for drainage. He also stated that he is concerned because there are many types of endangered birds that come to his property. He advised that he spends many hours building ponds so these birds can come in and if this development is approved, he will loose that. He continued that he also agrees with all of the issues that the other residents have discussed. He stated that he has been on his property longer than everyone else there, thirty years, and has developed his property into a bird sanctuary. He advised that having a trailer park across the street from his property would not help his cause at all. Ms. Nadine Horowitz -Stewart stated that their property is south and east of the proposed project. She advised that they have fourteen of the original twenty-four acres that was owned by their family. She stated that they worked for two years to get the area cleaned up and in 1993 built their dream home on it. She also stated that since it was zoned one unit per acre they thought they would be safe. She advised that they left everything naturally in the area and because of that they don't have any blinds or drapes on their second floor windows. She continued that if this development is approved her view will change from trees to a bunch of homes. She advised that over the past three weeks the developers have been cleaning up the lower ten acres of their property and she has seen large gas tanks taken out of the ground. She also stated that she has seen them dig out tires, concrete, and many car parts out of the dirt there. She believes the area P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 13 unurrIGIAL SUBJECT TO Pi�l11►fir, & '�'�►NG should be tested for contamination. She advised that traffic is a major issue already, especially at the elementary school, and this would just make it worse. Ms. Susie Caron stated that she was asked to speak on behalf of Jimmy and Nick Russakis. She stated that they own the property across the street from the Caron's and also a lot of other land in St. Lucie County. She advised that they were not able to attend the meeting but asked her to inform the board that they are completely and totally against these developments. She continued that Nick advised her that if this development were approved he would be moving to his ranch in Okeechobee and selling all of his property in St. Lucie County. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Bobby Klein stated he appreciates the feedback from the community and they understand why they are emotional about this issue. He advised that the law requires that they must meet all of the requirements for development in St. Lucie County. He continued that once final approval is received they anticipate a build out of over five years. He stated that with this application they submitted a traffic study, which was examined by the Road and Bridge Manager, and found to be consistent with the requirements with adequate capacity on the roads for this project. He also stated that this property is within the urban service line and can be serviced by public utilities and intended for development. He continued that this property is not sprawl and is essentially infill. He advised that he understands that these people have enjoyed a period of time where they have had homes on large pieces of property and he also understands their concerns. He stated that they don't intend to interfere with that but this property is within a land use that was designated in 1990 as being five units per acre. He continued that this is the future and the future is now. He advised that they have absolutely no involvement with Mr. Pina or that property. He also stated that a concurrency analysis was done by staff and found consistent with the comprehensive plan. He advised that this property would be served by full utilities, water and sewer, and would not served by Holiday Pines facilities. He stated that there is an expansion of the St. Lucie County Utilities for the north county that will serve this development. He also stated that there is nothing on the property that is controlling drainage. He advised that the regulations require that this property manage its own drainage and it does. He continued that this project would not receive its final approval until it has all of the appropriate permits from St. Lucie County, the drainage district, and water district. He stated that his client also owned the 153 acres that is due north of the subject property and sold it to St. Lucie County for a park rather than develop it with the three units per acres. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of 250 Emerson Avenue, LLC (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent), for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to be known as Emerson Estates — PUD because it's significantly inconsistent with the surrounding current land uses and would create too great a strain on that particular part of the county. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 14 UNOFFICIALW - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING GOWSSION APPROVAL Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 2-4 (with Mr. Akins, Ms. Morgan, Mr. Trias, and Mr. Merritt voting against). Mr. Akins 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 approve the application of 250 Emerson Avenue, LLC (Houston Cuozzo Group, Agent), for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Emerson Estates) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to be known as Emerson Estates — PUD because I believe it is consistent with the future use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. I believe it is also the type of PUD project that we have been asking to be brought forth in that area. Even though I have serious concerns about traffic and what is going to happen, I don't feel that legally we should deny this project. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Chairman Merritt questioned if they could make a suggestion, as part of the motion, that the developer consider a swap of the layout of the site plan, if it's within their means. Mr. Akins stated that he would certainly suggest that, but isn't sure it would have any weight. He continued that he would definitely like the developer to consider some type of mirror image of the development as currently proposed. Mr. Akins stated that he would not have a problem with amending his motion to include that. Ms. Morgan agreed as well. Mr. Trias stated that he believes the best way to phrase that idea would be to revise the site plan to address the issues of compatibility with neighboring parcels and some of the other environmental issues described. Mr. Akins and Ms. Morgan agreed. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 4-2 (with Mr. Grande and Ms. Hammer voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 15 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO AGENDA ITEM 6: WATERSONG —File No. RZ-03-016 / PUD-03-008: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL. Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application of Ginn -LA, St. Lucie, Ltd., LLLP, for a Major Adjustment to an approved Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for the project known as Watersong (formerly Ocean Oasis and Gloucester Towne) and a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District and PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District for a 28.32 acre parcel of land located at 4900 South Ocean Drive (east side of State Road A-1-A, approximately three miles north of the Florida Power and Light Nuclear Power Plant). Ms. Snay stated that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed amendment would be consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. She advised that the proposed adjustment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Watersong (3.21 du/acre) will result in a lesser density than that is less than the density approved under the Ocean Oasis PUD (3.93 du/acre) and less than approved within the RU (Residential Urban) land use designation of 5 du/acre. She also stated that the proposed site plan is requesting 91 dwelling units and the approved Ocean Oasis PUD was approved at 111 dwelling units, a total reduction of 20 units or an 18% decrease and that if the subject property were developed at its maximum residential density, 142 dwelling units would be possible. She continued that the proposed site plan design proposes to preserve 5.05 acres of wetlands found on the site as well as 9.43 acres of dune system. The original approval for the Gloucester Towne development required improvements to the dune system. These improvements have been completed. This will result in no net loss of wetlands for this development. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the major adjustment to a Preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan is compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. This petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that this petition be forwarded to the County Commissioner with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Anthony Yesbeck stated that he represented the owner, Island Development Group and Ginn Development the marketing & development director. He advised that they were requesting an adjustment to a previously approved site plan. He stated that the previously approved site plan incorporated a dedication of over 34 acres to the County and a park of about three acres to the north of the project was also dedicated to the County. He continued that they have worked with the Presidents Council of South Hutchinson Island to provide a wildlife corridor on the south end of the property, provided for a sidewalk consistent with the trail system of St. Lucie County, and have maintained the open space of the original site plan. He advised that they feel they have improved upon the previously approved site plan and also have brought Ginn Development aboard to generate excitement on the island for the project. He asked that they recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of their requested adjusted site plan. Chairman Merritt questioned if there were two and three story units being proposed. Mr. Yesbeck stated that every residence would be on pilings and have the ability to be three story structures. He continued that they would be of concrete construction. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 16 UNOFFICIALN - Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. COMMISSION APPROVAL Mr. Hearn stated Policy 7.1.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall prohibit construction seaward of the coastal construction line including construction of coastal or shore protection structures, except if the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) has issued the applicable permits authorizing that construction. He questioned that since this project was previously approved project with the old construction line is it grandfathered in. Ms. Snay stated that the applicants do have their beaches and shores variance from the DEP. Mr. Hearn questioned if that information was included in their packets. Ms. Snay stated that it was not in the packets but was located in the file. Ms. Hammer questioned if the land that was donated to the County was on the west side of A-1-A. Ms. Snay confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that there was also a portion to the north of the development that was also donated. Mr. Grande 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 approve the application of Ginn -LA, St. Lucie, LTD. LLLP, for a Major Adjustment to a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval for the project known as Watersong PUD, and for a Change in Zoning from the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District and PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Watersong) Zoning District because the plan as resubmitted is a significant improvement over the plan that it is replacing. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 17 UNUMUTAL-A- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 7: EDGAR A. BROWN. BROWN RANCH, INC. — File No. CUMN-O�PPROVAL 001: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of Edgar A. Brown, Brown Ranch, Inc., for a Major Adjustment to a Conditional Use Permit and Major Site Plan Adjustment to allow the expansion of an existing mining operation known as Stewart Sand Mining Operation at Brown Ranch in the AG-1 (Agricultural — 1 du/acre) Zoning District on property located 3/a mile west of I-95 on the south side of Indrio Road. She stated that the Existing Sand and Coquina Mining Operation is 290.46 acres in size and the proposed expansion area is 67.49 acres in size, for a total mining operation of 357.95 acres. She also stated that the proposed sand and coquina mining operation would be authorized under the provisions of Section 3.01.03(A)(7)(i), Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels. Ms. Snay advised that on November 5, 1996, via Resolution 96-185, the Board of County Commissioners approved a conditional use permit to allow for the mining of sand and coquina rock on 280± acres of land within the Brown Ranch. She also stated that in addition, on November 5, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners granted approval of a Class H Mining Permit for a period of time not to exceed 20 years for the subject property. She advised that this Mining Permit included two 40-acre pits that totaled 80 acres in size. She continued that a minor modification to the Mining Permit was granted on October 28, 1998 that increased the size of the Phase 1 pit and decreased the size of the Phase H pit, but kept the total acreage at 80 acres and did not required Board approval. Ms. Snay stated that a review of the conditional use permit and site plan indicates that the proposed mining operation will not be in conflict with any portion of the Land Development Code. Staff is recommending the following condition of approval in order to ensure that the existing approved Mining Permit is also modified to reflect the referenced modification to the Conditional Use Permit: 1. Prior to commencing any operation of the mining efforts on the 77.59 acres of land, the applicants shall be required to obtain an approved mining permit from the St. Lucie County Public Works Department that is consistent with Section 6.06.00 of the Land Development Code and 11.05.01 of the Land Development Code. Ms. Snay stated that the proposed expansion site and previously permitted mining site were closely examined for the occurrence or potential for occurrence of the Florida sand hill crane, burrowing owl, and Audubon's crested caracara. She continued that the expected probability for onsite nesting of the caracara and sand hill crane is deemed low, due to the lack of suitable habitat but that the crested caracara has been documented nesting in the Dickerson Mining Site located on the north side of Indrio Road, west of I-95. She also stated that the proposed expansion area of the Stewart Sand Mining Operation is located within the secondary zone (5,015 foot zone) outlined by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and to ensure the survival of this species staff is recommending the following condition of approval: 2. Prior to any mining activities within the expansion area, the applicant shall submit