Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 08-21-2003
St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agencv Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, Yd Floor Roger Poitras Annex August 21, 2003 Secretary 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — July 17, 2003 Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of July 17, 2003, meeting AGENDA ITEM 2: 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. This item was continued from the July 17, 2003 meeting. Cyndi Snay will present Staff comments. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report and Site Location Maps This is the petition of KENNETH F. LOWE JR., reliminary Planned Non Residential Development (PNRD) approval for a 12,000 square foot office b ' 'ng; Preliminary and Final PNRD approval for a 170 unit hotel and a Change in Zoning from the CG ( ercial, General) Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned Non -Residential Development) Zoning District yndi Snay will present Staff comments. Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission #3: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 4: DALE T. MOSHER — FILE NO. RZ-03-024: This is the petition of DALE T. MOSHER, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single -Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District. Dennis Murphy 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 August 21, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 5: DALE T. MOSHER - FILE NO. CU-03-015: This is the petition of DALE T. MOSHER, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development and operation of a commercial nursery in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District. Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #5: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 6: GLASSMAN REALTY, LTD. — FILE NO. RZ-03-035: This is the petition of GLASSMAN REALTY, LTD., for a Change i mng from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General mng District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommen d: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit aff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM a ORDINANCE 03-005 — PUD REQUIREMENTS / OPEN SPACE STANDARDS The purpose of ORDINANCE 03-005 is to amend the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to provide for amendment to the Open Space Standards of the County's PUD Design Standards to address development activities in the rural areas of the County. Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #7. Staff Report A f1F.NTlA TTF. irgnDnINA WVR fil-fill - FTNTf A TT(1NA T . FA f iT.TTTFC TMPA f T FF.FC The purpose of ORDINANCE 03-023 is to amend the educational facilities impact fees schedules and to consider several minor technical amendments to the text of the ordinance. Dennis Murphy will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #8: Staff Report OTHER BUSINESS: A. Other business at Commission Members' discretion. B. Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on September_ 18, 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 swom 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: 8/21/03 File Number: RZ-03-018 & PUD-03-029 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (Planning Division) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioner FROM: Planning Manager DATE: August 21, 2003 SUBJECT: Continuation of PGA Village Hotel and Office Petition. It has come to our attention that the legal ad published in the newspaper indicated the wrong property location. In order to ensure that no misunderstanding occurs with this petition, staff is recommending that no action be taken on this petition and that it be continued to the September 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Staff will re -advertise and re -notice the item with the correct location. AAX /AL u " i`zo� INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Planning and Zoning Commission File FROM: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney' C.A. NO: 03-1128 DATE: August 20, 2003 SUBJECT: RZ-03-027/PUD-03-018 - Pamela Hammer The Planning and Zoning .Commission will hold a public hearing on the above -referenced rezoning petition on August 21, 2003. Pamela Hammer, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commissioner, asked me to determine whether she would have a voting conflict on the matter due to her ownership of property within five hundred feet (500') of the subject property. Voting conflicts for public officers are addressed in Section 112.3143. I reviewed the statute and relevant Commission on Ethics opinions on voting conflicts. Based upon this review and a discussion with Julie Costa, an attorney for the Florida Commission on Ethics, it does .not appear that a voting conflict exists. Accordingly, I advised Ms. Hammer that she may vote on the petition when it comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission. HY/ Copies to: Pamela Hammer Community Development Director 4 l A FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ,LAST NAME —FIRST NAME —MIDDLE NAME NAM OF BOARD COU CIL MMISSION, AUTH R OA CO ITiE fa T t yM Fie_ . oun .. �anning anc� riling =7E& on/ Morris-i l rl Tnt�al planr�irirr MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 4838 S. U.S. 1 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY + ❑ CITY YU COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Fort Pierce, Florida St. Lucie NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: 5t. Lucie Count DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: August 21, 2003 0 ELECTIVE CX 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 of the meetina. who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) (i 1i 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. I DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Ed Merritt hereby disclose that on August 21, 2003 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain or loss; My real estate company is selling the petitioner's 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 by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: AGENDA ITEM 2 i TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE; INC. •(Lalvretice Vickers; Agent) - FILE N0. 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. This item was continued from the July 17, 2003 meeting. Date Filed, 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. CE FORM BB - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 i i Kilday & Associates Landscape Architects J Planners 1551 Forum Place, Suite 100A West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 669-5522 - Fax (561) 689-2592 www.kildayinc.com Augun;t 20, 2003 Mr. Hank Flores, AICP St. Lucie County Community Development Department 2300 'Virginia Avenue Fort Fierce, FL 34982 Subject: Johnston Street Center -File Number RZ-03.035 Our File No. 500.25 Dear Mr. Flores: Please accept this letter as a request for postponement of File No. RZ-03-035 currently scheduled on the August 21, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda. The purposw of this request is to allow this application to be heard together with the Johnston Lakes PUD on the September 18, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda. Pleaso feel free to call me if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Lindsey A. Walter CC! Steve Glassman Butch Terpening Stef Matthes Noreen Dreyer, Esq. H: Werttsr500.25(Ioresiv.8-20-03 unurrttolHt-- SUB'c't',T TO PLANNING & 70NING Co fq1 HSSION 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 SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZO"46 CALL TO ORDER COMMISSION APPROV AL 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 UNOFFICIAL - SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING Mr. Hearn stated that he owns property within 500 feet of the petition for 250 ONI oSS�vjIff PR"AL 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 — JUNE 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 25"' 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`s Street. He continued that RM-9 Zoning is also located to the east across South 25`s 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 UMUMUTAL-- 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 UNOFFICIALONNO SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING AGM' .SSION 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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO AGENDA ITEM 3: EUGENE AND LESLIE DUNCAN. — File No. RZ-03-021PLANN NG & '�"I,NG 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 UNOFFICIAL --- 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 umurrIWAL- 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 UNOFFICIAL SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COWSSION 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 UNUFFICIALM- SUBJECTTO 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 UNQFFICIAL-- 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 1/z 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 comer 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 '/z 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 UNOFFICIAL""" SUBJECT TO 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 UNOFFICIAL- SUB .ENT TO PLAWNG & ZONING coMMiSS1ON 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 UNOFFICIAL 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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING DOMMISSION APPROVAL . ILT_ d'YTILM A 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/ mile west of 1-95 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 II 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 II 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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONINB COMMISSION APPRVA 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 UNUFF1UTAL- SUBUT TO R liN-INNG & ZONING C: X*-$S1QN 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. SUBJECT TO PLAWNG & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 8: NESFAT M. MOHD — File No. CU-03-009: �33ON 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 UNOFFICIALOMMI 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 vivvl-FIVIHL® SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROypt 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 umurrILJAL- 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. Hilson 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 UNUFFICIAL-- 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 uNUMUTAL-- SUBIECT TO PLANNING & ZONIN6 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 UNOFFICIAL -- SUBJECT TO t'LAWNG & ZONING AGENDA ITEM 10: TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICES, INV?R%La,0"VAVcAPPgnVAI 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 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 MUrt WAl- SUOJECT 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 UNUFFICIAL. SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAi, 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 UNOFFICIALWOM SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING was that there could be some breeds classified as a working dog, but not used as a 9N 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 UNOFFICIAL,_ SUBJECT TO 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: Dwrnr- ilmore, Secretary P & Z / LPA Meeting July 17, 2003 Page 34 UNOFFICIAL- SUBJECT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL System - 2.3.9 License Maintenance 2001 -13421 :Comments ISSUE DISTR 2001 02/23/2001 03 6802 63.00 One Year f !✓lick vn_the h�gcord to`view the data Petition of Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. -Lawrence Vickers for a onditional Use to operate a second air curtain incinerator. N U N.S.L.R.D.O. Canol No 63 �T Orange Avenue GIS Map prepared June 23. 2003 Tm rrwp by been oonpeed ar w WpWnr v am Harems purpose. orgy. W,k every effal bae been made to V%ide Ne ff" w era W a dG Normebon poe , M Is rat NNndW kr use as a *g* Wn&Q dowram. Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. — Lawrence Vickers Zoning 013M A -5 K2L.R.0.0. Gonol No 63 Orange Avenue 0 4G-5 Gis� Map prepared June 23, 2003 ,M � t. bm hx pwkie ",Ww� 0*. N ��~habw &a9W�OWN$50.WXMG -gWMW- MS$bb. i isa wr a W "OlO m • Wg* �o aoanbn. Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. - Lawrence Vickers Land Use Orange Avenue G-5 ■_■ Conoi No] 63 GIS. Map prepared June 23, 2003 Umnwb69been Sm �"W N YROe � ~ ho been made to Wade t,e "torten W • St- iitom m po wlk, 4 w not i,tw4od 1w m u e W* WdM Aomrs". Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. - Lawrence Vickers iV U — — — — — - — — - — — — - — - — - - — 1 1 2.97 3.78 2.97 1 N.S L.R.0.0. Conol No 63 Oronge Avenue 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 v 1 1 1 1 i 1 27.59 27.71 1 36.81 1 0 ci 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 15.76 i 1 1 Is -----—---—----------' GIs. Map prepared June 23, 2003 THS MAP has bW OWOW W QWWal .4 Wei WPNn any. N wtae even etlen has teen made a pave the moat cvnent and socmate kdorma0on poss0s. e is ad ksw.W lot ms as a legally br.*V doaa*nra. 1 u - j[ {f�Iu�3`-' old ZIA r S i W`1 )•� S.v ! 4:) low \\\�SNAPPCR Cl2EEfC NURSER' INC. Wholesale Nursery Serving Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties Friday, August 15, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board St. Lucie County RE: CU 03-C 11— Treasure Coast Tractor Service Dear Sir or Madam: I represent the ornamental nursery operation on the adjoining property to the east of subject property. We have recently purchased approx 300 acres in this area, developed 150 acres into a field grown tree farm and are currently developing the remaining acreage into a container operation. All of which represents a considerable investment not only in land but also in improvements, future employment and is evidence of a long-term commitment to the agricultural community in the area. We are opposed to this application for operation of an air curtain incinerator for the following reasons: • Concerns about future value of the land o Long term values should this be allowed to get established — once started where does it stop. o Who wants to live by an incinerator • Concerns about correct operation of the burner o Earner this year the large pile of debris caught fire around the existing burner and burned for a number of days. We had to work in the smoke. o Overloading of the bumer prevents correct incineration and results in smoke. These machines are only designed to handle so much throughput. I have seen this happen with current burner. When the wind is out of the west we have labor working in the smoke and customers will have to brave the smoke to buy or trees. o If another fire gets away into the huge pile during the dry season where will it spread? We have a considerable investment in trees within 200 feet of the current location of the new box burner. It is at risk? • Concerns about disposal and effects of the residue. o Currently from previous open burning the elevation of their land is considerably higher than due to the ash. This ash pile will continue to grow and I am concerned as to what this is doing to the water in the canals. During heavy rains the runoff goes into the district canals or down into the ground water for which we rely on for irrigation, not to mention others further down stream. o What if other construction debris makes it into the bum pile? Will we have a problem later on? o There is already one machine there. Do we need another machine to concentrate this residue? I understand that we have to dispose of this debris as the county continues to grow. But I ask is this the correct location and is the methodology correct? I understand that it is a lucrative business and perhaps more consideration for the environment and the neighbors should be taken, however should you approve this use we would like the same consideration so that we might remedy our loss of property value, potential damage to our trees and additional detriment to our working environment. 