to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resource Division a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the Crested Caracara or P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 18 utvWIGIHL-- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPRRV*t an appropriate form of approval from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Snay stated that the petitioners also submitted a reclamation plan that states that upon the completion of the mining activities, formal reclamation operations will commence with 90 days. She advised that these procedures would include grading, mulching and seeding in the upland areas, as well as sloping, stabilizing and contouring the final side slopes of the excavated lakes. She continued that in order to ensure that any wetland restoration survives and the littoral shelf does vegetate, staff is recommending the following condition of approval: 3. If the total herbaceous cover has not reached 50% of the improved marsh area, within one year of planting, an additional 1,000 plants shall be required to be installed in order to enhance the wetland. The additional plants shall be comprised of at least two other species than those currently proposed such as: Spike rush (Eleocharis cellulose), Arrow -Arum (Peltandra virginica) or Sand Cordgrass (Spartina bakeri). 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 the three recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Nick Stewart, President of Stewart Mining stated that they have been mining on Indrio Road for thirteen years and have not had any complaints to date. He also stated that they would like to have a mine expansion for the eighty acres to the west. He continued that they are located on a two thousand acre parcel of Brown Ranch. He advised that a large area surrounding the mine is still owned by Brown Ranch and is not considered as part of the conditional use. He stated that they mine aggregate material in St. Lucie County; provide materials for roads, and a DOT mine for base rock material. Ms. Hilson stated that she feels all of the environmental issues have been addressed and that she is comfortable with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Hammer questioned if the expansion area is sixty-seven or seventy-seven acres. Ms. Snay stated that it is 77.59 acres in total proposed for the expansion. Ms. Hammer stated that Florida is lucky enough to have the Crested Cara Cara nesting in our areas and was very impressed with the precautions being taken on the subject site. Mr. Hearn questioned the need for the additional acreage. Mr. Stewart stated that their current area is almost exhausted and are expecting to have additional need because they are out of material. Mr. Hearn questioned if there would be an increase in truck traffic. Mr. Stewart stated that it would not be additional, it would be the same as currently used since the current mine is almost out of material. Chairman Merritt questioned when the Crested Cara Cara showed up. Mr. Stewart stated that he has been mining there for thirteen years and had not seen it until a few years ago. He continued that it built its nest within 400 feet of their phase on the north side. He advised that it appears that the bird is compatible with the area, as well as some other wildlife in the area. Chairman Merritt questioned if the Cara Cara was a native bird of Mexico. Mr. Stewart stated that he did believe it was native to Mexico and to Texas, especially on the prairie lands. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 19 untur r ltpl t.-- SUBJECT TO P'AII NING & ZONING. C; *,'X%1.,GQN APPROVAL Mr. Hearn 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 Edgar A. Brown, Brown Ranch, Inc., for a Major Adjustment to a Conditional Use Permit and Major Adjustment to an existing Site Plan to allow the expansion of the Stewart Sand Mining Operation in the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District, subject to the three conditions listed, because I think it is a logical extension of an ongoing business and with the special conditions that have been proposed by Staff the environment's going to be protected and as stated by the petitioner, Mr. Stewart, there will not be any additional truck traffic on our highways. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Chairman Merritt questioned if Mr. Stewart agreed to the conditions listed by Staff. Mr. Stewart confirmed that he did agree. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 20 UNOFFICIAL-, SUBJECTTO Pi NN NG & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 8: NESFAT M. MOHD - File No. CU-03-009:��P�+ LION APPROVAL Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 8 was the application of Nesfat M. Mohd for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the retail trade of undistilled alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) as an accessory to the retail sale of food in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District for property located at 2233 North 25t' Street. He advised that the applicant is proposing the retail Sale of Undistilled Alcoholic Beverages (beer and wine) as an accessory to the retail sale of food. He stated that the surrounding zoning is CN to the north and south with RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/acre) to the west and east. Mr. Flores stated that retail liquor stores selling beer and wine as an accessory to the sale of food are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The subject site is the location of an existing food store. 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, subject to the following condition: Only the retail trade sale of undistilled liquor (beer and wine) shall be permitted. Chairman Merritt questioned if the petitioner was present. Mr. Nasar Barquet stated that he would be representing Mr. Mohd because of a language barrier. Mr. Barquet stated that the store has been there and would not be changed in any way. He continued that they had closed the store at one point because the construction on 25th street caused a decline in business but Mr. Mohd wants to reopen the business now. Mr. Grande questioned why the condition was listed because the conditional use permit is for the retail trade of undistilled liquor and that would be redundant. Mr. Flores stated that it is just a clarification and it is consistent with other similar conditional use permit requests in the past. Ms. Hammer stated that she assumed that there were regulations about how close this could be to any schools. Mr. Flores stated that was correct. Ms. Hammer also questioned if there were any type of police reports for the area with regards to this change. Mr. Flores stated that they did not request that information. Ms. Hammer questioned if the police department is asked for their input with regards to these types of requests. Mr. Flores stated they did not ask for their input with regards to this request. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Iris D. Williams, 109 Academy Drive, stated that she lives directly behind the store and is against his selling undistilled beverages there. She advised that they have had their share of trouble with the store when it was open. She also stated that there is a school in the neighborhood and their neighborhood has a homeowners association that is trying to clean up the area. She continued that there are children in that neighborhood and a Texaco in the area that already sells beer and wine. She advised that they have had problems with teenagers hanging out by the store and with the help of the Sheriffs department are trying to make it a better area. She stated that they are very much against anyone selling alcoholic beverages in that area especially since there is a bus stop right on the side of the parking lot. She also stated that there were P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 21 UNUMUIALWaft SUNECT TO P' & 'ONING several police reports made against that store when it was open before. She advised that she is a life long resident of St. Lucie County and is trying to get the neighborhood back. She asked that they take their children into consideration and deny the request. Mr. Akins questioned if the conditional use permit allowed the beverages to be consumed on premises. Mr. Flores stated it was not for onsite consumption. Mr. Akins questioned if Ms. Williams was aware that it was not for onsite consumption. Ms. Williams stated that she has seen people buy the beverages and then hang out around the store drinking. She also stated that she doesn't like having people hanging out around the store watching her. She advised that when the store was open in the past it became a hang out for young men. She continued that she had spoken to the owner many times about these issues and once the police get there they have left. Chairman Merritt questioned if a lot of the problems cleared up once the store shut down. Ms. Williams confirmed that the problems did clear up and it is now nice and quiet. She also stated that there is already a Texaco very close by that sells alcohol and doesn't understand the need for another store selling these beverages. Chairman Merritt questioned if there was also a package store or bar on the corner of Juanita and 25th street. Ms. Williams stated that there is a lounge / bar there that does sell liquor as well. She continued that there are many children around and have a bus stop at the neighborhood convenience store. Ms. Betty Bratwell stated that she lives in Sheraton Plaza, 2801 Langston Drive, is a member of the St. Lucie County Weed and Seed program, and is also co-chair of the Sheraton Plaza Homeowners Association. She advised that she agrees with Ms. Williams. She stated that they have been doing volunteer work all over the community to rid it of crime. She continued that she has seen several of these types of businesses breaking the law while operating. She advised that they don't want these types of problems back in Sheraton Plaza since they have worked so hard to turn the community around. She also stated that she feels these stores are only there to help themselves, not their neighborhood. She continued that they are adopting a safe haven in Sheraton Plaza too and don't want this store to corrupt their neighborhood. She stated that they report everything that they see to the police department and will continue to do so. She also stated that the Texaco station has worked with her and does not allow people to hang around the store once they have made their purchases. She also stated that Sheriff Mike Graves has helped Sheraton Plaza come a long way and they don't want this store to jeopardize that progress. Mr. Akins questioned if they have had prior experiences with this individual owner. Ms. Bratwell stated that was correct. Mr. Akins questioned if the Texaco is a problem within the neighborhood. Ms. Bratwell stated that they used to have problems with it prior to Larry coming in. She advised that since Larry has been running it they have not had problems like it was prior to his being there. Mr. Akins questioned if the Texaco operates and sells alcoholic beverages. Ms. Bratwell stated that they are not the same people as this request and they don't have problems with the Texaco anymore. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like the public to be aware that they should also attend the Board of County Commissioners meeting to voice their concerns regardless of how they vote tonight. He also stated that he applauds the community for making a stand in trying to keep their community involved. Mr. Elden Williams, 109 Academy Drive, stated that they are not trying to keep these people from making money. He continued that they just want to make sure to have a safe neighborhood. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 22 - .-Nolan SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL He stated that if they really wanted to help the community they could turn the store into an after school program or something like that. He also stated that there were problems with drug dealers and the police in this store before. He continued that they should come up with something more positive for the neighborhood than beer and liquor. He advised that they don't need any more beer or liquor in the neighborhood because there are already enough establishments in the area. He also stated that he would like everyone to think about the young children that are within that neighborhood. Ms. Narcis Plum, from Weed and Seed, stated that Sheraton Plaza is quite nice now and they don't have to deal with a lot of the drug issues anymore. She continued that they have gone into many of the stores in the neighborhood in the past and found drugs on the floor. She also stated that they have beer and liquor on every corner and their children need more places for education. She advised that this store would only bring criminals, drug dealers, and gangs. Mr. Roy McGriff stated he is a lifetime resident of Sheraton Plaza, taught school for fifty five years, and coached some of the teams in neighborhood. He advised that they are trying to make Sheraton Plaza a better place to live and doesn't understand why this store needs to have alcohol. He continued that they need an alternative for children within the neighborhood, not more alcohol and drugs. He stated that they have been working with the Parks and Recreation Department and Commissioners Bruhn and Barnes to get a recreation center in their neighborhood. He stated that they feel like they are being ignored. He also stated that their plans include a recreation center that would have a swimming pool, indoor basketball courts, and tutorial area for their community. He stated that they don't even have their sign anymore that shows they are Sheraton Plaza because it was torn down and never replaced. Seeing no one else Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Barquet stated that he would like to rebut some of the comments made. He advised that he appreciates the concerns of the neighborhood. He continued that she was referencing the actions of the previous people who ran the store. He advised that Mr. Mohd has always owned the store, but he had left the operations up to someone else previously. He stated that the previous individual was the one causing the problems. He continued that he has owned his store in Pompano for fourteen years and doesn't allow anyone to hang around in front of the store. He advised that they are aware it is against the law and harmful to the community, so they would not allow it. He also stated that he is aware that if they allowed people to consume on premises he could lose his license and he would not do that. He continued that they are being accused of things that they did not do and that it is not fair to them. He stated that he appreciates the concerns of the neighbors but doesn't feel they should be penalized for the wrong doings of the previous operator. He continued that they would not tolerate any type of illegal activities going on at their establishment. Ms. Hammer stated that she would like to commend the members of the community who have taken it upon themselves to go back to their roots and to take back their community. Mr. Hearn stated that he too wanted to express his appreciation to the members of the community for trying to improve their neighborhood. He continued that he didn't know if he could support a business that would have a negative impact on a surrounding community that doesn't want that particular thing to happen in their neighborhood. He also stated that he believes that a lot of people act differently when they get alcohol in them than they do when they don't have alcohol in them. He continued that he feels if the neighborhood embraced this, he might be able to support the P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 23 %I■ ■A/■ i ■Ya■ ar SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING. COMMISSION APPROVAL conditional use, but doesn't feel obligated to support something the neighborhood doesn't want. He advised that he supports the neighborhoods position and would be voting against this petition. Ms. Hilson stated that there are churches and schools within the area and that the community is trying to clean up their neighborhoods. She also stated that there should be some concern because of a bus stop being very close to the subject property. She continued that she couldn't see any good coming from this request for the sale of alcoholic beverages. She stated that she is not a voting member but would not support this petition. Mr. Akins stated that he too commends the members of the community for coming in. He also stated that the Weed and Seed program is doing a tremendous job. He advised that he would have to agree with Mr. Hearn and could not support this request at this time. Ms. Hammer stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Nesfat M. Mohd for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the retail trade of undistilled alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) as an accessory to the retail sale of food in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District because I believe that the residents have provided enough testimony and concern. I don't think this is a necessary use in this area and I do not support the Conditional Use of beer and wine in this community. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 24 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 9: WINN DIXIE STORES. INC. — File No. CU-03-010: COMMISSION APPROVAL Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 9 was the application of Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a retail liquor store for the offsite consumption of distilled and undistilled alcohol within the Retail Building "D" of the Indrio Crossings Shopping Center. She advised that the liquor store would have a separate entrance from the grocery store. She continued that the subject property is zoned CG (Commercial General) and retail liquor stores are permitted with Conditional Use Review and approval. She also stated that the petition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Codes. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Ms. Noreen Dryer, of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, and Russell, stated that she was representing Winn Dixie Stores. She advised that this is a request to allow Winn Dixie to have a package liquor store within the footprint of the existing Winn Dixie grocery store. She continued that it is about 15% of the total grocery store that the conditional request is applicable to. She advised that she was available to answer any questions with regards to the request. Mr. Hearn questioned if there were any other liquor stores within that Indrio Crossings Shopping Center. Ms. Dryer stated that she was not certain. Ms. Snay advised that there is a bar that also operates as a package store that is in the northwest section of the shopping center. Mr. Hearn questioned if that existing store serves the community fairly well based on its size. Ms. Snay stated that she is not aware of the size of the location. Chairman Merritt questioned if there was a distance requirement. Ms. Snay stated there is not a distance requirement between liquor stores, only from churches, parks, schools, and those types of institutions. Ms. Nilson questioned the distance requirement because she believes there are several churches within the area. Ms. Snay advised that it is a distance of a thousand feet to a church. Ms. Hilson stated that she believes that is an insufficient distance requirement and is uncomfortable with that. She also stated that there are a number of children, a library, traffic, and an existing liquor store already in that area. Chairman Merritt questioned if the liquor store would be completely sealed off from the grocery store itself. Ms. Dryer stated that she did believe it is within the footprint, but will have its own separate entrance and staff. Mr. Grande questioned if the already existing liquor store would have been within the distance requirement for notification to allow their testimony. Ms. Snay explained that all of the facilities within the shopping center were notified. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 25 u1lul 1 IVIML. SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL Ms. Hilson stated that there is already a store in the vicinity that sells alcohol and it is redundant to have a second one knowing the effects of alcohol in the community. She stated that she didn't understand why they would need another liquor store within that same shopping center. Mr. Hearn stated that he doesn't feel there is a need for another liquor store there and questioned what the motivation would be for a big corporation to do this. He also stated that he doesn't believe this would be in the best interest of the community. Mr. Akins stated that he agreed and he could not support an additional liquor store since there is already a facility existing within the shopping center. Ms. Dryer stated that she would like to remind the board that there are four conditions that they are required to satisfy. She advised that the staff report indicates that they do satisfy those conditions, they have not had any opposition to the use. She stated that they are not open late at night and would not sell packaged liquors late at night either. She also stated that it would actually be open less hours than the grocery store and is for the convenience of those shopping within Winn Dixie. She respectfully requested that they consider those factors when making their decision. Ms. Hilson questioned if they already sell beer and wine within the actual grocery store. Ms. Dryer confirmed that was correct but this request would be to allow distilled liquors to be sold within the package store. Ms. Hammer questioned what the distance requirement was to a school. She stated that she too believed that a thousand feet to a church was not sufficient and that they should look at adjusting that distance in the future. She advised that she is concerned about this being near a church, and is especially concerned about it being any where near a school, especially an elementary school. Ms. Snay explained that the code requires no sale or transfer of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption within 1600 feet of a religious facility, school, public park, or public playground. She advised that the requirement is only for on premise consumption, not off premises. Mr. Hearn stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a liquor store in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because there is already one real nearby and I don't feel an additional one is appropriate for this particular location given the type of people that generally shop in that area. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Chairman Merritt stated that he personally feels that since there is no objection by anyone that was notified there would be no reason to vote against it. Mr. Hearn stated that he believes a majority of the people notified are those who own stores in that area and make a profit, not the neighbors that live or shop in that area. He doesn't think this would be a concern of those who own stores there and then leave and go home to a different area. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 26 SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONINI COMMISSION APPROVAL, Ms. Snay advised that in order to address many of those concerns the mail out was done for five hundred feet from the entire shopping center property boundary, not the stores boundary, to include those neighbors living around the center. Mr. Hearn stated that he lives close to that area and that he knows that many of those residences within the boundary are not the real upscale type of developments that would tend to come out to participate in these types of hearings. Chairman Merritt stated that the existing liquor store didn't even attend or make any note of objection. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands that but he is doing what he thinks he should do. Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 3-4 (with Mr. Grande, Mr. Trias, Ms. Morgan, and Mr. Merritt voting against). Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a liquor store in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because Winn Dixie is clearly a responsible organization capable of controlling this type of a retail outlet and there is no opposition to it. Motion seconded by Ms. Morgan. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 4-3 (with Mr. Akins, Ms. Hammer, and Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 27 UNOFFICIALWOM SUBJECT TO PLAWNG & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 10: TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICES, INiPRVLa,$FAWccAPPgflV4( Vickers, Agent) — File No. CU-03-011: Chairman Merritt stated that Agenda Item 10 would not be heard this evening. Mr. Hearn questioned when it would be heard. The applicant's attorney Rick Farrell stated he would like to have the item continued until the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 21, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. Hearn questioned why the applicant was requesting a continuance when there were members of the public there to speak with regards to the request. Mr. Rick Farrell stated that they had only recently received staff comments and there are a number of statements made that they would like to address. He also stated that he felt there were some inaccurate statements that they would like to correct too. Ms. Hammer questioned what happens if there are a number of residents who have come out to speak regarding the application. Ms. Young stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission would open the public hearing to allow those who cannot attend the rescheduled meeting to speak. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Cynthia Adams stated that she lives two miles west of the incinerator site. She continued that she and her husband submitted a letter and also a letter from Mike Adams. She stated that she had a couple of more letters from other residents in the area that she would like to submit. She also stated that she would wait until the next meeting to make her comments. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Akins made a motion to continue the application of Treasure Coast Tractor Services until the August 21, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) to continue until the August 21, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 28 WEIVE I (VIAL, — SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM 11: AMENDMENT TO ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE — File No. ORD-03-19: Ms. Heather Young, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 11 was proposed Ordinance 03-19 to exempt animals on property zoned AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) with Agricultural Classification pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. She advised that on March 4, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners amended Sectionl-4-16 to provide that repetitive animal noise, which lasted for five or more minutes, will be considered a public nuisance. She stated that in recognition of the animal noise inherent in many agricultural operations, the Board exempted animals located on property zoned AG-1, AG-2.5, AG-5, and PUD where livestock is permitted, or property on which livestock is permitted as a nonconforming use. She also stated that the exemption was not extended to AR-1 because of the widespread location of such property throughout the County and the fact that these parcels are more likely to be located adjacent to non-agricultural uses. She continued that there is parcels zoned AR-1, however, which is the site of bona fide agricultural operations meeting the requirements for an agricultural classification for tax purposes under Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. She stated that it would appear appropriate, therefore, to further amend Sectionl-4-16 to exempt animals located on such property. She also stated that the proposed amendment also makes it clear that the provisions of Section 1-4-16 shall not be constructed in conflict with the "Florida Right to Farm Act" as set forth in Section 823.14, Florida Statutes. She advised that the County staff has received several letters from Charles Crooks regarding the use of dogs in agricultural operations. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward proposed Ordinance 03-19 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Ms. Pat Ferrick stated that she was there on behalf of the North Fork Property Owners. She advised that they support the change and that they were instrumental in having the AR-1 classification included in the current classifications. She continued that the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) classification was put in place to allow the continuance of agricultural pursuits during the whole scale zoning changes in the 1980's. She also stated that the property owners who found their agricultural zoning changed were assured that they would be grand fathered in regards to activities allowed on previously agricultural property. She advised that agricultural properties are covered under the Florida Right to Farm Act F.S. 823.14, (2) The Legislature finds that agriculture is a major contributor to the economy of the state; that agricultural lands constitute unique and irreplaceable resources of statewide importance; that the continuation of agricultural activities preserves the landscape and environmental resources of the state, contributes to the increase of tourism, and furthers the economic self sufficiency of the people of the state; and that the encouragement, development, improvement, and preservation of agriculture will result in a general benefit to the health and welfare of the people of the state. She continued that the Legislature further finds that agricultural activities conducted on farmland in urbanizing areas are threatened based on the theory of nuisance and that encourages an even forces the premature removal of farmland from agricultural use. She stated that it is the purpose of this act to protect agricultural activities conducted on farmland from nuisance suits. She also stated that (a) states in part that no farm operation which has been in operation for one year or more since its established date of operation shall be a public or private nuisance if the farm operation conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices. She continued P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 29 '"I I r K V INL.'••. SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL that "farm product" means the production of plants and animals useful to humans including the preparation, planting, cultivating, or harvesting of these products or any other practices necessary to accomplish production through the harvest phase, includes aquaculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, forestry, dairy, livestock, poultry, bees, and any and all forms of farm products and farm production. She stated that Florida Statutes 187.201 (a) Goal Florida should strive to expand its food agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry and related industries in order to be a competitive force in the national and international marketplace. She also stated that Preamble (Laws 1998, 98-313) amended which states in part "Whereas" it has been the declared policy of this state to conserve and protect and to encourage the development and improvements of its agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products. Ms. Ferrick continued that they believe that under Section 1-14-16 that (e) only that portion that states with agricultural classification pursuant to Section 193.461 be excluded. She stated that not all properties that raise livestock have that classification. She also stated that this is just being overly restrictive, which makes it arbitrary and capricious. She advised that the Right to Farm Act is not restricted to only properties with an agricultural classification. She continued that these statutes were enacted to protect agricultural activities when areas become urbanized. She stated that restricting this to an agricultural classification is a contradiction of the statutes. Mr. Grande stated that he understood Ms. Ferrick's point but would like Staff's explanation as to why anyone with an AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) zoning and no exemption were excluded from this ordinance. Ms. Young stated that there are properties that are zoned AR-1 that are not commercial farm operations and those with an AG zoning would be more likely to be that type of operation. She continued that it would also make it easy for the animal control officers to determine violations by either calling the property appraisers office or checking the website for the classification. She advised that there is language that makes it clear that nothing in the ordinance is intended to contradict the provisions of the Florida Right to Farm Act. Chairman Merritt stated that he has AR-1 zoning on the back portion of his property and also has livestock there for his grandchildren. He questioned if should recuse himself from this ordinance since it could affect him. Ms. Young stated that this is a legislative matter and he would not need to recuse himself. She also stated that this issue is a policy decision and with regard to the original ordinance, AR-1 was included as one of the categories but the Board of County Commissioners decided to take it out of the ordinance at that time. She continued that she believed they removed it because some of these properties are very close to non-agricultural, residential uses and also scattered throughout the county. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands where Ms. Ferrick is coming from. He questioned how many complaints they get about farm animals being a nuisance. He stated that he didn't think there would be very many regarding horses, chickens and other farm animals of this nature. He advised that he is concerned about a lot of land where there are no farming activities at all, which have increased in price, where expensive homes are being built on those properties. He continued that he didn't want to make exemptions for people who have these properties and have dogs barking all hours of the night and not be able to control those situations. He advised that he is sympathetic to the situation but is very concerned about sending the wrong message to those who might allow a dog to bark and become a nuisance. He continued that he believes if a dog is barking, the owner should go out and find out why, and correct the problem. He advised that they couldn't make a rule that would be perfect for everyone but is afraid this may send the wrong message. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 30 unurrWIRL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING commiSSiON APPROVAk Ms. Pat Ferrick stated that under AR-1 provisions having livestock is tied to specific lot size and setback requirements. She stated that there are others within her areas that have larger parcels and if this is tied to the classification they could end up getting cited. She advised that this could become a code enforcement problem because there are new people moving into the area who don't like to hear any kind of noise, livestock or otherwise. She continued that they were guaranteed in the 80's that those parcels that were changed from AG to AR-1 were going to grand fathered in. She stated that they should not have to be defending themselves because of this new ordinance being tied to a classification. Mr. Hearn stated that he understands what Ms. Ferrick is saying but that there does not need to be a specific lot size to have dogs and that is his main concern. Ms. Ferrick stated that dogs are not tied to agricultural classifications. She continued that having just dogs, under Florida Statute, cannot be tied into agricultural classification. Mr. Hearn stated that he is very concerned about someone who has dogs living in the AR-1 district and doesn't manage the dogs' behavior. Mr. Grande stated that those fortunate enough to have an AR-1 zoning, without an agricultural exemption, have unruly animals, and they honor Ms. Ferrick's request, there would be no way to control them. He continued that this is a difficult issue and isn't sure if there is a good answer or not. Mr. Charlie Crooks stated that he has lived in St. Lucie County all of his life. He continued that he didn't have a problem with those who have AR-1 and don't have an exemption being excluded from the ordinance. Mr. Hearn stated that he supports Ms. Ferrick's position but is very concerned about sending the wrong message to those who don't control their dogs. Mr. Crooks stated that anyone who has a bonafide working dog would be able to qualify for the exemption and therefore be excluded from the violations. He continued that he feels staff needs to do some more work on this request before they make any decisions. Mr. Crooks stated that the Right to Farm Act states that animal noises cannot be cited. Mr. Hearn stated that he is not challenging the Right to Farm Act but is concerned about a dog in a residential neighborhood becoming a nuisance. He also stated that if they exempt all AR-1 from this ordinance then barking dogs will allowed to be able to become a problem. Mr. Crooks stated that this ordinance, as proposed, is for only those that have the exemption. Mr. Hearn stated that Ms. Ferrick was asking that they eliminate that so that all of AR-1 is exempt. Ms. Ferrick stated that they are asking that anyone with the AR-1 zoning that has livestock should be exempt. Mr. Crooks stated that anyone with AR-1 and the exemption should be added to the ordinance. Mr. Hearn stated that he understood that but that Ms. Ferrick wanted the exemption portion removed from the ordinance. Ms. Pat Ferrick stated that she did not want someone with AR-1 zoning and no exemption to be cited for the sounds of their livestock. She continued that was their reasoning behind asking that the exemption portion of the ordinance be removed. Ms. Hammer stated that after hearing the concerns from both sides she would like to see if the attorney