20107 Orange Ave. / Ft Pierce, FL. 34945 / (772)-429-3000 / (772) 465-8449 FAX 0 Page 2 August 15, 2003 Below is a recent aerial photograph of the area, please ask yourself if you would like to work and potentially live right next door. Sincerely, Nick Morris General Manager Snapper Creek Snapper Creek Nursery 20107 Orange Ave. / Ft Pierce, FL. 34945 / (772)-429-3000 / (772) 465-8449 FAX �• i P i AUG 2 1 r, I _',�.,.._.,.._.. 89/21/2883 08:87 7724621149 5T LUCIE COUNTY PAGE 01/01 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8120103 Treasure Coast Tractor Service 1210 Pulitzer Rd Pt Pierce. FL 34945 Dear Mrs. Vickers; PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT This letter is reference to the bum facility on Orange Avenue Ext. and the violations on the property. There arc no current open cases on this property for your business. If you need any further information with regard to the property for Code Enforcement. Please give me a cull. Thank you Sincerely, ffi(-Cw'UjL. L" Michelle Prestrid&o Code Enforcement Officer JOHN D. DRUHN. Chtdcr No, 1 • DOUG COWARD, 01stntr No. 2 - PAVA A. LEUti3, Cattier No. 3 • FRANNIE 140TCHIN50N, Chalet No. A • CLIFF DARNGS. Ulutler N0. County AdmiNsrtoror . oouelw M, amd-rsen 2300 Virginia Avenue a Fr. Pierce, FL 3A982 Public Works: (772) 462-1485 • FAX (772) 442.2362 Division of Engiroeringt (772) 462-1707 Fox A62.2362 . Division of Road !s Dridgot (772) d62.2511 FAX 462-2363 Division of 5olld Wwo: (772) 462-1768 FAX A62.6987 Division of Building Ir IngWriem: (772) 462-1553 Fox 462.1735 • TM (772) 462.1428 www,CO.sr-lVCle. fl.us Z0 39dd doio ai 0 1 6900190ZLL 9E:80 E00Z/ZZ/80 TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. 1210 PULITZER ROAD 772-464-2582 FORT PIERCE, FL 34945 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATT: DAWN 8/20/03 FAX: II SHEETS RE: ITEMS REQUESTED ON PAGES 4 & 5 OF YOUR FAX SENT 8/19/03 THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED. PLEASE CALL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SINCERELY, DORIS VICKERS ALSO MICHELLE IN CODE INFORCEMENT-FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY WILL HAVE A LETTER FAXED BY TOMORROW . WE HAVE NO VIOLATIONS . Page I of I ISubj: Tnsasune Coast Tractor Service !Date: &20/2003 3:08.55 PM Eastern Standard Time jFrom: RLchskrd,.tMkVnn@.d.qp state. ,qr iTo: QVTMCAAQL &0--M Sent ftm the ...... . . ...... . .......... . ... ... . . . ....... .... The Department of Environmental Protection has no current enforcement actions With this facility Rich Hofmann Air Enforcement Section Wednesday, August 20,2003 America Online: DAVTCTS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services CHARLES H. BRONSON, Commissioner The Capitol + Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 July 15, 2003 Mr. Lawrence Vickers Tceasme Cow Tractor Service Inc 1210 Pulitzer Rd. Ft. Pierce.. FL. 34945 Marl& Vielms: Please RcgmW to: Division of Toms" 4330 P. Street Vero Beach, FL. 32968 On April 7, 2003, I observed a column of smoke on Orange Ave. At that time I was not aware of any wild fires in the arre. Alter traveling on Omnge Ave, west of. Sneed road, I realized the ftre was in the stump dump located on the south We of Orange Ave. It appeared to be on the western side operated by Treasure Coast LaW Gearing Inc. (John Talley owner.) The St, Lucia County Fire District was on soerte stopping the forward progress of the fire. 1 met with Battalion Chef Denny Maxwell who was on scemt but oil duty. He explained the plan of attack on the fire and I agreed. What I observed burning was the land clearing debris horn Treasure Coast Land Clearing and Wands Bros. Mr. Talley's ear cuttam was burning and he explained drat the wind picked up and some embers flew out and started the piles. I traveled to your side of the site and checked your Idles. The piles were neatly stacked in wind Mows with adequate spacing to help prevent the spread of a fire. The piles were not burning and your air curtain was still in flue process of being installed or assembled, N you require a any additional mfammabory please let me know. SINCERELY CHARLES 11. BRONSON 41m VI;MISS ON CULTURE taro est Area Supervisor Indian River dt St. Lucie Co. 772 778.5095 Pc: Jim Rath, District Manager, Okeechobee Fi'orida Agriculture and .Forest Products Harry Denny Maxwell 600 Sneed Rd. Ft. pierce, pl 34945 772.460-0212 home 772-462.2398 work To 1VIr. vickas, As per your request I am righting this letterIn reference to the everft of April 7, 2003. On April 7, 2003 I was working outside at 600 Sneed Rd. ail day on femeing. It was about hutrhtime on this day when I noticed that there was a sudden imrense in wind speed and gnats out ofthe south "fete wind was sufficient to blow my string line several inchos off the posts. It was about at this time I first noticed smoke conning fmm acrow Sneed Rd west of my home. lWl`y first thought was that the grove west of me was brains pushwd trees and I thought it was ,poor judgtt ale to start butting now with these Ngh winds. After a short time I noticed the fire was growing in size and intensity, I On decided to go and investigate to see if any clearing equipment was involved. Upon my arrival at the fire it was appmt that the fits in the incintecator bad spread into a larpe pile of cicarWg debris that was piled to ft North of the Incinerator. After sizing up ft situation I that with workm. on scene and the owm, Jobe Tally. I identifaled myself as their neighbor Battalion Chief Maxwell and gave tb m my opinion as how best to handle the fire. Mz. Tally was receptive to .my suggestions and. we agreed *9 the f Ltv departmeat should be wdfW to assist aril I called our Communication Center directly and explafaaed the situation as well as inactions on how to find the fire. Mr. Tally was calling his people for more help and equipment to be brought to the scene. I noticed the operation to the East of this fire was not up =4 tuttttlug yet Thwe was land cleaning material. stored at this location in several smaller piles, with space between the pies. The overall vohtms of dabris was lass than that being stored to the west, which was now one fire. It is my opinion the spaces boo these piles would make it easier to handle a £ire at this Ioeatlon. It would be my recommeodation to j ou to continue with this practice of having smaller, s m isolated piles ofdebris. If I can be of any Auftr assistance in this or any other matter do not hesitate to call. Re fatly, Benny Iyiaxwell, T'd alao-09t,-z4L itamxe W WIN �76! LG/ LOOJ 1 :J.:J:J r r �wi c�n� � + • ^^— • •-^ Department of -� Environmental Protection Division of Air Resources Iftnegement APPLICATION FOR AIR PEROT - -NON.TLTLE V SOURCE Sco,h Mctions for 1 o M No. 62.210.900(3) L APPIACATION E ORMUON Mal fiefMoa Of faeffift 1. FadT1.y 4vxer/Cowp=yN;sm&: Treasure Coast Tractor Service, hte. 2. Site Names: Orange Avenue — Sneed Road Sim 3. Fac;lity Ide w icatian Numbm Not Assigned [ Unbxyw t 4. Facility Loc sda = West of Sneed Road / South side of Orange Avemie, Ft. Pierce, FL. Street Address arO her f m m= See Site Location Map (Appendix A) City: want of Fort Pierce Coway: St, Lucie Zip Code: 34945 5. Ratocatabk 1:adW 6. E .Rita Fad'bity? (] Yes [ X] No [ ) Yes # X I No AndkLft-Coetaet Now ad Mile of AMHcWiovC=1aW Lawmee Vicloers 2. Applxcatim Contact. Mailittg Add� Organintioaaftnt- Treasure Coast Tractor Service, Inc. Street Addrew. i m Pulitzer Road City: Fort Pierce State. FL Zip Code: 34945 3. Applicxdon Contact TshphewNmbers: T one: (77Z) 464. M FMC (rM 461.00" 1. Due of Receipt 2. Permit Number.: Stephen Smallwood, FE Air Qaaliity Savicee - Final ACIAO Femtilt Applkadou (April 8,1003) A08 File: ^:1AC; •enicss;?C41�^TSt J^ Trre�,tro �Ofl�+t 'rAf i�t SiP.�vir,� SCD.4CTIVG1Aif AK;,_i�rr1� RM�n_' LTi�asuf?^C1g1';c nr�_. DEP Form No. 62-210.900(3) - Form EBbecdvc: 2/11/99 1 19tl/ ZI77 L17CJJ I`J. JJ r r 44va Uww, ' — AREA MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF FACILITY ,A ALL 1: t4WU 1 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4m 5000 E000 7000 FEET l .5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVALS FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL , •x41 r ( M q I v n p p 1 9 %♦YrG. ,�i y • n � T O p N p y P 0 0 3 N— N pl 5 0 n ... H - 7.1 _ 1 y n R ® n a y ISO 1 0.0 Atli. f0 PICA 1546 ea 3.7'd0"T i TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE WOOD WASTE RECYCIANG & WSP'OSAL FACII.Y'IN Sneed .Road & Orange Avenue Site FORT PEMCF., ST. LUCIE COUNW, IMMMA QVIV IOU3 whD UU! :!2 JrAA oe! •ea bra l 4vwnr;AA m a..nrc •.Iw .m �• ... 111*7l1' A poral of land lying in SWIon 9, towna414p 35 South, Range 38 Eoet. St, Lucia Gaudy. Florida, being more particularly described as Wows: Ttw East )r of the East Yi of the East X of the Southwest K of Seotlon aj, lass the North 202 feet and the South 39 fact for road and canal right-of—way. Land omtains M445 acres, more or less. 4 v a 1 .i-"-To`T 1 1/ X PIjl1WM /WAL 1'�ubAfrOe 118 !E1 iD �TA1tJ1E 4 t. away. PAT sww COMA MTM DIOMM sum��\� a 6/�f/ o •. Im m wyr A PAW •ORANK AVR: M $$ (20x RAR) SR8''4 3SL48 stit/• of �cnou s .. f�BT 1/4 ff saw 1! ' �►sr . t ;w 0 33Z3s' *1 um S EV" s S89sr, lt" . r 9 10 1d $8�' IlrE 1�9b�.18 g96RaCQ CAMN. � %"!tOf2 EAST PARCMftlow" ra* CPNM W ASM GOAff IWACM so*= n+m obi ae In -I vnlnHvl n 1 CQMMTOb7// CC:CT P12127IM;JR12 19tj1 z17/ zUU17 13. 00 I f Z401 0007 1 1+ I MP4,1 i LA-1 VISIBLE EMISSIONS EVALUATOR This is to certify that met the specifications of Federal Reference Method 9 and qualified as a visible emissions evaluator, Maximum deviation on white and black smoke did not exceed 7.5% opacity and no single error exceeding 15% opacity was incurred during the certification test conducted by Eastern Technical Associates of Raleigh, North Carolina. This certificate is valid for six months from date of issue. Ceditate Number Lecomen Dote of Issue cGiGAa..� G(J• u.W..e vc-� President Director of Training __ v IIlwuI ., I COMOToez)i CQ:CT FAA7/AZ/99 August 14, 2003 Page 3 Subject: PGA Village Hotel and Office RZ-03-029 & PUD-03-018 In addition to the above, the development of this site for a hotel use, not to exceed 170 units is consistent with the approved final development order for the Reserve, which permits up to 250 hotel units in the DRI known as the reserve. When added to the 80 units in the mainstay suite property, the 170 units in this project equal the maximum permitted under the projects development order. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The proposed PGA Hotel and Office Complex has been determined to be consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.7.1 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan states, "...permit and encourage innovative land use development patterns including Planned Unit Developments and Mixed Use Developments." In 1989, the revised overall Master Plan for the Reserve identified Parcel 37 as the Commercial portion of the Reserve. The subject parcel is located in an area of the Reserve DRI project that is to be developed with a mix of land uses in support of both the overall DRI project and the adjoining areas of the community not included in the Reserve. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed project is consistent with the approved PUD/DRI for the area and with existing and proposed land uses in the area. The general character of the area is commercial. To the North is the Mainstreet Village commercial tract within the PGA Villages; to the south is PGA Learning Center and Vistana Tract (Parcel 37A and 37B at the Reserve); to the east is Interstate 95 and; to the west is the Mainstreet Suites D. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; The submitted site petition for site plan and Planned Non Residential Development (PNRD) Approval are for the development of a 170-room hotel and a.12,000 square foot office building. Both uses are consistent with the approved Final Development Order for the Reserve Development of Regional Impact. E. 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. .; pupl�c services' art peinq pCov�decl tor. I W, a%A'raay IctYuUc-i.7. '{ The proposed; site design mGludcs a r urnber of fparkmg "spaces that ire proposed as reseNe parking these reserved spaces eroete inoreasecl landscape islands with':n devei(opment heparking areas will not be paved`untilrsuch time a the applicant can demonstrate that they are needed 1Nheter ancl,the extent.to which tt_e proposed amendment �iyould adversely effect# r the property values in the area.: ; x" } It . is not ;anticipated :that the Partial Final PNRp approval for Phase 3,7t 6f the I?(aA Village -0, u"Mercial Center at the Re erne evil(have. an negative irnpaCt on tha value 0 Y t #hi s prep"arty o on ahy of .the adjacent ,properties In :this area, The surrounding area is s, 3a a already developed in a ' manlier sirimilar to what is proposd with #l�ls civelopptent application: > zx F s k R Whether and the extent.to which the proposed amendment:woald -result n orderly and logical development; pattern, specifically identifying and negative ;affects of " such patterns: : 'The subCnitted site .petition for ,rite plan and Planned Non Residential faveloptnent (PNRD) Approval are for the deve,[optiieit of a' 170;room hbtei and a 12�pb0 square fr�ot office building: Both Uses are Consistent with the approved Firial.Developrrient Order for the -Reserve=Development of Regional Impact. - 1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conff�ict With public interest, and is in harmony with the,'purpose and intent of #his Code. The proposed .amendment :has been .determined not to conflict with the public interest and the St, Lucie County:Land Development Code. �yu�e rei yr i[�ausiridi czeveiopmr��, �yu,uuu Sy}a,are reel Qr 4vmmerc�a� a��ei�prnen�, vuvuu� , " st�at� (i3et of office s acend50 hofe)/mote( rooms As o:this date, a p Pproxima#ely 1,124_` dveliing `units have been permitted for donstrtction, another 609 un!#s have received siteE`{ . .and J f • jp` j p(an approvalhave not yet -been butlt ;Approtcimately 95000 square feet of, mdus#r�ai . deynt, one $0 unit hotel%motel; and less -than 5,000 _ square feet of pomrnrciai j development has beer! permitted, fp> ` The total projedt area of the. beset a DRI, !s approxirr'a oly. ,100 aGCes The net project area fol4 - k'; . Pajeei 37C is 6 93 ages Parcel' 37C is being proposed for develoAV- prnient wi#it #ha r ma ning 7 17 f etel/m .W1 roorrt and en adds#cor al 12 000 square, `i`eet of cominerc�ailoffioe t cors(st�rat with the overall `g'r_oss profeet density/ihtohSity within the Reserve DRI•_ In the revised overall :Master Plan .for the Reserve identified' Parcel,37 as the Comrnerctal, potion of the f eserve= Part 7 wss e�fb a uently subdivided into five trac3is Af land 31A the: Vtstana Tract wi`ich was approved' for 400 dwelling unitsi.Tract;37B. the PCA�: Learrting .Center which was approved frsr a �0,000 s�aara of oort,merciai spade• 1 ii �4 ' ag �£ } =feet soua�o lino# Learning Cet�fer, 24,112 square foot .education comer end 1311 square faot �f �}} , histoFieal.center� Tract 1 which was 00E190ed as the;$0 room Mainstay suites hotel enif Tract (i'arnei 37�) yvhich, was approved for 80�000 square feet of cotnrtmercial and a 9.5 sore water fir: managotnent tract, ,w_ The subject tract has both a commercial land use and zornng designation. rlJnder these desighatons a Natal .ie pern�tted as a conditional uso, since the proporty ie-being developed as a plalned Nonresidentlai pevelopment (PI), the planned tlevelQpmnt` hoariri prooess{ serves tie settle procedural functign as the o©nditionl use ;process, hoover the propoaetl use t mint also safiefy the; standards for conditional use. described in the Q., my I nd to rrtent; ` 3 Y. �coc7e As.;part of the site. plan design, the developers have provided a native vegetation, transplant .; along bath Cornrperce Centre Drive andResetve Boulevard This a!s intended !zone,located to provide a 4�uffer.of native :vi Atlon. along both of these roadway faclllftes1 ' Tho proposed site design !rlcl�ides a Number of parking spaces ilia# are proposed as reserve . parking. ;These reserved spaces create increased landsoap islands Vvlthm the development. The parking areas will not be paved until such; time as the applicant oar? demonstratQ,that they are needed. ` .. W, { �a August 14, 2003 Subject: PGA Village Hotel and Office Page 7 RZ-03-029 & PUD-03-018 Condition Number 76 of the Final development order for the reserve requires that the Developers of this project maintain certain minimum operating conditions at the interchange of I- 95 and reserve Boulevard. At this time the intersection of Reserve Boulevard and St. Lucie West Boulevard has reached a point where the transportation levels requires signalization in order to improve the traffic flow at the I-95 intersection and this development. Consistent with previous Board direction, notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners within the Reserve. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. All development activities in this parcel are subject to the applicable requirements of the final development order for the Reserve, Development of Regional Impact, last revised through Resolution No. 98-100, and as may be amended in the future. 2. Prior to issuance of a land clearing permit, the developer shall delineate all areas to be preserved and shall institute applicable safeguards to ensure the health and viability of the protected trees. These safeguards shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth in the land clearing permit. 3. Prior to the removal of any vegetation from the construction area for the development, the applicant's representative and county staff shall identify any gopher tortoises located in the proposed construction area and relocate these tortoises to an appropriate upland buffer preserve. 4. Prior to any improvements taking place or alterations being constructed in the* areas designated on the site plan as reserve parking, the developer shall provide a mitigation plan detailing the Tree Preservation and Mitigation requirements of Section 6.00.05(D) for all trees impacted during the parking improvements on the site. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for any portion of the site plan described in this part, (PGA Village Hotel), the developer's of this project shall provide, or cause to be provided sufficient security in an amount, manner and form acceptable to St. Lucie County, for the signalization (including any necessary roadway alterations) at the following locations: 1-95/Reserve Boulevard — souhbound off -ramp I-95/Reserve Boulevard — northbound off -ramp 6. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed hotel, the applicant will be responsible for repairing any damage to the existing sidewalk resulting from the clearing and construction of the hotel. If you have any questions, please let us know. H:/wp/projects/Reserve/PGA Village Hotel/pz.mem.fni.doc t- '- - r 't '�1r y Gt Y l� August 14,,2003 Subject: PGA Village Hotel and Offioe n Page 8.. RM3-029 & PUD-03-018 f j cc: County Administrator Asst: County Administrator . County Attorney ' Public Works Director ? County Engineer ; t Fife Marshall i Greg Boggs, Thomas Lucido& Associates f + 6 1 i I4 may. 1 � I 'iiV , a '.- � � f tj R i Planned (�lon-Resit � a �tE l 3 J. I i Section 7.Q2 00 t p 3 Planned Non,ResideM, Oovelopment .x f `• 5� i 4 County Comprehensive Plan: 2 Signs within -any Planned Non=Residential Development located in a commercially or industrially classified Land Use Area shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9 applicable in the Commercial General' (CG), Zoning District; provided, however, that the Board of County Commissioners may condition approval ofa Planned Non -Residential Development upon compliance with more stringent sign regulations in order to ensure design consistency throughout the proposed development, to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, to ensure public safety and prevent public harm, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County`Comprehensive Plan. { I 5 I 1 Adopted August 1, 1990 389 Revised Through 08/01/00 T MM �L. T W a) O 1..1.E 1 co `') C) W O P N _ No oop V A P N j Q a: � N � 8 aw Y f,� w3� 0"9 AMq YOLrY OL 1 OAS TOw QS W 3,Sa►r mos"" O. M orOS w019rd' (L}�� a: p L N 0r0y oww"' 00f U� W � M ~ Z "ra:r30w970 '— Y. r �To 57 s ascs 1 OY wrwl ORLIhiS r aO srwY: flL Dr rss \\\ a Yam. OWN —32A arm mrazoma aror was or" mLS"m ora lrwn ra" Or ONOlb1 7yY O OrOw 0330S K-J lrN.7 -440P.- J-� Z cn Or'�' •slw, tUS,io 7 r' flv � aY ro Q W ■ g wro mom" yal' h aro vwAvS MX 4--r O i►lo C15 O O ar00 IWAIW* ro rOD 00v ey W K 3 Z O ara 3,r1 3DR" U Z W 6 S ►f 1 S St 1 S 9£ = mNnoo 338oHo33No !1 r s4; # t£1 4{ '4 4 F 1 }f. -. Sa'tY t f -_ t ' l k ttk t-` L &111'j+' ;9h sxg . 3 Lk t ki 1 i4 y�A �5y fY SY k} '+� ):t y3 p � 4 �' � � � :�y � d, F Sk { A2,} `Y '� -��,3i �;'• ! Af i 1 �Y S� {{ 4y3 htt� MIND D2; F to .k •. t § ,7 4 { �+ }�`f R } �Z§' i' � Y� 'l �� � � J+� 4 'i 4s { } �' i' � T 1':�+H }�x � 7 1rt• � i- 4• .S t i l � �} ?�, S ry ��y.2�' ri�4 Kk -4}2�.i��i��'t-at � t4.- JI 4. �v. �' � s �"RE. 'Ssti Xr �., # '� '4. G� f ��4 "t , � t,� `t c•'t �+uk � t� 2 �� 2 k{`.� k i } yF' � l !3a}� �v��y :fi= �i°SS°i:E r ' juts a'k, � !• iiiQQQ }� '); % v`•A-(2 f- #LR���4y"..�`is;ly't - j' h k5 f c S SSS °F fi'S i+� S'f`SS�`r'k. Ski at` ..>: ��0 ��y nut, 4tv Y 6 N'b, �b f mill eNt,J1p ,y N SCQ�`��4 ,.v: 41 Q`�Q r'r oR o0 �e�q ."JC W:1o� AO [0�6 'FAO GRFog € €DR, t pp yp p tQq p �q1 a r3 >€ i 1€ yy,�, i r r io.- ft t in in Mr z 1(+} S�1Yl rF �� uer t � i ! oe�Tokg i - ifs -i` 0-1 f*! rtil 91 y, L -j � 'l` a 1 t � `S ,� S �$ I}SlWWWXY jW S IM Fiwft +' e MI MtWi�+�'¢ F MR VW k r >r �y3r `f t h ra t -O 3E k 3t x� -i :aift��EsYi3 s�y��t�}t5i '����f�i + ! ?�.�`x' �$ ff !• 3 Ea,�fi' it r � �} 11M, Ss ` �i f.t.:tgg '�Al �» nY 'ii Wv { '� t '( - j, ! c i 3 4} + `} S F•-'t {,iy t E i 1ST 'kx��,•[ >}' ^e s �4� yS € x i'^ f4`�'" .J tfiftrr � Z, z� � � -k '� L€ t� t i r , } � E✓y� t'€t �� r l � '� ¢ � xKey ! } s � a l � � ffp� [ � t� y,�.c� 4 'iTiYly RP j f_ i k f Ss SY� S :, .Y F E {. 1 A } ! ES � > itliY � � �+ P � 5g af- i>•;.� R { Z , ,Si I ) ! � - k� .�� MR, wt :} ' E4{y�-i �F %5 4RIS- �1. 3 � . �; � i [ + i i � i 5 t { T � � z - ?fit Lid �� rt§. ;•" � � F1 f {� +� i [�; S.- � t § r ',S t - 1 4. ,f' ! S - ( a 3•� �9 '- i - r� '� +) Y r i f 1 Ffd I` x -r} r } 2 - 5 % }} 1 � S #` Er �yt *i} k i 1 t� ✓v. �'. i � L `}" 5 fi $ t � 1 S 4�S'E .r F�r } i 'ry 'V ) +hY + 4 * s g 3z ; f it t{ i € z J S 3 i J i t idF k Yk -'Ural { L } hj t'i j E 1 .Y Ei 4 V ,y�Slt j E yyy 3 vY i GF y y� S SO�O LA QQ i2j ; l5'Qp�a {j ((ppVV i ! N[.2�3 x N N N NN NN n M M � M MGM M M M M M M M M M M Mrf M t+1 M M M M M� M M M M M M Yf M M M M MGM :M M M M M n Mien � S"s,�'mE j Ey3 $! �}Y� , _ �•- �'�'£.ti - E` 7 f t 3 R 55..R c{ i >_ - 'F i ' } - 4 £ (� i t ri I 5 } 4 .'i '4y^ ss {L{..v� Fr 4 t`. (.. t2 t '� { 3, 1 k-E� -: t y .SC 1 i G �'�t Jj 1} 1 i ( 4' '` { L4 S -At1 Y t : Y Y A. 2! 5 tf F 1 ) Y S. l a #}3�4 rfE{"A *` s } €'.. _ '� s.Laf�: �EW S '. A C�' . l f Y sty 3�x f.' l �Ld 2 �„}�i<� .2'IY,..� �yO1 s� Z LvO1I j 4T �D Wit- S'{ syi, y MIM h f ti 3 ?,,gg,� ''4 Y h, tt t# [ Rlai? }5+5 1�elFf �L�O s�,qop Y P:� tM, to ObnQ `ah ofL e,. if1 M W �L j fJ1EY1 tip `a P�0 .`SN Of �'i ©N. l� f!S c`l if11 b6 b3 tM� 13�"S• iIXl N @ (�3N M1' f'1 V3 ao<W WOO '!Y Ki M,o�o Rl 'V: NtMMa�M �1 �. d' r .:JL� .t i� }v M i t�l_-' 14�4�jp UI Y .,M Mir, 9Qs#Y 00�y yf r 4 iL.t !i£E- as e +,. 1 Y Q( f St 5!� t<-( 1N W' '{�1t S�-lf £ S4+t jai �+1 f.�f�• ;�/�f Pat H fc f ]a§�F F� { ✓ 2iii : 'ci j f f �' } Sys h St.. d �' !E ! f Oi L' ? l '.. ' Y tY s': � "�' ' �I� •� € '�i { Fryh`� # w 4�t. a�+ y TKO flAiNi }�wA41 S '9'/ ,Yy` )' MI.i. ey 3�i �rxf X �� Sts Fyy ik"} 0• i5 �pp,, -3�=t C a �t .e s. i A z t- Wei Pi i s fc�$ SYsF A. f x syL A Ik;SsS i js }3 fJ; I' C 1:. t t� 3 J! 1pFt 1 p h€ i P.li:'2I1Yfl� SI3i G 4rE €f•� }s k931 �� � � 3 �i�. i i N f 'e`er f a 5 ;zm 4a } i #blY t�n^'s 4s' 1• Z {� `` �� 4 � 4 '' � 4 # Vf <<f T 3 �t 3} tj, 12 sw y{ -'! Sr $ }. } 5j.. t P d lji_ i i t f.- f _} -R _! t i< y jq,j' ,ice{ i i t ,E j. t . 'g 3)1 } t j dt } il-,S �"�r ✓i h y; l' ty ! lk.i Sh ll i� 4. �h�! 1 Y 3 ; 1 �,E !{ 1� j i �1m (.'pgj�" A �y}✓�9y(f Ft�.E.�� 3 s{ 1 P t z lb :71 END E iN+ �t- E 1. f �t: ; � t 3..: s 5y5FlI E,� � ® E V �E 1[ i> �' ..t .: i rls:: � y�f1• s M s e� g fal"" �i __ S M +��fi x 1 C i `. � {: I - " a. 1 41•3 A Jim 4 .01 i. C: U.; 8 00:2 Cq no Mm eq 10 'o m 00 i , 2 m cl: 01:2 lug 660 u.0 U u U. !AmMAs;A#sSUA. < < 0.2 00200. .2 a 12 1. W. SwIl 51, a § § Fi "R "I. . . 'IM, Mim, Mi, mim m m mim mim P, m m m 'M m MI'm PIP m2m mlm m m M. MIM msm mim M I- ....... .... .. . ..... A* f c� Fi t+S Y3 t3 �.{{ Ai Fi N Xi is At i3 (.� FS t3 IM I *1 N iy Fi N cv _ 1', M i�f i (�1 �ry {+1 {y1 M M � yv� H1 � M i�S M M - M M M� S+1 M MM Sf1 'f:: M I M' M i l'l1 f+1 � <�1 'C+1 M C�1 lY1 (�1 M M M M � Y7 M � M : d1 i U. i 42 �^..� �Y` .� 9 if rrr S S J. 'r.' { Y Y � y .�.n �iz� ✓.r�1i i gg.'.✓, 7'yll t .-+ f S Y'. k t l h6 �' } i C k { � �.,�''y§ Ea4 IMI ) t t+ � F{'wi t F .�^ �,Y �,+=x 5Ti i, y f 1 1. h fJ i 2 L��! fi t E� 'h. } t� $ 4T N } .tY 3� n[t t*`�`y`jvr' Ni x ` 1 fi } 't t vct o QQ 3f�. f { s &ice', I x� n 1 '�T i 3 G- }'- ,+ z '�s Jr '# ttt r - i r zo ka.�y dA u 'fit -' xt Y a 7 i $ ' i sd s x`� €fit 'fig' �"'t 4 s__ -,3 .& .: - a, "' a L i. .� d ! R, b .4 L- i• t gitS�3iC -;O} ,.1 tr"e �O p� _a tb QOi r4';,F M:t*-"� R _ ; pqp Y1 Ot4"1 ipf`4 ��pp ,0:160 Ot I� �y �O S� ppitiS Q1 �! 00[ V� fT f`t �Fk e� N; �F C m Iz t[I 4t�p ftYM N raj N O .V1 ST Q bOXop T Ol NO Mifn V tp 00 T OY yl.r a0 S_t O� 5p fl N iM .OL �FFFtfff p4'tDs90 a0 r �' m a Fi 4 �`yt fl. .. tt 4 of -'%W Mai hLM .#' Qp Q Al Z+1,70 t §y O nl v Q iG tit M (yY Q� �ii SAg3 i° pg b kF� fCi d-• i r �" -- thl c J +'- �iP s Zl ,f1 }'`c<f 3i: i''a-. X t i kit f, "»�-,�y(,-�tM�[y�� � g P � 'tom vz-` }2�1 >' �.-'� 9 Y" t. (' q1t+i �fi�}E 3�. # ! 3 q - } E- Y1. dttF€ MUMv, t`,? L k A i ; l i } - is �e t Y 9 S .J S Y Y _`]: y 1§ ((.�p � 2{S P'fiit MTV'< +'{ i6 [{ s� r�ii1t"S#vi L zd �+ 'a +i � �t s v�i a�i � € ' E r3'i �a lA!,� `� EL A �++ 'Ltt .ynr�;f'n 4, 1F } ) '�.��� €ta �.. � v k �' ; ?+,' � W Y a;, i � yFj` {El � � At � p, �!a ;Pr ! w � � t�, � W � � p a, a w € w, a! `�' yam . i L '�; IN— f t*Zf f L 'S •� , , tsr # sF}iy�.'t"ai4 } f i 1 -,� i J d IRA.i i Y p,.ir s't L k 6 l q _t ! 1 1,�. 'istt. t et _. _ - !�i'i " K F y fi i F' h1` j A,(i '� -. -�t Y 7 4 ? f - ' ,t• z; - v €{ 1 } $ s, S - 3 t`i t r pnm _ `Fr g {:}. / if [ s : S - i# i . ?;4 # f.• F #r 1 3 y 1 �l, " i t :.- i y. )� ifii #� € it �` � � N N:_ € eTlrt t � •- ! � eft � f -- i 2�1 ;Fr_ �{�' Cr IV, r t.- { 7 >.s �: - Iy € } fZt}S ; -_ s ��� ':t � } �' F X�Z_L ,� yti i�r Px d 3•{`t i�.Cf IF` 4 )F S 5 Y 2-E�! i IL 1 VPP�Sj 1.. 3. x :t y t �PV Lrl # i�i� j it 3 } � Y S i { ; ; £t ! 4 5yJ�/1 yY ! �rj }� 3 {]'Rf i SF } !ice j - N .uS YyRi� M. S{Tt 5 C FV1t-xY ? E2r, {- f 3 - t+ F ik i2 l: f. i�•1 3✓ { r tYi i ,r { 2 ; f3j4 r ��!! i SI=i1E PQ S„"i� 4 l! �c �t I •}� i 1 � 51( ,� di 4 h Z s d t 1 -..} € J' � I' 7'l 3 3 ; } 4 s 3 p�y�F YL t f .5 N .'* 1 t_i i i f -- V luxf: tti [M' m i+1 CA iint� (fl iMs� e�hrl i�nf i7ii M iilnl cn ee::�i m "iii M m - M M M M in ill € dl i[+i ; ifi M -i'''1 i44 f M M€t,+l crl M M I i en mV t+li . {il m i'll ?�S CtI;M Nl; t?I`M e%Ii ill t�i M M M m T(I NI min M tii � {$)$ƒ\/$/¢®\\/� E E gig �{_;\//\�\/Rƒ]/ƒ/\/$fR] k9 i 0 go lvd I :: f -< a hr� � •� '�' `�a � � � L �� 7'- . k " 0 Yry?x�4yti ��� t� �i rst.. �. 2 y,� [,� i � � >vh i�x E � � � S~� 3 J� R stir 1 tit-..A•.N'.1., - �� L L �`fli >3t �. i. .[k E. ,� 'K ft� '''✓ k�3 tae's -.. �- 5 :.7�2�, � ?. ,ram, �N '. t a sihf��E � � iry?!Sj _ >ft i Y '§Y4� di' i c'S i� ;'�'t ° ��k�•z3i�' }3: §�(, �? i Y'Y:� 74 �� #Ssrr q t -? tt'% ±ice C3 �f P S� i h +3�g 3 J. �'& p r } is{. i�'i � s a�, a "2 11,E "}; P� .__ S .£t E. 3��.r��,3 A 3§ iSJS t � � � �� f � :a}L � +�t � } f i+�''j �"§�e '1^ Yi � F d. 3`:i �'� Y � 3*I;. �� FFr �z � $t#i.'� �%•jL �r,S� i Y 1: # 1� �', f�� � t � �1 ± i4 F•,� :`�fC 2 .�.k �' �` r/# i� al _ i'Gl J.r4' tE h yl� i�z f� {`�Eest -4 i� y 1 I'y� �• S 'i?�``.y�U x j SS w iV, 4,1 x.. 2FSq 5 fY- t��`S ffl Os b� ('1 S` �'}� a €p k�' ass' �} , 5 r {•� 1�ry tOttO C� j0 �SIVA C� 1fJ . YAK--- xf 1 i�1 01. r of `i; ; '� , d3iE qV� a b�ollm may, R `�, M_.`es mil a0 �`,'tiffi �.t' AA _ s itr � i7p0� '+`�- tG 00`ANEW,' ' a+ t .W jfij OS 4 OQ 6po� '7 +f �t � Ofi O{ �- �f O€ <"h �`+'.: DO �N H+li r 5 � .-f rv�l ��r :r=F #t^t '�Ff'f KfEt�'! il`4 Lhti H r `h �i ni. ti .€`R:`��� ,s}4 Y fl r ."'r`s: { _ Ed � 'kr`t } a•. sal -�i tiff M .yif a ? kir5 F Y,_ X' t� � ,r'Cti it r�" :ii: r .S I.: `�{r��♦I t a ,`'} t fg& f Fa x? ip Oz" - ���1 z �;. $ �1.a W rk 'S. l4:i'� � `Fi.. c�Sy 'xl ar ki � f 7 - y : i k3 t �! ��j'{Y(1 EY y p K -. S7 3 A' 1 .,242Y al t �i -.t d & Ei_.. ..w, -} r "" �a� �.F •r•;, t i '_5 4 - E �`M'� i, #� JV P'ti- , f� f it} _as? { ,. .. •A r -5• '`_�+ .n '� VA r t f s� .. i. s 1 5 3{{ kT s•�"� � 3 3 7i i f t i t€ E- f i '3? � '�, �M �f Ate, 'rc I t� i "`' i_ D I _ -:.. Xe -, ! � XS ( f`�,c Sl � 4RT "ni` JF-�, )i 3 L K,fsi q ` # �. M� ,� I 'a Y f' ' s ryt p5ix fi -: `i ! E _ t EE qti'it` � i i f4 $ __ y u Y+ "i �f l vb ,i{t <• 3y# ti �. :...' y� if, , i$ v, s+`1.3 �' e � 41 �25 3 � ! � t t E 4 1 3� (� �E E h ijp ElH ��-' - {� A E� �"!'I {` • 4 k iz yk�T „; ' r �I t' 91, R11 E i } - { s 3 7t ,. Y" - t i-�Y .t t d' 3s ✓} �:riYS: h t � �it { 1 F `�j A } t r fEt Yt �� F k i d -. t�f I £f•�i t § # }°`' kry SY ES t 'N [ µ" t � ;aY - }�% � - k"E.�'at; _ S 1 � i rtt � F� �� 'Cd4 y': >` F }� lh { .# vi i Fx E d} 7 z r r `4 �F � S � 'h ! r +; } •} y fi m s _ t is } 5 y J 1 f ds3 cm rz zg {x' ) Ir Fk -E , t 1i � 7 fh E& Ali, J? f{y�-Y EY #�yys}(� Y1'f1'� i ik' i �i 1 g Ef XE Qi• S4Y R>Ji }I WI ; -- P } C°aCt ski >4 : "•:_ 1- F k ",i i f�E St 6"" i i Y S i't` r i 4 R ; Yf F' t ' s IRS , S y t FE_-I k Jti3ri5 C F° f i jd1 ,Q:i�T) eg 'C7 t 's- Y s fi' y f t q i t30d}§ `s, ass .ram K t x 7'4*-ICI,s.a i zj Is �t RK I t !� MEN ��'g�� WI- Pt""'. i#i 9 t �eE : �- S i t. i- } ,3 - 3.. 0 .E• 1t _ 1 ID E j' E i,1R i (C� t t 1 1 Y+r s E ;iw es ri4 `iAt1`'t� iiSn�TY E,1 A } ``lE€fn T..; f t l �., }�s`���,, ^, '� ,• d �.ti'+ s � � ,u 4 .7" � �'r ��.,Si`< � t �' >z� - � t,��f � t, �' F r 1s � f,{y+'- � F `T ! € f � � f 'y+_ i tr � ' � � i. -. A e@ !`� 3 1�_: 9 YY a �S if V $ S i i 5 } �L} -L �'F� 3 t t rho 1}f #4'•. f 3� ! att t. u��th 3'S f ii'j, ti.. n i'1i7i 3! G'�sf' �i.C}h %e 7Fii -t• : }:.` i ,� ,�F �Au ff '4tv ! R° f aT ♦•3%'L. ' h[p No 1 } IN% � j �E!� � Y � � jt NON A�'4� kgzv, , 1i ,yp� :00 LU�Q4`� f-s Qt? ? ('4�5 .S��S`!i� wrk' ':1P EV } 2 4fJ t ff ! v' �{,., k ii� -+i r L ttl i Ok O�. N, fi y'ti,` {y '3 { r t !' r cl Cx� +k II} Ei 4 : } i I t s?3a-+}"�4 I j �t ��3e'47! 4 x!ia � �,( 35' r'FtR', F - yt 3 .0 % ! 3. n !�2"b - i..'`' i 3�' IpII' S f7is 41 /p. i`< _ r3 4 uil, cA �.: Wes,.. t€,] l r ZEZ F ii. t•! { 3 S f§F Y - - jE�i��G: 51 -. [yx t Sv F1 1 � i' F 1•# G IF 'i`vE i f e�. t%=¢I�}it l L1 �' it �p � t ! F N' `. 4 x #t i t" ''7 V4 = I '{i { i � 5 I `� r•S y.}L Y�Ay - �34 �{Y}� X, kS fi t�eNy �91,yi,���i i } a $ a .tJ , n{ "+E rm�i � �£i"� t - [� t >t•ct };e( t 81 i i yy qq 5' �t )'•. 1 4 jj '�iF5!Yr I f 3 '-fh- zcT FR,3R s x i rSpF} g;�E rf tii ;L 1" it sa t O 3 ai £ t ar i } t 7}s f i--f a F f gg tt '} % 11 f 4pyj�i = E -� ; i; "} � -s C P 'S S j f 9i� 4r i f 4 y} rl- i' i Si! YE:1 yi fi. S 7 t �v 3 Y� -. �L s Y -, �'# )a s ' S c ( I+\ 5 i� --.��� a 41 gl S tyls� t I y S h Y .I 1 Z i h 4j § t, t f 5 4 pp} { 3 V sV 3 4; € i ►,t 1 i {- All W 31 di rvAi 3 eft I, {�`J ! 3 y' d t i; 2 ..5 ? �� t f VI € 3 i ail i g €S ! 0 i�tli �! �€ MM I E� �M(i! �<'! M!_,.. �M M cif�M i�1�� l�+li� A+i M iF11 MiM •, i'tfi� !t*Si fA M F1 i��, fh cMhl t'F! Mid 2�/fIM KSl i�f M try _.. i �j .}4 }l: ���e �" i y { CtF jt YS V � 4 ! + �sq i4'�, mi j16 ¢¢:: bN F P�} t ai t�♦ � 4kxx t 2� 6 a" ;�{�'i =i z }t ', a i WIN-. M } }__} -� � I iF. ix S i E ���P a `4�1� FAi ���� r :.'-{ �� �� i # 'k Si� �f j.F W ice.ih k+SPi�•'..:TSfli f) .5 g' 1 '.3�}' %{i 7i 5 t%W , � Y�.f+t �i� f# �, 3�2 s >• 3 ��t { t k i ! E At ,{•� L�j E, JtrjT �k i% � } a j.. �' C if W1, va, � i t - � �ZS t �'l f,1 V �C cn& { R 'PTI�PN{ N!N �! Vt MP)Y.QE-- 1 }.P+i f F { �" S 6 3�- ._! ) r �� - 4 �`t a 4 t . Ej '�.k�� Y .L. .-'� FS�K'}k =.nt�G y 2lir�s8if� 9�� .y �� � s'1P �' ,i I k, i ���,E, F �''�` f � 2�Iy f3i51 ` jQ� { I pia i QZ�>F. 55 ��y t s il,� �� � Al !3 aYi•E F 'YT WvIg d� P�S} `5.9 "4':3 ,'i. •.-�"! t �i', �4 4 t •'! 'S'A SOH t S "�'y a s'��t �ti � �v i-. MU t3I�_. t i- A. '4�' 4 L _ � !dT � p S��jy�> iL _ ��#;[ i''°t$g+ u F +� '!s i �yy f i � � � 3 `S'}'' t``9 sk �} 4aT � . i ,��v y yd L t�� �{. •� K'445• !{ 11�1 4P i7 P' �'` } � 5��{` �ryri x � � � ��•{.� E� !j'i pp�pL %.-.f yY. b6 _ � ¢ka cam} F �f'� !�� �X � ,Y S;F IpgGp� ,`pDp y. '$s.'" fi f' Si}aE k i t ,xf s! Witty l�l {P1 �"1A i A •�' /3 kl 'h �§� i ��"�'�a �L �x Eta 1 �1 -'(�j i S'. �"d q. �- . '� 5 § 1` 5 �' i{�\�, 1�°+ 3Yl!. ! 4 1�,{F.a,4�; �+� i�µf-Ni i �yY4r N1111.1 A. •}! FI {y.. �3 wa{i itM11 3 Y 3-.fi' ? rt{ s"g . AIR C�f} i� .Y." i�P L ", 4 pfis �k�' �: 'Y t 4:! fi gii � 's. �§"5 �-` P�' � - a{`�. �S 1 �. '� }L '} s,!'< N '.. { ik t `f"`. {`ffa`d¢ ` eI � mI't ` !k h•.� �Fd t 4 3 �F '�•! k`T k t z L V7't "i 3iY 4j3 f�` 4''y4z ;�' fit` �j,`�'-It5�'�' .i :< ! e „ " { ,s ;td 1 t P"'T(bfi `{ 4sj2 i `.' [[h 2s z'S -;ikl# i' rfr '`' P A f i� 7 t Y c,{;, ,J1 5 .� i vt tt 1 Awl '[! 64 Al 3 3 1 E EFa � & ♦5.�..(f$ h..t 5 /Fk§ 3 5 f 1 S do �Yt t Y E # R t � (k ) ! ,)n - k 'c #F k Zf>• t {� - Sid} iEj��"L X i i i {.y E 'LL Z L d 44b b �a t'f F a xF flF HT' 4 1 3 q - 42 .. { - J�• N A tb �€ }it � t l }� I3 ! {; S� d s �i�- l Y �� ${ f3>•} 3`{ }f f Ilfg f�S f L�I,f ! a i ! Y k - Ski r �,S .ve #ytS 3 1 i •1 5� �[ E �,, {l Y S 3.1Y l K iw � - r }. 5 t _. 'Ivf � -. x } r r � T SSE} � r z t tr s {Ev } • 1 LL9 }} A eta T'"' if i• F-jV �4�1 i { I l71 r '{-i Y L ;?E 1F S �. i'� P } E 2 j3j t ) } fj i i �.. 4 IV t f 1Y Y {- r E r t �` I � { i 2 �E ii } 11 4, � i { •u E i3i - k � it .(t yi i 2 � E? f 'hF �•; {fit -}r 4: 3 dk ..:$ � 5 a }-. L iL: 3 !3Y i Yt 51 l ., �i.: �� �� ' �- I, {t E— �• `ii�Rj �� > } yy �t !� i� S�t i � dddlll j7 e � f { i'EZ { i{ �� '' M M C'� � fi P'1 � M1 tt��1f F1 t�Y tt1 (h1c11 N1 � � fi N1 [�i H1 tL1 t�5 .. 21 11,11- F .fi...+ : S x . + f . t� }-. � �'ntsp' MUG, i � � �� ` qs-3 M 1• ff Y m � t F -t` :' 1 arfn� r gy �- � i„ •� �' 4 J'_A � ��� �'' y+'- . _ i 1:� F e• J •i E F acA�Y' �t � 4-` t � �� i� N{1y�a... i F 1 1 �E r. " ^.t! '�.fL I j.' t', fr i F � �'� 1 �Ei': %' iSr� i;��t ht x� 1 > tom` �'+t� 1 � - �� 7 - t r� ,�e.1 2i 7 F1{{ 1f� Y}] ( F P �'r `. 0 '�'� !�� ,y HaW i.. Y fjt `E j 'a i 5 �F t i 3£ S ' Chi �tr� ! u F ,�,,,,,j���ji�gr X"F 'norE'2 t'' V `' '�`r44i'Ffl' rye, # } i ` F 3 -- t - t p p. ,- �'s,ia }-+�.Fs e+ s3.t t. 2i k l` xkti. i_ t.i 7P. 1 x } r: •..'s t '+� 5 - � � `•,�3'� i+ x -. 4t}.,� L�F� ai`f- 7 ;,a� � � > � £ { f 3 $ �' ,%, ,.: li�z`�si a k � kY, •'? z` s � �-# Ff`'n y F: ``� � ; �+x E f' f'�i �� a t .G2 ,!� �_ � pfF i,E '' „ �� 'f:. .a t� .% 1 �7 i 1'� t�r U 3 � � ' �s� `ii i� - IIY,r k r �-+ §-!! 3 N �Fi 1 S �. •ar � o.Lr � r ' f' � 7 t E s i � T r: E � k b'F�j:{ 9f� , v .� fF � L i �2x��-� ';K� 7"V.i � � $ k ta< i E, �E t f 1 [ 3• �i� !d'i5 i -! ek' F f �::.. .. : ' ! E i 1 yi 1' 2 Y '':E EHai+ i t -. �1 ff if !� F t C ��", i i`�. A � } lii r.. r"`;, F s_ i i 1 f { .. 2 --C2 yE { F S 5 Sip }7 ,Ft� fed Ff�ra (t ,f '� aFzt rti 3. 5 f' -f ?S, '+SP S(; . tS -' £ ? S Y5, $ }" Y y3 r R -G i Sa`. ik ,}Ny '{� I iE :_A° I !t 1 }t k • :, Fi & fES S 'it fi } (,� 1 .tzi �E {i C 'A E'S'i}i t C S ��S) ) .X" .: $t J s+ �i tt ''f-it} ".:i r''v-.��, § 5�� :}y '. p� bfs }' -- t t fl.a .+s, z� '4" hF fat c' 3z`?.( i3 t4 Jx kt �i ss k ,-y!`• k s E£4`.t. 'c- 4 i L 7 ,q �.'}s f d •k f%1 } 33 t4 } q.jF �[J }-'J#' S j .,, In T>) A, _i t q i. -zzl 7 Y i 1 �! i k 1 Y. i '£ f� 7 t� h tt R 6 1- i s f .5 - 11 ns 1z rE 'alrnj _s N3 } r � }�y ti f�T?••i`.-^3 #!S h 'r } t : 7k 4�' -t 5. F 'F �J1 t +r aid J+ - i 1}3 j L $- £Z a } j f - S. I O - 1 3 2E tl ' �3 'i i� < 'f'. ; F } } -!mow ✓ � I f�x,�un, J t ! .t X� 3 fC 7 ipp4y�'133 (� }'i x {i 4 7 p bi +,�kb- -1f � 1� y •'!. n 't 4 i i f_ g"t _ ?} *m #. " Yh1 U 1.3 i} h j2il i} t ( 4df p- } t Ci f y 1',e f p ti. t 1. VI ,+s �T tGt�e )\, `� t 'S i 1 1 [ Y #j 'E � f a'ii SC c •�Y ' �''� _E GR Y4� �( --1 4l• t 1. S' £ Pf fs F 4qq"� z �, �+ ✓ �- � t Y FII x w d.. x 9 { 3 i_ 7 t t t IZ' Z� i ra 2$* Y' i S i } T Sp t � Y� N f t T'4. `T9 ' � � � 1'� t i a 1� ; 3 1 A? - f E t t• »> t �s - .i'''{{$��� f I 3 tC F�• -Er- ;t i :'� t � :�E. .l rvJ£: 'ly�Ff L�R} t, + Ii,f ��' �i3 'kn ,+ ,� � e.-, E `�" ; .:: E.. �:z.+ �!ri�1.fh',Wu..- F. .' . _ �• � '':'... �.� ..:� .,-. �ry�; i. :: -'. It�i'�" fi +tr V St f ��il n`f f Y K / f � iy j'S^f FY E --} .�"}', i}'S* x� �p`�. t t` y}i S 5 �5"•s .ei is �*'3 `)^ry. "',arcs,.., { •�.._ }) E �S ) S ({ PS asr�,tF' 7 "'S �. ! \ 7 S� :..k v :r•1 �� .�€' �'a ii 1 k4 �fFa�, �i'..� � 7 F% t.>y t``'f. •'-E,�"+tX '�` � �� = �y Y J�� i>� f7' .��{ '� 3�i "`i°, y# '` z • �" }ff ti T y. ! 3� _.� 5 7:. 4k S 1I, 'r 2 k ,�/ .i 'f { £ $i� �?-t'-0e F- 1^'£4 ,F � ""i �{i � "f: J 3i �" �, f )§1 �.'• 3 5 : 25 t h i �a f� f - R L y� h £ t "",�`�f ISf t �.,}7tF4 33 S�{i. z 3 I $ { f ! r^F kr n� i 3 � f., 5 :�:. .Yf g Y. £ +a,?£ -§ sh5� f `�E iJ +Y _ 3 � � #: � ti -_. cif i Yt:.".3 4c" fi' [[,,tyt�S�yyJJtt44 d 3) 3 (". a f t `3 ( i 3; }. f. ,,,r T r r t. i- i } { t E .f [.tjr? 2"t ,� ,✓ �h5i- `'�. } ) { '}`,�`iY � j t - �S' yh-� r, + i k it 4 '� }1 S 4 i S iy t F k F t 3'x1Y p57 Ito k tF k i fPaF SK ? cp� ! t�'. �{ {-4.5 $ i[ }C R: 7F 1 P F'� F - i ti:. y F{ E� .i f ? fi'M1 )1a4r ^t f%i,. j{A{( F' 4 1 t q`t'r:.il tt d f th ii }, F I..sY it X '4 i qp5��{i5411..yRf i {ss5'#{4 l 3 i P e,. ` Si T- i {1 S4W r' W {3 `C 1 2R T L 9 t!'!S'Soffg, , F i �d a S' ; � ifl > iGp �tE+7'. 4, >yy �t 7 �E >C+ C —11 '7 S'ff W oti �Y M. �F'� {St �: I s+ .-r..�},y I. M msM fr1 !iF- fn r.{,,trA{.�C, u a i.� i r i$ a 3^.'ll..� .{ f � f � ¢�� td51Ri1.�y k'b "5. 5t.� id A{{ 4 F .N 3T'.}+5''il ai 55 F f'1 Sty fi`L{+'}{'t: .t S'�r t l4i' iJ Yid +��qi'E E : L `37 F yi{! ` Q i�` [ L 5+4£Fly'W y4g '[:• t �d 'i�` -E{j fWa {I.j4j�{yN,+l�� �£Y ` "{w� '7Eq,�f{i�{,�+lSF�y1 { t"E�t fy { 14 t�1 a ( t i,} I,Yt c .r' �i t11Y ksif'£ Sic 7 "S? i y { lg S' y W W WWi. `� S '# � i h4 1+r W -'� lE �d L� r .F' r!� k d •. �j f �€ t �ii � {T f� !t^ � �� {j � }�t`�-f �� t ! _.. ° n � c !+t i { i ft {. {�yy N Y - 5l �i Ey(i RN Y{JW r E �{ ( ! "• qi �w[j •( 61.f5 �r. �� Ste, ;� { "y�i�1,N }�.f� q41`` �,F y 3 yVi. Q) pW� N �y e 9� l3 }, fir$ .$.} ? - {# -. Si �. s• t5i"`YY'a 3fi,.3 / e { m}SF d { t ^kj 6� f- �,. d 1bL l pj.1 ° F -Y: d - t 2 "{ �i 9 Y s1y' ii- Y g '" K� �1 r"'� 5 E. Cjt � �,-r _,.t j � .i.Fj r3 f ,' €'t f3. { { 3 J;` f y [� ,!` t �! 2 la• k -F �y}L h 1 ty +•{. �l �� Z�4Y• x) 2' yr �`j^k�"it ! #lY ''�tr s �� � i � ' es � 5 'i Y.' t- 31t S; S {P Rm {{ {r_ f c. } ' r.`- 'i f tf { s t t E! f i {M 2 Lii J F F (�' t Jr i ! �' a / �' ap �4� S'. >s. sdr ; { IA It 1 r t s nE S '( ,+ { 3=�. 5 2 ( ii.k tt { ��1 } f7' Z +.} � i fA. S �]{ {2`}�y4 4 V S. Y3- < - x S tt s [ 3 � 4Ifi (�{ j }t� €.. Y �Yi. 3 1 ii b Y� 7 i - 4} t �, 1 1'. } .i •� : l yy r t xh3 1 r M. 4 T. t i f � { f R 3.� IF'ii �1 +f � � S ��.��✓` i i �{ t., _ f �5= ESP E 33 i j 11 I - !:1`!1 � eKIM M i't rj M'S' cei'tf,: � m ea m � M try •-. . �£ i{ 4rr��nn1§2% C' ` � � ���E�e;.��k f"li �)} krc �}, 52✓'•,} S �t R r�i'R"t�p'�e„`Y�'.} �� :'� pY �,- 3:G�'���t,.t'�'3 S ��c�>j i`'<51'�F,-1z - ��j�.r'�3.�' {� is �� � i�, C 9 � rr [ _.... �„ r�':'t_�,t?ki€ xl �' '•}�..��� ��� � �� ki4: k�d ��f t: .t S � .� � iE{�F�2�^`,�yc��'` � ,a.}� �G .3�q�r N�.Y�t�s,� -.- � b� b6 {3l (�P" i,V � �i, yi�iF�9 � 1� - # 1 �f YY `i3 b' f � Y Y FS � � L4 kS'Mk � d• , {{{ £�.} }d� 4 kP`. 2� � � '� ?ry i� . Yn� r+'t tE�gL$�� t' - � ���� a4 t t t+,.. r3f 1"' T } .ram �4'i��t � �,sAy}, `#'# } -x{L 1 �"i'� �y�d :SG� K�'.Y'. t� $ F� 'i 'Cz•..4 •Y t, rY},U f F� _�++.1 }''`�3. 3 :��F'ti Y� f srs .1 i E Z _ .. 1 t2yy1 t { G {�1�;�€� t Sit - @ l }irt2£ -,7 - t _ f . k a, �3 4" i Z'3 , 4 : 1,`✓j J x� ili` '�Y �5' Y#}S' S y`F: lil Sq, P X SXE ry z1yvY vklt.�t-�Grp i� iv` eL7 t,;fat`t ^it M�mun,M{M }I ,i S r� C}V r~ >r+ V �?:et ; �. #-i V's-M'Vf ilm1FM l:u++' 0 �o- y� c� p T.ZScz, ^i f#1. �} 1 § a;?.•p� 't#1 .� l+1E i11��1 - >,,.-r r+ n+,.,i3t��. Sit#Sft. CT'1 M' f 3. g}'•2 }i�< _ # tf t' i 1� 1 y E 4 1 i i �_ ?� � T� � •. �• i Y' �Y" -vzy 14 F:,.#., �E� ?'_ ("L. t 2sx �# �,7 i N :ai'F� f S "t`] i"Y �.A{ s �x�t`4 2� _:1�}a} '� Y y , t% .-. N ! sky "t` i hfi T a..€t t t }!M � �:I=1 ?f r � � � �'� E } � �rrw 19f wo " !f1 3 - aE �� ',y3�, .kyyy �' of 5�' tt4 }f.V � k{,S 4i �� } -.eY £5 � .3L` i1 } } a ��?h 2S i., F tS { : y :}t � � y k �auy- *2 5 +3 £ $ 8` }y�� � � � t �� �+ n4 : � t -s ifS �^t' ?� i' � t� Z l •� ,c' � 3 L qE t'r 'i.M {5v 4EY' ?t vy 5 t�F f �+ t h t� j�ytt33d jett Piz i.'��yJ �., V a yA � $'� m�1 ?.. S ! Fc ? {�gjyJf S3F 1 i e. E {Q A Y �.f% # ,�.f lV ,z}• t� i �e�,'j is ate• � Ntt (�yt h`i S3 3� F E'r iNt y-� b 25 [ty�y Y^ii�l: E U [ �av�# �i � Nn a * dt 4 Alt?,6r1 pt_�; �` xY^' SE "C' A .L `,YC ?} f :'K ��. YA tom... �R::-Gs .�"i`'z'ET"'' i• f yr. iti' a NS.54�/ iK Vk..� Tir. i 3 �(,� :��tR�� a:•_ ti_ ley: �I�lF. rcE.Al '!y� yYe ter' W.;r is .}�� 3�� E � - :��� ���y} _ se :9t �-: _ sh Y 4E C �.� % - }j ay$�}t{ 4 F yyL Et t rLF. l: :i`'( fi Y- {--Ft ���v(4(y i --,,yy ,.fi Eff ;'�t�#!- F• <t �3` } Z t `t3 f !'i PrP AM, tEk i 0 �(� �+a ��Y2 S"�' 1i:1 N'"f� kF r �" 11 i ? `� % st .4 L �ji '„ i' '?.. d Y�=F'it';'1 .t-� tE # .� b S t' .:5 E l �, f \ G f 1 .} # tt3 f q {. T}+�SE1k i S �� '. '13Sy �D l S Y. �< k f 4 p, ) k� Sf >�h >� � �d� ��' �5 � � � ? .fib E 3/ ';• :. L k 3� f {� t%;; il? ,Yt �- .� K ': L. #t +n f 'T f4 �i � ,�}� 9t Y i � � .F :£ �,� .[ � �' � L 4� �3't t Rd Et � $ k E 5 { ?• S 4 3 r f�.;}p �,:. t � �` f t. � y i !•. f k 1 }_ E � } �� I Y4�E t_ _.:Ij E�? s i �333 I 1� } is.` i` � W i �i �t.... t �� { �T 2 �1t s �`� � ! � � �3 .�t �_✓,/ v 3 � � � } � � rj t �- EFGI �f �'s�,y-F �� � S �� (�C+�� ✓'� �{ f t ': x e } i � � Fr i � � {k t� _ � ' j t� � • d ��� 7 k k3 � � � `:. - tr F i t � � t 2 ,l� . €s1 : -trY U• �'� �.Er.. I r .:� } � t ;� Y i; : A•{ `� ,..:: b..f..:� .ctfu��s5_ ! � F rp. 1(.,��".E. - -. _, tE�. ;. - � F >.' } }fy� �" .,: �Ws { t. tf' 2 i i• y za'{$M 3{&}. C E{ F 1kE 77 Fyt S F�1 ��` i k` '.S 6Srt..k CS {i{ t� Fh €.f'�- •�fE '� J` E1r�?. §i4 <t jr€ z� „p< �z+i.t r. <7i 3 Ni $ '%} 3. } q. r .,• R, i { 1S{S M1 '� A.9' } x R} }. i � i 4 ki�� k *k• � �� t z i' . -, � I�-� � ra• ji4- fs � 2 [ .a wi z~ I t r S J i? S?t kth t Y SIPip{ f .}2xc{ t J ! 1 t J. y.r•^ 2 6 s, F # - a _ : z Y y; u r i t -ttr t h ♦ r }` € a s€ '� s - zt }t - 3 �. 4 f r p f i gag w to A. �2V7�� -., 1& f i i-: Wq ?)`i f :VT 3 �:. �Y t Y } �� � � i -� Ef :• �... f f ' f l L ? v l: t f f.1'4h r:- M. i _+yh111.[. th -_ i £ n.: 2G3).a�i i� EF-` l t �� '•*i r�'YAi` 3F r A�l ji s s tf }mayi'fx2{ . s _ y s 1�'� z- al �'� �t}r��:, l� 4 i� y3r 3' y1.. f i� Y y • � 3 £a � � Ns � ��" � ¢'SrU }� �Y. isF �r•+�� } zi K � � i� e�. � `tX�c�P g' y(:- Yi 't `F j 4-f-0 -' {�� � x f ?S A f S{ t. ,A�. r'" �) p F q f F" l iv { i 'x ` - 5'-:1 t�,"� {T ? 1 €^-e�"�• .x } Y "{ f i `-F �� i.Rk" I3 €� S t i 'S£A t1 i. �C :t S S.`...t i �� y E v T S f.4 J ! il. 'z`:C '! `v � S. t� k55k S pm si�;fr a�' k f ) t- € i 1�.Syik F'I UY7: f; }jk i} # #� {i� y.^>:}31Ctia {E s-4 i{`H•t ? yq k s! S}< 3� i {J Y5� F S rp Y i f? sF i t i �}�,�iY 3 ,rl 'r A�.. 8:. f�Y 5 3L _ '(a r� M ss'ii#"- F i II 4 `{.# f" -dd,y2 § { Y, Y t;: #z t I k -,{t B i y t E I i F{-�I ,$ ' S '} fZ r1 lI 1. £ ;i tt. dt'} S I b i{. yt' +�,. iS' S '2 7 :.,5 .}i ' 4`! t a S z€.T,f,�€r�#r, YFFd c.t ib �- RY ( rp r} ! § .�>f..- { ff 2 } .7 3}4 5 G S _r i 4 .,' y {i3i {iY J a �' r ry (P a $ YEJ 4 Z,lta r { 3. ! Y E t}, f 7 :, S 3 [ a . k i 5 4s E� a ` Y ,f 4 ` 'tr`i } [iv''� t Y b `; 1 }U 1 1'1,4"ff ( } y u �'+� 5 - Y' a7y iFe�.1tr�'�'-lz 4� YIi �} Mi . {yam. `V �F t W` R�s! 4P .� � 5 ' M r y }�_ tl(V to iw �lt �l (� �y •3:i• = ry `F©�y A '151 SA � i�F �E Sit frZ E ' l may. I`� Aµ1:'7r� - i f{1} t '� '}4Lfi 3 13. } ''�'[€[ � !' 1 Fd }' t '4 y . ( C -'P F r�31 's�. ! 4 r`i'�� f } 1 t" "N .'r d�Rt�l { � } F sA' ��KK F ix '�, i I 4 3 t '� E s` � F��r. FL t i.. 'x i .'�F' i' { ' N"y 4[ S, '. '4ttiiii3xXpy.{ js 3i'I�4 Y f .' fx 1 y21 t }.. f?r ... €i,� �}� ' s € i'£ } tri l\ii y�a5 l'i I �^ R2 si Y 4bt1 .3 ,eN d•3 }'t fY1r. FtLh€ hYil .F a hs h� v-r !! ktF�+�-`t - 5't 45 - i ! F tt rr i. (� �4hetY I {�e¢Tttfy�^�+ LS J. iJ `A,rs E 4'. ! LL }: 1>✓ i {�,2 {L i�# EF -} }`i F�{i ^fi f a3 K kYb 4 rl�k F• r}`y �. [Y i X`" nol ST:P 1 .��f}�vr f•"fF Asc Rl ; P`irir ,(�jw,�yw, fal i' f3` CR' 4 b R NA 4Fl .� . 4i ri 3 C h t 1 € 5 gt t bs>•y�} L E S }'r` a €} rrr� ('F i E i3vt} < r }7 'roc #Y; t'ts 'I i F igf " °-t - 3 t r- �. 1 7. wt' t i�f c h i S "�}z ! h �..: # L P3E 3 f F �� "f' t. t`yi k. t. {G M E !< � 2 5"} Ff }ti-Yd'ii*a �5l- C S"€ t2 {{ 1 F ;.A } fY J i f a i a - lt� tt,� ht{.u� t Y 'j Kt T N{.. s i-. t - x ? i; ]ut 3=�{+ { f r s£` a.. t o z.. f ,"s d-A } t r N"F 3� i 3 £'.� if ,t fi E3z `t. t [ d f _F ti ii I #'.# .�a %�. 5 { s. F b ax $ t `t a `14q in ytx kYi f i � ae. \ $ i 4 sir .�{ Pf 1 .�� k Vl �X J J { � F>tS :i yi i� � Lit ;3 .. lY. ktiy%f7T F lt�' lRl }•y' � "�• 'L i'"%d_ .f } t i.' .i` b F E Yk �5 rf� i tf Ull 3` 1R^•� € E .� Y I t 1 Fr�i1 i� t {F 4 t h t � C a S El i t S 1 / 3 ryfl k 1 lC YY r4. RV r F'- ; F Y y IM 0F� t -:r' _ t S ty i i SI I t ti f t 1 i t�.- } - �- a x �yttl �F /� i� :t f Y + r•r - 3 4 � t ' i li C { (� Y } f C: �� ;3 i I Sl f � z [€ a < J{ IJ,rf 4jn ff E E t E € �} t t f it i ,H i W, it - €I r t ' i r•I 53�.; 3 w l ?u �i{ s c� r; i i E_� t� 1 Vil S Jt rhf.M �F> �€,t+1 t�F! I ;€:�iF �, Mi: 2zSf M:, �{, �� N'Sii+'f 1!>•f €M N�F � M � ' :. _!1a1 E� pM tth . .- R is � £ k �" },.t," "�, i S `s .�' 2"5'. tL� J 5A+ # Sd £ w rM c{� -.� ti { ♦" # W -. � �gf t,'if s ' U rj } '� f �." .✓a �$ pv '.^'�zF� NYc1 -�� }+� t t YtF?AL•`;1[ Y'? #� P E }t .. S ��' .� ': Opy - E. i{ " �i s 4 [[ Y i i � { �.#�. '} k '. ; ( S 1 � ; Ft 4` c...F i, 9F t K 5_ 5 p-f }}���--T�� m}:EY 4 `' d #tt�ztS•� ( � � Il "S , f i i fl ifil 2,� 4 N i.. .� 9-f f C L fAf3`"" �#i � Gs#:. +E iJ £ib S .,Y.`4lir 3 t Y .-f \ a }.. ,�� �� 13`s�fF 1-a-, T -�} <�, s #Y�s '4} � 2`? T1} t<3 }��.y{ ,gypp-ff3adddf ��'SFl L i'. ;#{Y t 7 t F i _.�i� V ..% ' ',� Y AF M V .Ef 2 !f4 'S t ry, E ,}mot 3 � - i i� 1 - 2 f .lip. :{ S$ -e ti ; --- # 5• i€ Ffv I • -• i �rx �q �" � - { !i 2 s .. �d M:#if Mz fi'4 7f `£ J - t€ ,� � � c� Fl �.�� r<,x 4t'Y } S 1�.F i .S< S yF ) G�s ig��i 5e '�iii$iS' gt} 'S i j,` i�'k� #'! i[.:A "+ k � � iih. � m }� C. :t d lri.::3 _ }q � 4fhte }'r ls¢ C [� = � 3. g J � ! k-� r, y�$'sE M {F �?' �� t $v 1 1 'R { �'� MCP iR E� N }��Y� �i Ei1 a�. r 's�,t�l1 EY i $[hSeYk ,;.r t � 1J.} q) R F: 3s�x Q< It �. ,r' � �.� :� j x2`iT �� RTjT`7'_.€ 1 t�ifE 'cissS" 1� i Tig .� �t!f1�1 ' y°t � F �i �� t t i s.. �i � � .rF � s'k..x$j S i k I }§ � .o- .. .t% ; 4 M d i Cr{, Y3 yy� f9 E,9i 6 je ; 3p s "Ei 3Q Eft it � �7 -i�Si { 5 S). . ©© pp. M V N4 M �£ ai � 3 t f c Y Yi't�i f. -: � � -�`� � f� �t � �•+S d$ ? i• fe i I i `i�c� fir''s oo-F.�j m#in{R Ms�1'7iM M. .q1 ins F £° �-s� 3 FT F 'i �'' '`ytaiv4 (t�kk P IF y # � k� I ��� �� i�i fi5 �s H '�ify„f•' a. ; 'M 14 y 1 N F �,�x , 4i � II�' K#ft � �. � �iv j �F 1,h �3 y h � f t Kit 4i # i ) €r rt Q�f Q# Y 1 %mil f, aE e� em � � `Y.r � r 5:{ty { "� 1 15 < i +5 ' , SfA y`1 y AIM S: �kk � `cyY � t� ;jL"�r t Ff ,� WF Y s, i n RJ fmmz M5ji tt ( # �f ayJ� -. i- t a �'�'y'# 17 j. 1 tvs s Sf r ffff» 7 r F� 't.k S � 3 '�+ .- Y !•"i,a i ,fs ter. ,�•$� - ;<t„` �"s � 4' n �k�'�a -�4M i t�' "a ;�E< '� a `ems. �' fY' 1�%h' �`. � ? � r` '. s 3 � E # ;• s T ;%1 Y ', # < 1 I F 6 # d 4 �f �R x, t '�! <f t > .f.' Y t '� pA�2f L AYE 5} ps i # ( ?f t•2 l 4 � �� 1� ; i Yx' yy L �� bt �! z 12�Y Y` o ur 'tjs Et ,E iI k r E3:.F -1 t4f Fr ) 1 U 7ad,i :3{� .f i .T. Y k } i i =i 7 1 tub' '-' a Y 14 7f 1 ' ,� z •. �yk � I � '',_ � �e� �<.�, -Jr} t �n ��f at�/L s �3[ �i { . #� e�tj" rf%Q .� _�°aY � , iy IT IF (/�� I%R ' 2<t I'�u �,s' n f iA. 1Ib io. � ?.t kit 12 j i i x as fi �W r F!' fb "3{ '{ # i E iF # !� 3 f-•3 .fi 1. f 'IEyi t t! E i srb x Y I' f Alf HI h ds i ie F f vg t Vol �. y F i t s l s; 3a gm '.' �. �� fi f { }-• Ifyg �i i �E i �, F2 i }� Sl: ) f } `�t E; i i - 1iF Vi F,p4 -.s 4 ; F F i" i F E i • �'{ �� � �' aoE ~ V i •yYy��+21 .; -. � , � t �#. ,.' �.: �. �.,. E ._� """M .M^� ,:.'6M _c„:'. �,� --":_,.,. `....:. .,. ='=A^�-..-.eF�Tw..,b .._.... r';�:�" . ,rn"'� �. •.:''M ..,� ,.. ... 4 ffNs` E} t,. S11'�' T hhS J 3 i d 1 S, "Y j t"� -'..4�.1a 5 '"+�Y 'r��ft�Y- #1� z"3"ani� k �'� --•a t Sys ` ?-.: 1jY5 �� >• # sue+ x i"4 `fi3 t #'? f q 'vRi E A �"t �Lfi, F s x iz' '%W'�k M� �ar ci't x�f F, *N��� •tt -� fi l 4 .`a t Y PP'F 1 'ice S ! � 3 N - k {' i 1S 'Yi F ttv �tr' { w4 .� } rS}• AM;, 2. n+ i{ila t�:IaaS�+ ! t�NMI' Y{s i + $ t uT'w- NMI t a b4 R�ffl ux.z yy�� y Y• t "'tt kD �-�� LT, z GQf Oo r'z't ,h CQ a{ �YOo x rah .f' !. r Y2 t+l # t €' >xt! do S`1, .V4j+i� _66 x. vqp tilj N' to6 u�oQQ�p'ot kt'74 t� t` Q\ Si'EtCi4 1'. 90 �+ Oyyxl 5 ��{c l<g.. E:?Jj]t Nb �iF�� A' i}�ta t+.3{ fn sT sA '.2 J04E] 'i 9xc aaC 7 Cx4 F'� 5 �'S3 ij t.d inn S \.4fR F f� �H+' Kf'E 3,.j t i ✓i S �h ,1'•'47� Fiy�i fr' Q3� `kxax t S �`s} g �')''' rs �� W'.il IIFit ,yE` q.y �.EEsI p Et�k7� `t ^ E 3 Sr t ?s S E`Y � V�"'Xc Y� ?s`¢ J, --� � is ��` � �� �`�- f *'�i `�a Its t��5 � � E A34t �i z �(3 L d $� -b '•,5 E `Y aiY' fa '� �" , xftt�3• F ��.�f E�i$E�fk I 2iii S.rTEY� AA i l h'(H xE }� 5 E .) ,i�E�} i i �t��T t"hbE'� it E#.: bO > 2,G" Nqh E 1i i Y % f SG 3 .. # i ✓1 9 ,'Y t �.� 3 x y ' - it - }�� - _ Vim' it p�t k Y �`� {"+t t F Yc\ t t "la'' i �;i �{- 3�� Sg { P .{= }� 4 yi � F� !F. -st !'� -P'# 2 � f'� ` Z f _. .5`e' �..f k � x:t {tw �*f ''aF r�j S I"(•v i� f'� - �'� a y�i 3'.i,tF'4 E�{f. if" 7� .P ��.. ,;.F A S h 15 �� s.� £sue $' f tiy{ INN { % E4 •hsri� U' 2 � . ! y } C ?�tsi {,f 'k }.i.. " - x '% .i 4 '+r 1{.. f. x43 i 'sr Gs' 5 - q f t.. i d Y^ `i.� 4 Y �l 444 I £X # rx [ F b E i e+2 iJE i % 1 } 4 §._ .i - tq � ! 1 iY I i S; m 'C � i4 f Est P k 1 �C ad 1 t-ry _��� i' �ES . $ ` �i' �i ip l .Ex N f IIA i 1 "'Arm g \{ sA it �E i- V. �t f t } f{ i}E (L N 1 �i: age z a} 4 ry s. 3 IF t d `r 7-: �. 3., - 2 1 �i - € 3'�. { d J+ `i.. f 3 )x1•, .: J 3= Y f �j` 31k. Y - " E:;•i 3` 5 in �t �: � '}. t� + S �.l i I R+ t 3d t # t S 5 .,s: £' $5}� 1J � v °} Ef £ zx �+ st ,•` 'i's z E #� 1 7 f%13E b1 4 t �[����� At>k z;Xr {a 4 s 3 u^ i r ,x) a $S!} x»y ✓Y Yf E I;{3r ; x tf S f) SM {l` 1h L �YIM1 II4 ( 1j 4 �Fps ffYP/ 7k Fhl i 1 �M 'n 34 Wt rA �1 � E E vy� i Y � IR r- h S ¢ f E Ygl $ t 5}. E ��$yR`. 5 tit..L. I N , ` .�M#x litsM MR fYt fit A11t,. i1 M ()t! iIiEj: Mij; N1 4'�IE(+1 �s MiM f�E S�JtM !h1 ttl MS N1EFf lw1�M !�1 M e'tE"! �'i4 K}. [mot i� Fes.„ ?�...._-•a••:x`.� .'.-�,^:: ..—.' "....;'— v'�^1' :.-...^e.�..,_"" ..:. .. .. �, .� ...;� .«._...,Y, �.z... :.'._...�3�",.. .E .N1 .1;: '."" ., .:: ..,""';';."' _ ,.'-. AUE t f t4iee' - my m y.. 5" 4 ?.,A 1 E k .f "+ 5 *kys��2s AM - � UK E All�a n F- r KL Y'r NE"! �5$¢�3 ky fYd }t {''`� A�{ to - ufi 1 1, 32d tr i9r' S i y A` `L + -, . 42T, k yy Y y#8 ! r� ax .l' i 3 } ` - t 'f � � �*'�. � S � ; g i �s IS � � �� � t4 f � � lyb�3 5�Y}E s`J '�l�d��� 9 `c S '' (., } C � l? � �I�� �� E F. }fir ( �� �• � 'Cf E-di � � } ( S s 'i �' F'."ES'N` tt• �T{' F"- .: �: 4, � �• -!j!j �4 !i i 2t ��i'[Ti �, 1,!'�'� 3: � � .i � �E� r f "t 3 � ^' S �iP. f} ; Y, s'1iii S "�_ �k �'r. �I,1 �3�x b E��t! `.��`�1: fi `!C-??�f"j �'} E � t 'K {{ `� 4�46��'tM�N�i ry. L�4a �{t�� � 3f •��t ? .% � �1 ��E 1 -0y v'� 3 f i� f �• t� i Ec � � i � � S � t`�i � ' i �E)`(x" S � �i t� ( �EP E A ' r S : 1 � �r, � E. i tf a j 8 �fr 1 ,� it4 � C+ ��. � f• , .E 1� i j3 E. � } 1T ii � �§ r � �� P f t� fd fi1. S { t' h X iii :i f S_. F h E f'vY P 3y(£' § (! f A Pu3. 'l Wr. y} d#4 3gk} `$!3 iF t b SC f.. � 3 bii F� IS � F 4'� i 4: d Sv, �5f {'(E � i �4 SPY !2 � rP m9 i� 5I i �� 3 1^J'' ( 3 } t 3 T E � � �} iTOR }. i' �` its tl Fsa � ✓�,} �� t � � i � 4 � Fi. l(� hf e�' M � %� iy 5 �yy Y. hF fv 2 4 TEE •GEli -jf �3j T3�al T� �En.7 iEaY i} 1�Sii1 } 14 RIJ t} }1 t # I �' �yFl� A ?, 4 3• F }i� fr� f + X �i3i� � f„�f � � t (d ;S --� t �i Y 'F}S E y; � S �� ]YJ 2 �s E �'� f', { � � - T`<.k T i '� .yf. S 4 Y lft �f 7 ? ! i p d S 1D 4 r �i (7 s*E G '�"s ?•s 1 i k I f i R 1 y' t•',` .X �y-)�} } 3 7 RF 2i� � #! Si .. ( J: $ t i �.• " 3 t.0 1 � t,�' �� Y p t£ fi F h tt V }. �3 i � k }Z�) �`� Ei f 2 C� S �4.• E �' '� [: } } $ � `] if � P�} � E � € ,� P�e `� "R�1 F t ^ �,� f � 'i•\ d� 1_� Ei� i• +. � �! � -u' ,i! �} Im3f� .d 4,}f th :. U 2A i �} f - t� I ,� � ! to � #E }: y}- rt ,( �z r E t !k� �4•K.+. t Es3 k h r [-'a t}.. isa Eta } V �i: 1 2'. k � - 1 i f jj"}�lt! � f�yp IgE jt J��t' 3 d 1� t I t i153h �p d �" `S� Y `rY � 1 �. •. } y� g e 4 1 a / kt ,� G '::. g t r ) f ! � ) tY`4 # � it:i F v ! � j ��5 7 f 3� t ' Y � f El� �. 'i�i '{g �[ ri i� i4.�E t _ iR`ES ':t� _ �` i'� t � 5 � F ' j r k i a i F 7 ,• � ! f yl (�. r $- a ~- 1 t' e n { .�}'� rs, �1 PAf 1'aS M e�1 i�lt M }'q M t'a Na S•ia a^ Mi M! �'} iM�E �+Sf M SM41 M M En t�tt ME.MM cf1 [�1 it��fF tM�1 :. p `` u e �N i� t`�x y�}�yt� $t'O Va+(5 P a i jj Q t 9 Nx E : 1 i;D d � _'� AS- �'!�$gg'2r��P.`fV �'{f •d tk+ �, b t }Y ��ya�� i E� MM!S "° _ � f;�g�,, `` g - p '^ s }}j i E a 'I�' ycx a L ri•t� E'' �! �... ? X >; � ,Y' _ f t 2 ''�.�tu,i h3 x Yy- ?W i;��a ,0�64 § ikSt'$'tr3 -�c}� 1 f# J is [��@ ��"!`z 1 F•('! �u F .: (i � 4C aMOM '_"4 i!M'.. 4 SJa jp-�}� $ S i? a t i Y f ..s 1 . • P A -S`•ift.F �, ` 3 {` fa- p fp1�t}NO "1' l 1'A ,}plas.ib �; F frt h •} {. k SfF'S 3' 3 i � t § i _4\4`'fr h h''i �' (Y V 33�� 3 G1 q00 vjro 2�1 3 t{)A ix tG $�.. i?"' . EMI OP41 .fit ejz' ! f A L !. 4 t {rT ¢L:i �i(,,{(,}zs-.'A �rrt t y$h i�� t r i3, � s • -_ t � �Yl� z � #Y� �;�� h 'ni r s, � � & k dy�. y ,x� t b w f 1 1 �� �. v# � k�� i a� !y� � 7 f� • i t �� � �' i.` i.'Sti ii� E �, £ �E.` t� �r E I i• p w x E '�' '3��j'' �4TGq � {� i.-- � i yt`t s '` t ep s jip3� � q1 �k� f Ff -! ..�..a�f� EL J5 i S a � Ey e�i`S�l yatf i y li it 'wtt+ i �1 n. }`t t {'� S� � '`b { }� Y1 � i �S(�y, 'E Y i �fi x'¢ - F�3su �+ ( aril � j (. - t �iyj# �g � 3 ; ;i r k � t,v , � � E h 7 ' f d ,A'f x 5 F? #s" r y k , -LI7/p, t y - ":.}tf £i k d, iy.:) v, S� 3#kq3.T��h`' i� a -/�, �L r,- x t i ''-; t f 5fi dS , '� E �i 1• { � � � 3 � Ytt ! } t ix. `e"�i •� � h i'- if f�5. � i' -� i f k� f � ✓ �� � ; E E � f n il�y�� �.1 ^{ ,lQ •�+- � f{k{:LL "i` is �t f a,�i f ��',5�'S S 3 rit - ! l4 i f � _ t >'S- ! I � `2 i t £M ��. ` lk k} (F ��' S S t.•kt�� r �(1 �� J $ fi � � .� fI- � � 'Ay .+f � c nt .. ta t �' � �� s � a � t f t o-p � . ) E! r � � E,� ��• $i�)� ti"�: �7� 5 .� �3 , k � ��`i ai' (�fS'_j S , f l� i �y f •! i � J: t i I F A i; i� � {�M S � ;.i M. i.� C F f F i5.ME "r " 53 S , - 'i 4� � .�f - ,+ i t T F b i y ft tY' 33 1 1 fl!i ,St ��¢(}����{ KY F� It4 f ) ' 64 � y}�i�}jta i DES i t 2 4f )• ^, t� +�� }� ; (! - �Y flSl i 8T i � `3y`'.-., E � �:i a�! i {ti.R �: +j{$���xj ��'QQJJ � F 4f� ' � r �� � i � )-e�C� i )I f� �tE Ei # :/I E�� Y+lf t�,% �� Yy:. l^ � .s�.s•I'y f � N ': kl� f'.� � �aF T # �� � � s �'' t��� i #fl+ �5 Ei4 !_� F' .`Ft',�. '1 35 t✓ '�i> P , l , F �� }� ( ,r � F. f.' �: i ,f e�C`. i� s fi�' �{tt ki � � a: >E } ; � S � ➢`� �i +� i ] i . i I5 t F d � • i i -:4 � !) t} i i �F � 3 ii `�, 3 i f ] t L' i t •( , f � � k' s,; t e f a 5 -• J i E $ f k •. 'i_.: E 1 '' E. .) 4 S 3 t ! 3 "Ki `:,: M Ni NISM �?1ES+1. r1 M Ni i Ni 6�M i:1�! Y Ij to s',M Mt N1El'! M i� M'.i chi c�! M M M M+Ef,Nf M t{'i M T. tQ ��1oo .nJ�ioo Pig M M M;M M M M M M M Hi M MfH) M M M!M M;M - ..:r� � � f : ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . PUBLIC N NEARING k d Augus01,2003 d '-'TO WHOM IT MAY CON- CERN: ; NOTICE . is .-hereby' given in accordance with $ec i ,lion `11:WA3l of the St. Lucie County Land i Oe- velopment'Code and the provisions ,of the St: Lu- cie County; Comprehen- sive Plan, the following `-has applicant . requgsted that the'St: Lucie, County Planning and Zoning • Commission consider their following request: KENNETH F. LOWE; JR., for a Preliminary Planned Non Residential Development (PNRD►I approval',for a 12,000I . square foot office build-.. ing; Preliminary and Fi- . = nal PNRD, approval ;for a P170 hotel and a .unit Change in zoning from i the CG ; (Commercial General) ,- Toning -district o the PNRD (Planned Non -Residential) Zonjng ' pistrict for the following described' property:, A PARCEL'' OF LAND BE - WO ALL OF THE COM- MERCIAIL PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ,ON THE 'PLAT. OF COMMERCE CENTRE , AT, THE RESERVE,- RE-, CORDED PLAT BOOK .IN 37, PAGES 6, 6A AND 6B, .PUBLIC RECORDS OF T. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 6.926 ACRE$; MORE OR LESS. LocatiftNorthwest eor- ner of Commerce >Center Drive & •Champions Way WGA Villages►. PUBLIC '.HEARINGS -will be held in "Commission Chambers, Roger Poi- tras Annex, 2300 Virgin FortPierce, - is.: Avenue, Florida on• August 21•, 2003, beginning at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereaf- ter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 28ii 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- ;such - I ; ings, and that, for . purposes, c' 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 Fablish: August9,2003 40270 -4.M— Z i n d 1 .e P � b��. iI C r - ♦ r•a c ..t> 2ti -i 'b yb -b. 'y ry �'} � 'j.{ j �'� ,g�,�a, k �3'. � y '� •'.� 3=r � ^ 1 ,Ss�'*�`" •�l I�ti '� r t '� 1 ii's L491G. }�'JY�n-✓f' f `Y SI y tE� I ( 4 ruin •.r,..f },�,t ,i..a�.{�E e b t ,� 1' i �+,, ( a JIv c \,.�y( :•c+ .� r. 1 xr 4" r f { 4 w '1 r 1 3 r.}• wPsY64 t'yp(aj44. t1 -. Y z� �".Y"•.'�� � {',P}� �a A� i_` �,��% - ,f j My- NASAlotC.yt hb 4. �i•i.- odr. rSp.�vair iSn .Aze}}e!}a4.v7� �. ,Ur J7yy,}1 SA Sr V- vg„i, - P� � o'�ti�3 a� � �•t r )a , �!}„ } � `ti4 �{i"iiij�rL p �1 "rti�: } 4 q arsf a .� 4. • tS J S t1YV t'b t�� t r ,r) [{ 5Y i h�..ya: N�°l ^h o,d h Et' <� r I \ `r r-�b� }• j iJ " t scs,.n' Y-! `r• r1 `1'j" _-y�s.�r.z-,:3 Ctr-D�•P "•>,•� �ftar .wYs-z rV. t�i� 61 (•�,I �^', p�.,•cy' Wiwi . , W hirn,`7y*6 -'r ,f •J FI tip ti . b 4 1 } 3 y ..- +ra PitsMY--dSx'i� F'f d'k '� i ei1 ^30 K.t Rau Ti.-� L«A 1 1 i`•.*c: ':.r w .-•-v V i } ya rt N 0 tp 1 is `}�- r,'S?ap i`� f •F P t _ • l_' 1 �r yv.g.� } 1 �• Pii}•f 4 �a 1 } . }e f a !y 'yA - s '+ > g ° ` \� \ ✓' x- J - f fir. j@�'J � �9, "t}+ �f � 0 pool! Y-�h� ��C. � Yt7 s{ i •Y `trE Vol ow `� r 3�'t'.•lt tb.-,� �-. ,. .tip-:e.'+. ) x' ppl�.}',�rl�� yi �, s abr"=,„� i {i Si'x J f l f 1 Y` ItQj': >: h < '�',� f •� -2, i" y f � � f, a_r t J k s iC � a, S : r-'n r G (( L IRA . rr ryst� }� r; lm A f ; fi ,..i`r �..�N'•^} �r 'St }-.''i '• 1 D� l �'Y .e l� z 'y°`�9 n.•A}' ,�5, r'y tl- c r r ��} `' s i i; �, 't 0 it low l,Y��.�..�y-y,� 'r ;•n � fc�'s.,Y Je SS 4 Y..,i � � 1 r• ",;'r'r� 9 ti%..Y�a �.� ' t rb t { L ` 1 a -V '' `PnL - F �II�Ao � r '�i � � � •; -�s�..4� ��.:.: f 4. Y� ` . . t ! .+ i'��, . ' � r.�s.m..°4 . _• t 4nJMIY 00: v o0 M `co C4 MJV' M Oi•�- O+ O{�.. w;aJw;u.lw ii > Ci Ej v, O N >01 U Cod 9ixi O{v Oi%o OfO.M �O{M I ,i 1.0 cis z � I{ EIn z I{ } { i °>{>?ooi•^'�ma0+o+ 0:x:,z,zz{00of! �a3o �OiO�?M1.•. INiv)'MF N100i.-.00� (oo vie eniM oni0�•N r- N N -- %n ;$�oJols� � � igo�o{8 ao0 QCo0C>C>C>Co 0Cp08 ee}� N M �tiN �n O �n J M aOI N, N I^ N N of) M M N O N t- M ,s0 O O{O d OJSp �-+ OIO Cl �pj O (DS O O O p({p p p N p p O ,,OO ppC>SC> S OS10pSS OiQIS1 SO Si0i000OSOO$S Q t, C> V S�N N �i�IM N ``'' `-' �O M�N .+ O O ..� v,l lW% N �ni•-ice-- vllvl�— 8 0 O Q ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLICNEARING AGENDA August 21, 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 in accordance with the pro- visions of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, that the following applicants have request- ed that the St. Lucie County Board of Com- missioners consider their following requests: 1.DALE T. MOSHER, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Reside- ntial, Single -Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/I e) Zoning District for the following described property: 30 35 40 E 112 OF E 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 - LESS S 400 FT - AND N 340 FT OF S i/2 OF W 1/2 -OF E 112 OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 - LESS N 140 FT OF E 171 FT OF W 186 FT - AND BEG AT PT ON N RNV EDWARDS RD 20 FT W OF SE. COR .OF S 1/2 OF W 1/2 OF E 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 RUN N // TO E U SD SEC TO PD 20 FT W OF E LI OF S 1/2 OF W 112 OF E 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/ AND 340 FT S OF S LI OF NE 1/4 OF NE t/4.0 NE 1/4, TH RUN E 20 FT TH S TO' N (VW ED- WARDS RD, TH W TO POB (9.67 AC) (OR 1526- 1081) . Location:4200 Edwards e Road. ! 2.DALE T. MOSHER. for a Conditional Use Per- mit- to allow the devel- opment and operation of a commercial nurs- ery, in the AR-1 (Agricu- ltural, -Residential - 1 } du/acre) Zoning District t for . the following de- scribed property: 30 35 40' E 1/2 OF E 1/2 OF NE 114 OF NE 114 - 1 LESS S 400 FT - AND N 340 FT OF S 1/2 OF W 1/2 OF E 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 - LESS N-140 FTOFE171FTOFW 186 FT - AND BEG AT PT ON N R/W EDWARDS RD 20 FT W OF SE. COR .OF S 1/2'.OF W 112•QF E. 1/2 OF -NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 RUN N #TO E LISD SEC. TO PO 20 FT W OF E Lf OF S 1/2 OF W 1/2 OF E .112 OF NE 114 OF NE 1/4 AND 340 FT S .OF S U OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4, TH RUN E 20 FL TH S TO N R/W ED- WARDS RD, TH W TO 1 P08 (9.67 AC) (OR 1526- 10811 r Location:4200 Road. PUBLIC HEARINGS wi be held in the Commis sion Chambers, Roge Poitras Annex, 3rd Flooi St. Lucie County Admin istration Building, 2301 Virginia Avenue, For Pierce, Florida on Au gust 21, 2003, beginninc at 7:00 P.M. or as soor 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 r respect to any . matter F 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- ° tiro - record of the .pro- ; ceedings is made, which test! record'includes the -Moray and. evidence ;. upon which the appeal is to be based. ILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY(PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS- SION ST: LUCIE. COUNTY, Si FLORIDA -I/S/Ed Merritt, Chairman �j Publish: August 9, 2003 Q49297 August 15, 2003 Subject: Dale T. Mosher Page 3 File No: CU-03-015 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. Provided that the proposed conditional use, the operation of a commercial plant nursery (landscaping & horticultural services) is done in accord with all applicable laws and best management practices, this activity is not anticipated to have any negative effects upon any adjacent lands or interests. 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; The intended use of the subject property for a commercial nursery 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. It is not expected that the proposed business would significantly increase the traffic along Edwards Road. 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed amendment is not .anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is currently vacant, but has served as a grove. The proposed use of the property as a nursery is consistent with uses on the property in the past. COMMENTS: The petitioner, Dale T. Mosher, has requested a conditional use permit in order to allow the development of greenhouses for the purpose of operating a commercial plant nursery in the AR- 1 zoning district on property located at 4200 Edwards Road. The subject property is located in an area, which is generally used for mixed residential and agricultural uses. Even though the property is located within the urban service boundary and the Comprehensive Plan discourages the location of productive agricultural uses in the urban service boundary, several properties in the area have been rezoned to the AR-1 Zoning District, which is primarily a residential zoning district designation. - 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, subject to the following condition: Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. August 15, 2003 Subject: Dale T. Mosher Page 4 File No: CU-03-015 Attachment cc: County Administrator County Attorney Dale T. Mosher File P5 CC co co co co o MI Co C) C) 0 LO CIO 9 C) CY) N Ir i I S K L L I - ; as " 24E s se A of Glassman Realty Ltd. for a .onina District to the CG !Cc 0 z 0 0 0 U O Z O 3 U: a t: F. P. F in from the AGA _onina District. 0 0 U 03-035GIs This pattern indicates Map PMP8Md Au" 11,2003 IZAsubject parcel �Marb --fto �wd�� mW WW hn b0 art % PoW M ant00"aa o 1�1 irfweta� p=d*tb W I I -�d tray r aEOM.. - , � 1 � Pi i rnnrd=-n RZ 03-W5 This. pattern indicates subject parcel of Glassman Realty Ltd. for a Change in Zoning from the AG- .oning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. 0 Z 8 00 d U 'a `o U C 3 F. W. M. D. Conol No. (Agricultural — GIs - Map PmPared AqM 11. 2003 Ift aW ka boo I - WOMMOMkO wd MMs P•PW a* PMN. Map rt4tY MYrV dw wa a MM �V Q�t tand use Glassman Realtv Ltd. RE Q— GIS Map prepared AtOM 11. 2003 1M.MWhnbmC..Fbdb<owdowokor+M%MM P.PonW N "ft ow datbr bar M" b pwft b M"Mo w�a�0 amu� bb- "WAO&kb MkIMIM Oar r a I** A I - Ob�arL � RZ 03-035GIs, -- Thispattern indicates fkp ter. MW subject parcel �fm°w°°�.W. - .°WA�"MmC* �,oinUMl.misgiJ'Zorr on any ease°outsiae or me scrjggwea puduc neanng(s) • Xou.may spit, at'a public fearing; or 6; t prude written comments for the record: u mepespfeeres to'e, nlg n t aphpeulil� PC sgnmdM-o r,a nssinWtentoanner 'at , _ such m�tuig orf hearing, he will iiieed a reeord of the proceedings >~br suClr purpose, he iiay need to enure } , that veNtim %cord of the proceedings is made, which record includes the restinony did evidence 'uponf whim fife appeal ><s to be based Upon the request of any patty to the proceeding, individuals testif�+ing during ;a hearng will be :swam in Any party to the' proceeding vi%ill be granted`an oppottiuiit}► to c>t'oss- exaiiine'aq indtvdual tes ` g `durin a hearin u nest. If,it beciimes neces a public hearing.. Y $ g mqY. { .lam maybe continued fo a date-cefti 7 Anyone with a dlsability;regwring accommodation to attend this moeting shoold;contact the.St, Y.ucie ; �XK C0 n y ommogy, Services �ii ctor at least forty-eight (48) hours°pnor to the tneetiat (772) 462 1777 or TD L? (7t72) 462 142$. \property If you 0 longer ov✓n adjacent; to the above-descnbecl parcel,. l5lease forward this 'notice .to the -new l x owner Phase ea11772/46� 1382'if you have.any ciuestons, and i'efer-to lN'lile Nuriir.RZ-03=035, Sincepely, ; ST. LIJG`� COUNTY P'LANNYNG ANU Z(fNING COMNIISSYO M Ed: Merntt, Chairman JOHN D. ORUHN; District No: 1 DOUG C6, ✓AAD Disrricr'No'. 2 PAULA A LEWIS, District No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHMON, Dfsrricr NO; 4 •'CUFF UQRNES, Disrntr No. 5 County Administrator -'Douglas M. Andersor5 2300 Virginia Avenue •• F6rt Pierce; FL,34982-5652 .: Atlministrafion. (772) 462-1590 `�> Planning: (772) 4 .2-2822 GISITechnical Services; (772) 462-1553 . Economic Development: (772) 462=1550 •Fax: (772) 462-1581 i I` r fnl9u4Us z 2S.' s ands -.�h� �East:attlstance.`' a - feet�,f6yr t ode. 9resjr 3 mtnutes secondsiEast a d t nc t P INT' BEGI[�NI_ � � to nd' tR rice kbue North O� 31 minutes , is p thahce SouthTn89- de 1 '.i 0�eas`85 minutes;5 ,�� Y r of a dlSl$nCg tforlh _� Wth;it f m,duts 44 �dcoridsZ l East a fTmance df ilfisZ t t'0 ihen t Ndrth ,89 dggrees,,- 3{ta distance nqf I , . t s 54 feel tq the t POINiOkB€GINhINO -� �x . �y-r LoriatiQn:fQarthX+eat ; Cer E�1' der 4f the rntarseaion of ' ern � ,�oh0ston Nodd a^il Id. ' ) PU ell N S ll m wi} slotl fit" tiers A"or I M t v� , PoNra�;AnngsF 3M Eloot , d�tY yirgln(9, vdnue 'Portr t Pfefcq 'Rorjda onA""" ire r ! petlf}��1-'ft� � , t thereafEeer#`spossiblq � � sr PIteSU id Sdctwlt - r - Z8§OtdS,r gprida Stag s;�u _ �} - baatppal�andeclsibn tt ' made fi'y f board agen, - ey 0(,l�Onlht)ealah -With �i' tespFc€?'f9 arty ()after ° ebftstdeme%fing s t - or` hdai'ing he vylp'haed - a rooiQ of tirt prdceed; _ inps' pnd tlreL for' -`such r ! to r$aSyvetb Nm Idcgrd of tlfa ;pith cdedI* rs made,, wh record low", es 1. mony ;, and ution which tbd"appeal ; - �' is to N fused - � LOCAL � PLANNING -' v AGEN&IPLANylNO , AND ZONING COMMIS - 'Si ON ST: LUCIE,- COUNTY, FWA1DA 0 Ed Merritt, Chairmen PUBUSNf AUpust ti, i 5 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Review: August 19, 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (Administration) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency FROM: Community Development Director DATE: August 14, 2003 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 03-005 Amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by amending the Open Space Standards for Planned Unit Developments, to provide for Clarification of Standards Applicable to areas of The Unincorporated County with a Future Land Use Designation of Agricultural, Residential and Mixed Use and by creating New Paragraph K Clustering of Development for Planned Unit Developments. Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 03-005 which would propose to amend Section 7.01.03 of the County's Land Development Code to provide revisions to the minimum open space standards for residential Planned Unit Developments. Specifically, these proposed revisions are intended to address certain unintentioned conflicts that exist between the County's Land Development Code Regulations and the County's Comprehensive Plan Development Polices effecting non-agricultural activities in the western areas of the County. As a starting point, the Board must review and keep in mind the following Policies found in the adopted St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. These Policies have been in the County's Comprehensive Plan since 1991 and were originally placed into the Plan as part of a settlement agreement between the State of Florida and St. Lucie County after the State found the County's Comprehensive Plan to be Not /n Compliance with the applicable State planning statutes in 1990. Through the incorporation of these, and other, Policies, the Board was able to persuade the State that the County's Comprehensive Plan could now be considered to be "in compliance" with applicable State regulations. The specific Policies relevant to this discussion are: Policy 1.1.2.2 For developments in excess of four (4) units,- require approval through the PUD process and include provisions in the land development regulations requiring clustering of such developments. Policy 1.1.2.3: All future non-agricultural development within the agricultural land use categories will be required to preserve open space (defined as agricultural activities such as groves and range land as well as preservation of natural areas) according to the following criteria: August 14, 2003 Subject: Draft Ordinance 02-005; Amending The St. Lucie Page 2 County Land Development Code by amending the Open Space Standards for Planned Unit Developments, to provide for Clarification of Standards Applicable to areas of The Unincorporated County with a Future Land Use Designation of Agricultural, Residential and Mixed Use and by creating New Paragraph K Clustering of Development for Planned Unit Developments. a. developments in excess of 20 units must retain a minimum of 80% of the project site as open space; b. developments in excess of four units and up to 20 units must retain a minimum of 50% of the project site as open space; and, C. developments of four (4) dwelling units or less are not required to retain open space except as may be otherwise required in the Land Development Code or elsewhere in this Plan; provided that this paragraph shall not be applied to avoid the remainder of this policy through further subdivision of land parcels of record as existed on January 9, 1990. Addressing the later Policy first, in 1990, when the County Commission first adopted a Unified Land Development Code for the County in accord with the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Section 7.01.03(I) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code established minimum open space standards applicable to all Planned Unit Developments. When these standards were first created, the term common open space was not specifically defined in the Land Development Code. Instead, the term "open space" was defined and the application of the word "common" was left to an individual, and sometimes subjective, understanding of the term. The definitions of the terms open space and common open space as found in the County's Land Development Code today are as follows: OPEN SPACE. Any parcel or area of land or water that is set aside, open and unobstructed to the sky, and designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment. OPEN SPACE, COMMON. A parcel or area of land or water in or related to a development site that is set aside and designated or reserved for the use or enjoyment of the public or the residents, occupants, and/or owners of the development or project site. Common open space areas shall -not be individually owned except by a recognized unit of local or state government or an entity or organization acceptable to St. Lucie County. Recently, there was a concern expressed to the County Commission over how the term "common open space" was being interpreted by the County in regards to Planned Unit Developments in the agricultural areas of the community. Noting the wording of the above Polices, when the recently redefined term "common open space' is applied to rural development parcels seeking a Planned Development approval (voluntary or otherwise), we have August 14, 2003 Subject: Draft Ordinance 02-005; Amending The St. Lucie Page 3 County Land Development Code by amending the Open Space Standards for Planned Unit Developments, to provide for Clarification of Standards Applicable to areas of The Unincorporated County with a Future Land Use Designation of Agricultural, Residential and Mixed Use and by creating New Paragraph K Clustering of Development for Planned Unit Developments. encountered a concern about the necessity to have that project's open space actually being kept in a form of common ownership. Instead, we have been requested to allow the required open space for these PUD's to be kept in private ownership, but restricted in a manner that would keep the majority of this site in perpetual open space and used for either agricultural, private recreational or preservation purposes. In order to accommodate this request, staff has reviewed the requirements of Section 7.01.03 of the Land Development Code and determined that, in order to accomplish this request, a text amendment must be made to paragraph (1) that addresses development activities in the urban area of the community vs. development activities within the rural areas of the community. Draft Ordinance 03-005 provides for a series of variable standards in regard to agricultural open space requirements based upon the size of the parent parcel. In short, all AG PUD's, regardless of size, are required to set aside a minimum of 50% of their gross site areas as open space. Thirty-five (35%) of the that 50% gross area is to be set aside as common open space, however, at the option of the County Commission, it may be possible for someone to "buy-out' the required common open element on parcels with a gross acreage of 40 acres or less. The basic requirement of 50% open space in these instances would still apply, but that open space could be held individually as opposed to common interest. In addressing Policy 1.1.2.2 of the County's Comprehensive Plan, new paragraph K addresses Clustering of Development areas in a Planned Unit Development. Review of several general planning and project design documents indicates a variety of definitions for the term "clustering." All of them have the same general theme, that being, clustering is considered to be the concentrating of development units or activities in a manner that provides for the highest utilization of the land area under development but with a minimum of new infrastructure development resulting in lower land development costs. There are no specific density standards for the term clustering since this is typically a local policy decision that will vary between communities. On March 18, 2003 the Board of County Commissioners held its first public hearing to review Draft Ordinance 03-005. Following the discussion at that meeting, the Board directed that the second public hearing on this matter be postponed from the recommended May 6, 2003 hearing date until at least the middle of June. The reason for this delay was to allow interested groups in the County to discuss among themselves the proposed revisions and determine if there in need were other alternative ways the same objectives outlined above. The Board asked that a non -County affiliated group get together to review these items and provide input back to the board. The board declined to establish a formal County supported review committee on this matter due to organizational and procedural concerns. As directed, County staff met with the property interest group on this matter. We believe that we have been able to address most of the concerns expressed by this group while still working within the framework of the county's comprehensive plan policies in regard to this matter. As August 14, 2003 Subject: Draft Ordinance 02-005; Amending The St. Lucie Page 4 County Land Development Code by amending the Open Space Standards for Planned Unit Developments, to provide for Clarification of Standards Applicable to areas of The Unincorporated County with a Future Land Use Designation of Agricultural, Residential and Mixed Use and by creating New Paragraph K Clustering of Development for Planned Unit Developments. recently as the week of June 3rd, we received additional commentary from the property interest group that they would like the Board to consider in their deliberation on this item. Specifically, the ad -hoc property owners committee supports the concept of removing the requirement of "common" open space within PUDs in the agricultural areas of the community. They apparently do not object to the requirement of open space, but there is concern, as noted above, over the commonalty requirement for this open space. The ad -hoc committee would further suggest that in regard to paragraph K, the suggested numeric qualification to clustering be eliminated and replaced with a more generic statement regarding clustering. On July 1, 2003, the Board meet again to review Draft Ordinance 03-005. At that time the Board directed that the entire proposal be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency for review and commentary once again in order to provide input on the proposed adjustments to the open space standards since they were substantially different than what was originally discussed several months ago. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency forward a recommendation of consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan and that draft ordinance 03-005 be approved. If you have any questions, please let me know. SUBMITTED: Denfi-ig— Murphy, AICP I Community D velopmen Director DJM/ OR_03-005_MEM06(h) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Planning Manager 2 3 ORDINANCE NO. 03-005 Underline is for addition Strike is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Page 1 Draft #4 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 91-03 - March 14,1991 91-21 - November 7, 1991 93-01 - February 16,1993 93-05 - May 25,1993 93-07 - May 25,1993 94-18 - August 16,1994 95-01 - January 10,1995 97-01 - March 4,1997 97-23 - September 2,1997 99-02 - April 6,1999 99-04 - August 17,1999 99-15 - July 20,1999 99-17 - September 7,1999 00-10 - June 13, 2000 00-12 - June 13, 2000 01-03 - December 18, 2001 02-09 - March 5, 2002 02 05 02-20 May 14,1991 June 2, 1992 February 16, 1993 May 2514993 June2211994 August 16,1994 August 6,1996 October 7,1997 >February 2,1999 July '20,1999. July 201999 November 2, 1999 June 13, 2000 June 13, 2000 June 25, 2002 October 15, 2002 5 On , this Board held its second public hearing on the proposed zi ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St Lucie News and the Tribune on 6. The proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Underline is for addition Stri♦te-Thredgh is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Page 2 Draft #4 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 7.01.00 7.01.03 Ordinance #03-005a Draft #4 Code are consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the health safety and public welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. SIGN A N D STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS Paragraphs A through H - No Change Underline is for addition Strike Through is for deletion Page 3 PRINT DATE; 08/03/03 1 I. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 OPEN SPACE STANDARDS 1. A Planned Unit Development that is proposed in any Residential, Conservation, Special District or Mixed Use Future Land Use Category shall conform to the following opens ace standards:_ 4, g 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 andplanting 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 an} property must be;preserved it required 35 percent common op native habitat above the requirei in its original state, credit shall acre towards the remaining con isting native upland habitat on the natural condition as part of the ;pace. For each acre of preserved nmum 15 percent that is preserved given at a rate of 150 percent per n open space requirement. >e dedtatedlforcommon open space shall be identif ied as Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Areas that are floodways, lakes, wetlands, and ^eftntion areas may be applied to satisfy the total common equirement, subject to the requirement that 15% of any ve habitat on the property must be included as part of the /o common open space. As part of the Final Planned Unit submission process, the developer or petitioner for the Development shall provide for one of the following: The advance dedication of all common open space to a public, or acceptable private, agency that will, upon acceptance, agree to Underline is for addition `#-'(e Through is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Page 4 Draft #4 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 a. 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, common open space. common landscaping_ and planting areas, or other -------------------------------- Underline is for addition r#rike Tkretiglt is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Page 5 Draft #4 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Ordinance #03-005a Draft #4 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. For any Planned Unit Development, greater than 40 acres, but less than Underline is for addition 6trike is for deletion Page 6 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 a C. in the area of the proposed development based upon a current appraisal of the property that is to be prepared by an individual who is both_a member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) and a state certified general appraiser acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. yr cvnveyunces snun ve cvmpie i eu prior ry i ne issuance oT any building permits, including land clearing, for any portion of the Planned Unit Development: or, Underline is for addition 6trike Fhreu91% is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Page 7 Draft #4 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 - 34 2. A phased conveyance of the land to a public or acceptable private agency that wi II. upon acceptance, agree to maintain the open space and any buildings, structures or improvements that have been placed on it. The schedule for the phased conveyance :Plannedunit Developments in all Future Land Use Categories ar Underline is for addition StrikeThreagi. is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Draft #4 Page 8 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 the project in a clustered manner. Planned Unit Developments in the Residential, Conservation, Special District or Mixed Use Future Land Use Categories are required to design the project in a clustered a.' Me or morebdJor 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 Nome 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 -------------------------------- Underline is for addition 6trike-Through is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Page 9 Draft #4 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 1 multi -phased development shall be completed or appropriate security 2 posted prior to issuance of building or mobile home permits or the 3 recording of any final plat within that phase. 4 5 b. No commercial facility shall be permitted prior to the completion of at 6 least forty (40) percent of the total number of authorized dwelling 7 units; and, 8 9 C. For Planned Unit Developments to be constructed in stages or phases, 10 the net density of an individual stage or phase may vary from the 11 approved Final Site Plan subject: to the requirements in 'Section 12 11.02.05. 13 14 L- M. SIGNS 15 16 1. Signs within any Planned Unit -Development, less than or equal to 200 acres in 17 overall area, shall comply th th :wie :prov►sons of Chapter 9 of this code, 18 provided however, that° the Board of Coufif Commissioners may condition 19 approval of a Planned Unit Development upon xompliance with more stringent 20 sign regulations m order to ensure design consistency throughout the proposed 21 development, to endure compatibility.with surrounding land uses, to ensure 22 public safety and=prevent public harrrr and to ensure compliance with the St. 23 Lucie County Comprehensive Plan 24 25 Z: Signs within any Planned Unit Development, greater than 200 acres in overall 26 ar. ea may submit a general signage plan for the Planned Unit Development, as 27 part of the Final Planned Unit Development Plan submissions. The general 28 sgnage plan=shall be based on the general dimension and size standards 29 applicable Itoother similarly designated residential property; provided, 30 however, tha# the Board of County Commissioners may condition approval of a 31 Planned Unit' evelopment upon compliance with more stringent sign regulations 32 in order:to ensure design consistency throughout the proposed development, 33 to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, to ensure public safety and 34 prevent public harm, and to ensure compliance with the St. Lucie County -------------------------------- Underline is for addition 61riIteThrough is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Page 10 Draft #4 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Comprehensive Plan. 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: inoperative, or void, such. holding shall not'a If this ordinance or any provision thereof property, or circumstance, such holding shal property, or circumstance. PART D APPLICA This ordinance shall be Ordinance #03-005a Draft #4 OF 5 held,;or decldred'to be unconstitutional, t the remam��tg portions of this ordinance. ( beheld to,be inapplicable to any person, affect itsdpplicabilitytoany other person, ib:le::in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. rected forthwith to send a certi f ied copy of this ordinance to Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Underline is for addition Strike -Threagh is for deletion Page 11 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State. PART G. ADOPTION. P P L 1A it P Ordinance #03-005a Draft #4 id Compiled ippropriate mplish such BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Underline is for addition 6trike Through is for deletion Page 12 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Dim OR03-005d(WcodO -H) ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA M Chairman Underline is for addition STTikeTnrough is for deletion Ordinance #03-005a Page 13 Draft #4 PRINT DATE: 08/03/03 ORDINANCE NO.03-007 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT POLICIES EFFECTING AREAS OF THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY WITH FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF AGRICULTURE BY DELETING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.1.2.2 AND 1.1.2.3 SUBSECTION (C) AS CONFLICTING POLICIES; AMENDING SECTION 7.01.03 ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO EXEMPT ALL LANDS WITH A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF AGRICULTURE FROM OPEN SPACE AND OR COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDING CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determination: 1 On August 1, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida adopted the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2. The Board of County Commissioners has adopted certain amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, through the following Ordinances. 1 91-03 March 14, 1991 91-09 May 14, 1991 91-21 November 7, 1991 92-17 June 2, 1992 93-01 February 16, 1993 93-03 February 16, 1993 93-05 May 25, 1993 93-06 May 25,1993 93-07 May 25, 1993 94-07 June 22, 1994 94-18 August 16, 1994 94-21 August 16, 1994 95-01 January 10, 1995 96-10 August 6, 1996 97-01 March 4, 1997 97-09 October 7, 1997 97-23 September, 2, 1997 99-01 February 2, 1999 99-02 April 6, 1999 99-03 August 17, 1999 99-04 August 17, 1999 99-05 July 20, 1999 99-15 July 20, 1999 99-16 July 20, 1999 99-17 September 7, 1999 99-18 November 2, 1999 00-10 June 13, 2000 00-11 June 13, 2000 00-12 June 13, 2000 00-13 June 13, 2000 01-03 December 18, 2001 02-05 June 25, 2002 02-09 March 5, 2002 02-20 October 15, 2002 3. On , the Local Planning Agency/ Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance after publishing notice in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune at least 10 days prior to the hearing and recommended that the proposed ordinance be approved. 4. On , this Board held its first public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune on 5. On , this Board held its second public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune on 6. The proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code are consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and are in the best interest of the health safety and public welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida. 2 CHAPTER 1 ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Policy # 1.1.2.2 and Policy 1.1.2.3 C are found to be in conflict with other future land use designations and are deleted from the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. County Staff shall immediately undertake and expedite all necessary actions to finalize this amendment with all appropriate Regional and State jurisdictions. CHAPTER VII DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 7.01.03 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS A THRU H NO CHANGE. LA All residential development of lands within future land use designation of agriculture shall be exempt from open space, common open space and clustering provisions of this code. PART B. ICONFLICTING 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 of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance. 3 PART D APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. PART E FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Administrative Code and 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 Vice Chairman Paula Lewis Commissioner Doug Coward Commissioner John D. Bruhn Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson PART H CODIFICATION Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Complied Laws, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intention; provided, however, that parts B through H shall not be codified. 4 PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this th day of , 2003. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: County Attorney 5 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: August 21, 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Community Development Director DATE: August 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance 03-023, amending the County's Educational Impact Fee Schedules, to be effective March 1, 2004. Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 03-023, which would provide for amendment to the County's current Educational Impact Fee Schedules, effective March 1, 2004. On August 5, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted Ordinance 88- 16, imposing an Educational Facilities Impact Fee in St. Lucie County. In 1993, 1995 and 1996, subsequent amendments were made to the various sections of this impact fee ordinance. However, the current assessment rate of $800/ per single-family unit has not been adjusted since a reduction to the base fee was made in 1996 as result of several locally approved voter initiatives for capital construction. As recently as the Year 2000, consideration was given to adjusting these fees, however, no action was taken on a series of proposed amendments in deference to the School Boards desire to pursue an alternative capital funding source that was ultimately approved to meet anticipated future capital needs. In 1988, when the Educational Facilities Impact Fee were first imposed, the assessment levied at that time, and modified in 1993, were artificially lowered to the current rate of $800 in order to meet local community concerns. Due to recent State funding cutbacks, it is necessary to consider raising this fee. The current fee of $800 is less than half of the Statewide average. If the new fee were approved as submitted the County would be in the upper percentile for Educational Facility Impact Fees in the State. Educational facilities impact fees, a/k/a school impact fees, across the State have been the subject of much discussion and many are experiencing or are proposed to be increased, some rather dramatically. Lake County recently approved an educational impact fee of just over $4,000 for a single-family home. Orange County's (Orlando) is currently considering a substantial raise to its single-family fee of $2,828. However, it is important to note that the amount that an impact fee may be raised is directly dependent upon the level of State and local revenues that are earmarked for capital construction. One reason for the rapid rate of increase in impact fees across the State is that the while the State has reduced its funding commitment for new school capital costs, and the basic cost to provide a school and the necessary student work stations, has increased substantially, many local communities have not, or cannot, adjust their local taxing structures to meet the costs to the community. The projected costs of providing public educational facilities per student are in St. Lucie County are estimated to be $16,000 per student station. Broken down through the formulas provided in the attached memorandum, our consultants have determined that St. Lucie County will be short August 15, 2003 Subject: Educational Impact Fees Page 2 Draft Ordinance 03-023 approximately $3,192, per single family home, in meeting our facility obligations to address new community growth. On June 19, 2003, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for St. Lucie County reviewed the proposed amendments to the Educational Impact Fee for consistency with the requirements. of the County's Comprehensive Plan. At that time the LPA voted unanimously to find that that the proposed amendments were consistent with the County's Adopted Comprehensive Plan and further recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amended fee schedule as submitted, with an effective date of October 1, 2004. Since the June review of this material by the Local Planning Agency, there have been several refinements to the impact fee calculations brought about as a result of further School District review. Specifically, the School District has asked that a revised student station cost; updated land cost and certain adjustments to the school enrollment credits and discount rates be made. The land cost adjustment is designed to address an inadvertent omission from previously supplied data; the updated school construction costs uses the more current data than was originally available and the enrollment credits and discount rates have been refined based on more current rate. The net effect of all these adjustments is to increase the proposed Educational Facilities Impact Fee from the original (June '03) recommendation of $2,380 to $3,192, or an additional $812. If this fee were approved in full, St. Lucie County would be among the upper '/a of fee assessments for educational facilities in the State of Florida. On August 12, 2003, the St. Lucie County School Board asked that if the County Commission consideration of any fee adjustment in reading to the educational impact fee, that the County Commission consider a delayed effective date until March 1, 2004. The reason for this delay would be to provide an opportunity for pending construction contracts to clear before the fee increases take effect. The Treasure Coast Builders Association requested this delay. Noting the above, if this fee were to be delayed to March 1, 2004, the following table highlights the impacts of the new fee schedules on a single-family home. Please note this fee schedules assume full implementation of all other pending fee changes. Single Family Residential (assume a 2.0% cpi adjustment) 0.020 proposed proposed % Chg current 1-Oct-03 1-Mar-04 (overall) Road 1,979 2,019 2,028 2.02% School 800 800 3192 299.00% Parks 438 447 447 2.05% Library 175 179 179 2.29% Public Buildings 334 341 341 2.10% Fire/EMS 280 288 288 2.86% Law Enforcement 0 169 169 ERR Total 4,006 4,243 6,644 65.63% August 15, 2003 Page 2 Subject: Educational Impact Fees Draft Ordinance 03-023 Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-023 to the Board of County Commissioners with a fining of consistency with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and with a recommendation of approval. If you have any questions, please let me know SUBMITTED: J. Murphy, AICP j inity Developmel jt Director DJM attachment 0323aMEM03(IMPACT2003) cc: County Administrator County Attorney Daniel Harrell, Esq., SLC School District Marty Sanders, PE, SLC School District Management & Budget Director Finance Director James Nicholas, PhD Educational Impact Fee Update Prepared for St. Lucie County By: James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. June 2003 St Lucie County has been collecting public educational impact fees since 1988. In 1994 the educational fees were updated. The public educational impact of residential units is set out in Tables 1. Table 1 also sets out the historic, present and projected public school enrollment in St. Lucie County. The present impact fees are: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES ST. LUCIE COUNTY Single Family $800 Multi -Family $608 Mobile Home & Recreational Vehicle $182 Hotel/Motel 0 Other Residential $800 2002 FLORIDA AVERAGE IMPACT FEES BY TYPE OF UNIT MultiMaximum 142 Minimum ISIngle 348 Average ,791 Median 1 $1,496 $770 Sample size 1 28 26 St. Lucie's existing fee is excluded from this summary. St. Lucie's educational impact fee runs approximately one-half of that of other. Florida jurisdictions. Educational or school impact fees have been experiencing rapid increases. Lake County recently adopted an educational impact fee of over $4,142 for a single family home. Orange County's single family fee of $2,828 is presently under study, for a possible increase. The reasons for the increases in educational facilities impact fees are, first, reduced state funding for new school construction, second, increased cost for new schools and, third, a "taping out' of Certificates of Participation.' All of these conditions exist in St. Lucie County. 1 Certificates of Participation, commonly referred to as "COPs," are debt instruments that are paid for out of the authorized 2 mill Capital Improvement Tax (CITax). School boards are limited in the amount of CIT tax that they can commit to pay COPS. St. Lucie County Page #1 Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 From 1980 to 85 the ratio of public school students to households declines sharply. Since 1985 — and going to 2004 — the ratio of student to households has been remarkably stable. Table 1 shows the relationship of all households to enrollment and Table 2 shows what a new dwelling unit will add to school enrollment. TABLE 1 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND POPULATION ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA YEAR POPULATION ENROLLMENT HOUSEHOLDS STUDENTS PER HH 1980 87,182 14,606 32,506 0.449 1985 115,949 16,598 44,858 0.370 1990 150,171 21,144 58,174 0.363 1991 158,173 21,926 61,467 0.357 1992 163,060 22,540 63,556 0.355 1993 167,735 23,649 65,574 0.361 1994 172,790 25,040 67,752 0.370 1995 176,229 25,930 69,307 0.374 1996 180,497 26,537 71,198 0.373 1997 184,633 27,250...___..___ 73,048 1998 187,492 27,845 74,401 0.374 1999 190,349 28,498 75,761 0.376 2000 192,695 28,650 76,924 0.372 2001 200,018 29,114 79,700 0.365 2002 205,420 30,070 82,100 0.366 2003* 208,000 31,057 83,800 0.371 2004* 212,500 32,181 86,000 0.374 * Projected Table 2 shows the public educational impact by dwelling unit type after adjustment for those developments that are age restricted. The method used to make this adjustment is set out in the attached appendix. TABLE 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY UNIT TYPE ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA --- 2003 DWELLING TYPE - - STUDENTS PER UNIT.. All Units Non -Age Restricted Single Family 0.358 0.360 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle 0.082 0.197 Multi -Family 1-2 Stories 0.263 0.282 Multi -Family 3 + Stories 0.263 0.282 Hotel/Motel - Room 0.000 0.000 Bed & Breakfast - Room 0.000 0.000 All Other Residential 0.358 0.360 SOURCE: Table 2 and Appendix. St. Lucie County Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Page #2 Draft #1 The projected costs of providing public educational facilities per student are estimated in Table 3. The costs shown in Table 3 are those experienced in St. Lucie County with recent school construction projects. The per student cost of ancillary facilities are also included. These facilities include administrative buildings, maintenance facilities and school buses. The costs shown in Table 3 are divided among the various revenue sources as shown in Table 4. However, the cost of interest was not included in Table 3, and it is necessary to consider this important cost. Table 4 (following) shows that there are no anticipated debt issuances thus there will be no interest cost for new facilities to be constructed to 2008. TABLE 3 WEIGHTED STUDENT STATION COST (INCLUDING LAND) ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA --- 2003 ELEMENTARY: Cost $10,595,301 Year Completed 1998 2003 Cost $11,862,837 Capacity 896 Cost per Student $13,240 MIDDLE Cost $17,391,557 Year Completed 1998 2003 Cost $19,472,142 Capacity 1,383 Cost per Student $14,080 HIGH: Cost $33,213,335 Year Completed 1998 2003 Cost $37,186,709 Capacity 2,124 Cost per Student $17,508 ST. LUCIE ENROLLMENT BY LEVEL AND COST; ELEMENTARY 49.1 % $13,240 MIDDLE 24.2% $14,080 HIGH 26.1 % $17,508 WEIGHTED COST PER STUDENT $12,351 CENTRAL FACILITIES Buses 377 $65,699 $24,768 535 Buildings - ESE Center $621,520 Means Center $1,824,880 Admin Annex, 310 Preston Ct. $1,495,680 Admin - Delaware Ave $4,083,920 South Trans and Maint. Complex $8,602,160 St. Lucie County Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Page #3 Draft #1 TABLE 3 (cont.) WEIGHTED STUDENT STATION COST (INCLUDING LAND) ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA --- 2003 New Admin - Virginia Av. $7,734,505 Contents $2,436,267 Land $6,198,700 Value of central, ancillary & transport facilities $57,766,167 Enrollment 30,070 Cost per Student $1,921 TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $16,406 SOURCE: St. Lucie County School Board, March 5, 2003 and July 2, 2003. TABLE 4 HISTORIC SOURCES OF EDUCATIONAL CAPITAL FUNDS ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOURCE FY02-03 FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 5 YEARS % STATE OF FLORIDA: COBI $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CO & DS $140,8391 $140,839 $140,839 $140,839 $140,839 $704,195 PECO NC $2,510,092 $828,905 $918,035 $1,019,788 $1,029,663 $6,306,483 PECO Maint. $690,924 $892,274 $675,597 $1,016,630 $1,078,457 $4,353,882 Classrooms First $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Effort Index $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SIT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total State $3,341,855 $1,862,018 $1,734,471 $2,177,257 $2,248,959 $11,364,560 Net State $2,650,931 $969,744 $1,058,874 $1,160,627 $1,170,502 $7,010,678 17.83% Enrollment 31,057 32,181 33,064 34,051 35,047 33,080 State Funds per student $85 $30 $32 $34 $33 $42 LOCAL: CITaxes $17,926,847 $18,464,652 $19,018,592 $19,589,149 $20,176,824 $95,176,064 cops $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sales Tax Refunding Bond $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 GOB Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 37.161 Loan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Impact Fees $1,026,710 $1,026,710 $1,026,710 $1,026,710 $1,026,710 ' $5,133,550 Transfer from Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local $18,953,5571 $19,491,362 $20,045,302 $20,615,859 $21,203,534 $100,309,614 Net Local $5,354,205 $5,892,0101 $6,445,950 $7,016,507 $7,604,182 $32,312,854 82.170 C.I.T. to Capital % 29.6%1 31.7%1 33.7% 35.6% 37.5% 33.7% St. Lucie County Page #4 Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 TABLE 4 (cont.) HISTORIC SOURCES OF EDUCATIONAL CAPITAL FUNDS ST. LUCIE COUNTY FY02-03 FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 5 YEARS % Transfers Out CIT to GF Maintenance $4,400,000 - $4,400,000 $4,400,000 $4,400,000 $4,400,000 $22,000,000 CIT to COP Payments and Misc. Debt Service $8,212,642 $8,212,642 $8,212,642 $8,212,642 $8,212,642 $41,663,210 COP Proceeds to Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SIT to 237 Loan Debt S. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Lease to Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Effort Index to 237 Loan DS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 237 Loan to 237 Loan DS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Peco NC to 237 Loan DS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Impact Fees to 237 Loan DS $986,710 $986,710 $986,710 $986,710 $986,710 $4,933,550 Sales Tax Rev Bond to 237 Loan DS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 GOB Bond to GOB Debt Serv. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Capital $8,005,136 $6,861,754 $7,504,824 $8,177,134 $8,774,684 $39,323,532 DEBT FUNDING 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $01 0.00% SOURCE: St. Lucie County School District, February 2003. The local educational facility costs, including interest, will be paid by a combination of appropriations from the State of Florida, the annual Capital Improvement Tax (CIT), district borrowing and impact fees. Table 5 sets out that mix of capital funding. The State funding shown in Table 5 is very low. This reflects the anticipation of few state dollars for St. Lucie County. TABLE 5 STATE CREDIT CALCULATION Net State Capital Funding $7,010,678 Per Year $1,402,136 Average Enrollment 33,080 Per Student $42.39 Cost of Money 4.30% Years 25.00 State Credit per Student $642 Table 5a shows the history of state funding for school construction. This decline St. Lucie County Page #5 Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 TABLE 5a HISTORY OF STATE CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATIONS FY Net State Capital Funds Enrollment State Funds per student 1992 $9,680156 25,666 $377.16 1993 $4,920,198 26,872 $183.10 1994 $3,529,002 27,206 $129.71 1995 $3,529,544 27,993 $126.09' 1996 $2,449,833 28,764 $85.17 1997 $3,364,373 27,845 $120.82 1998 $11,295 924 28,498 $396.37 1999 $27,466,124 28,650 $958.66 2000 $1,460 097 29,114 $50.15 2001 $1,841,788 30,070 $61.25 2002 $2,650 931 31,057 $85.36 2003 $969,744 32,181 $30.13 2004 $1,058 874 33,064 $32.03 2005 $1,160,627 34,051 $34.08 2006 $1,170,502 1 35,047 1 $33.40 SOURCE: St. Lucie County School District. empirically demonstrates the point make above, which is graphically shown below. The large allocation received in 1998 and 1999 were the "Classrooms First' funds, a program that has not been repeated. STATE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING PER STUDENT ST LUCIE COUNTY 1992 - 2007 $1,000.00 $800.00 $600.00 $400.00 — $200.00 $0.00'W. AVY 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 St. Lucie County Page #6 Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 TABLE 5B INTEREST COST ST LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOLS COST % OF REVISED TOTAL Facility Cost per Student $16,406 100.00% Financed by Debt $0 0.00% Interest Cost $0 0.00% Revised Total Cost $16,406 100.00% Paid by The State $642 3.91 % Interest Rate on Local Debt 4.30% Period Years 25 Revised Local Cost Including Interest $15,764 1 96.09% New development will financially contribute to the costs of school capital improvements. Therefore it is necessary to consider what portion of capital costs may be expected to be borne by the funding sources set out in Table 4. New development will be assessed property taxes by the School District. There will be two relevant taxes; the Capital Improvement Tax (CIT) and bond debt service taxes. Table 6 sets out the parameters used to project the portion of school costs that new development will bare. Table 6 also uses these parameters to calculate offsets to gross capital costs that reflect what new development may be expected to pay. The percentage of Capital Improvement Taxes going to capital is the Net C.I.T. in Table 4 divided by the Total C.I.T. in the same Table. The Capital Millage is the C.I.T. Millage multiplied by the % Capital plus the G.O.B. Millage. In addition to general obligation bonds, the school system has outstanding debt serviced by a sales tax. This source is included in Table 4 and also included in the offset. TABLE 6 EDUCATIONAL CREDIT CALCULATIONS ST LUCIE COUNTY YEAR CIT MILLAGE . % CAPITAL EFFECTIVE CIT RATE GOB MILLAGE 2003 $2.000 29,64% $0.593 $0.330 2004 $2.000 31.69% $0.634 $0.330 2005 $2.000 33.68% $0.674 $0.300 2006 $2.000 35.61 % $0.712 $0.300 2007 $2.000 - 37.49% $0.750 $0.290 AVERAGE '03-07 $0.672 $0.310 RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE VALUE Millions $5 098.7 ENROLLMENT 27,845 RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE VALUE PER STUDENT $183109 CAPITAL MILLAGE RATE CIT Per $1,000 $0.672 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS PER STUDENT $123.14 DISCOUNT RATE 4.3% DISCOUNT PERIOD (Years) 25 St. Lucie County Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Page #7 Draft #1 TABLE 6 (cont.) EDUCATIONAL CREDIT CALCULATIONS ST LUCIE COUNTY PRESENT VALUE OF CIT PER STUDENT $1,864.12 GOB MILLAGE RATE $0.310 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS PER STUDENT $56.76 INTEREST RATE 4.30% AVERAGE LIFE OF BONDS Years 14.50 PRESENT VALUE OF GOB PER STUDENT $603.15 PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE GOB TAXES PER STUDENT $2,467.28 ANNUAL SALES TAXES PER STUDENT FOR SCHOOL CAPITAL $243.09 INTEREST RATE ON SALES TAX BONDS 4.3% REMAINING LIFE OF BONDS Years 28 PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE SALES TAXES PER STUDENT $3,914.10 PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE TAXES PER STUDENT $6,381.38 SOURCE: St. Lucie County School District, March 2003. TABLE 7 PAST CREDIT CALCULATION ST LUCIE COUNTY 2001-2002 ACTUAL 2002-2003 BUDGET TOTAL % Federal $190,679 $190,680 $381,359 0.1% Federal through State $763,517 $746,436 $1 509,952 0.5% State $94,348,537 $101,212,363 $195,560,899 60.5% Local $56,388,669 $60,554,874 $116,943 543 36.2% Transfers -In $4,577,678 $4,499,668 $9,077,346 2.8% TOTAL $156,269,080 $167,204,020 $323,473,100 100.0% Percent of Property Tax Revenue From Vacant Land 8.9% Past Payment Credit 3.2% Source: Terms Accounting Reports The formula for the School Impact Fee is: FACILITIES COST PER STUDENT = COST OF NEW SCHOOL CAPITAL FACILITIES / STUDENT CAPACITY LOCAL COST = COST PER STUDENT * STATE PARTICIPATION REVISED TOTAL COST = COST PER STUDENT + (% DEBT * LOCAL COST PV OF INTEREST) St. Lucie County Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Page #8 Draft #1 REVISED LOCAL COST = REVISED TOTAL COST - ((COST PER FACILITIES - STATE PARTICIPATION)) NET LOCAL COST PER STUDENT = REVISED LOCAL COST — OFFSETS FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROPERTY TAXES PER STUDENT OFFSET FOR PAST PAYMENT = 3.2% OF LOCAL COST OFFSET FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAXES = $6,391 PER STUDENT NET COST PER RESIDENCE = NET LOCAL COST PER STUDENT STUDENT OCCUPANCY PER UNIT Table 8a contains the results of applying the parameters set out above to this formula. TABLE 8a EDUCATIONAL IMPACT ST LUCIE COUNTY UNIT TYPE OCCUPANCY TOTAL COST STATE CREDIT LOCAL COST LOCAL CREDIT NET COST Single Family 0.360 $5,905 $231 $5,674 $2,482 $3,192 Mobile Home/ Rec. Vehicle (Park only) 0.197 $3,235 $127 $3,108 $1,360 $1,749 Multi -Family 3 + Stories 0.282 $4,634 $181 $4,453 $1,948 $2 505 Multi -Family 1 & 2 Story 0.282 $4,634 $181 $4,453 $1,948 $2,505 Hotel/Motel - Room 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bed & Breakfast - Room 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All Other Residential 0.360 $5,905 $231 $5,674 $2,482 $3,192 These net cost calculations are substantially more that those of the existing fees. The educational impact fee was last recalculated in 1999. At that time the decision was made not to charge