can somehow amend the ordinance as it is currently written to be a compromise. Ms. Young stated that the only thing that she can think of would be to provide for all animals under AR-1 with agricultural classification and all livestock if it is simply AR-1. Mr. Grande questioned if the definition of livestock would include dogs. Ms. Young explained it would not include dogs. She continued that the problem with defining the word working dogs P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 31 UNOFFICIAL --- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING was that there could be some breeds classified as a working dog, but not used as a "RN APPROVAL. She advised that was their difficulty, but if they need to further look at that type of language they could try again. Mr. Grande stated he doesn't think the issue of working dogs or non -working dogs should matter because if they have the working dogs they would have the classification and therefore be exempt. Ms. Young stated that would work fine with saying AR-1 without the exemption would allow for livestock only. Mr. Crooks stated he didn't see a problem with that. Ms. Ferrick stated that she didn't have a problem with that, as long as the livestock is excluded from being cited, that would be okay. Mr. Grady Fitzpatrick stated that he and his wife own property north of Mr. Crooks and that he represents the residents of Grove Drive. He advised that the Mr. Crooks and his son have several dogs that bark, howl, and whine repetitively. He understands that these working dogs are asset to the community but he doesn't feel that hunting hogs is an agricultural endeavor. He stated that when these dogs are housed close to a residential neighborhood it is not fair to the residents who live close by. He advised that they are against amending the noise ordinance to read that animals in AR-1 are exempt from the ordinance. He continued that the way the ordinance reads currently is fine with them and does not need to be changed. He also stated that cows, horses, and other livestock, do not bother them, but the dogs bark repetitively. He advised they live in a quiet community with well -kept homes and it is not fair for them to have to deal with this nuisance. He stated that if they had known about the dogs before purchasing their home they would not have moved into the area. He continued that it is difficult to sleep with the dogs barking constantly. He advised that they love St. Lucie County and have lived here for thirty-five years and ask that they not approve the amendment to the ordinance. Ms. Valerie Crooks stated that she has been married to Mr. Crooks for twenty-five years. She stated that she has lived on that property for those twenty-five years and the dogs have been there the entire time. She advised that under the Florida Right to Farm Act, these dogs are considered working dogs, and this is within their rights. She continued that they have tried to move the dogs away from the residences to reduce the amount of noise. She also stated that they also plan to move them again in the future. She advised that they have not just stood by and let the dogs be a nuisance to the neighborhood. She stated that they have been doing everything they can to ease the concerns of Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Crooks stated that he was born and raised in Fort Pierce and has lived in that house all of his life, and his family has been there for over a hundred years. He continued that there have always been dogs there and it has always been used agriculturally. He also stated that they have 32 dogs out there and was used for hunting. He advised that their dogs and farm has been there the entire time and was there prior to Mr. Fitzpatrick building his home. He continued that if they had looked around a little they would have seen that they had dogs. Ms. Hammer questioned how many dogs they currently have on the property. Mr. Crooks stated that he has about twenty dogs with some puppies. He also stated that his son on the west side who also has some dogs and then in the middle he has another son who also has dogs on his property. He advised that they have many different breeds that they use to hunt for the wild hogs that are ruining pastures. He continued that he has a contract with the Florida Turnpike and has traps from West Palm Beach to about eight miles north of Yeehaw Junction. Ms. Hammer stated that she was hoping to have a compromise available to allow Mr. Crooks to continue his business but also give relief to the residents. Mr. Crooks stated that they have been moving the dogs around to try and help the situation and also have plans to move the dogs again. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 32 SUBJECT ro PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL Mr. Grande questioned if Mr. Crooks has an agricultural exemption. Mr. Crooks stated that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that with the compromise that has been discussed, he would not be out of compliance with the ordinance. Ms. Young stated that was correct. Mr. Crooks stated that he was originally AG but the County wanted to do away with all of the AG that was east of the turnpike so he was changed to AR-1. He advised that he was guaranteed the same privileges as AG but would be zoned as AR-1, so that is why they agreed. Mr. Grande stated that if the changes they proposed were made, his situation would remain the same. Mr. Merritt stated that he has AR-1 zoning on the back half of his property, is grand fathered in, but they have a cow and horse and is concerned about how this ordinance would affect him. Ms. Young stated that he would not be affected because the cow and the horse would be classified as livestock under the proposed change. She continued that what she has heard so far would be to keep the language with regards to AR-1 with the agricultural classification to apply to all animals, but if it were AR-1 without the classification it would only apply to livestock. Ms. Young stated that without a classification, if you have dogs that are excessively barking, it would be a violation. Mr. Akins questioned how long Mr. Fitzpatrick has lived on the property next to Mr. Crooks. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated they purchased the property in 1998 but he still shouldn't have to listen to the dogs. Mr. Akins advised that the dogs were there prior to their buying the property. Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn made a motion to forward Ordinance No. 03-020 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval as amended by legal staff as a compromise to this particular issue that would address Ms. Ferrick's concerns and also address the other concerns of the AR-1 district as far as the AG exemption part of it. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Ms. Hammer stated that if this does pass, she would encourage Mr. and Mrs. Crooks to do what they can to get the dogs moved as soon as possible. She advised that they should continue with their plan so that some relief is given to the Fitzpatrick's. She continued that she believed the Crooks' wanted to be good neighbors and would like them to move on their plan as quickly as possible. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 5-1 (with Ms. Hammer voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval as amended. P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 33 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be August 21, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted: i D ilmore, Secretary P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 34 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL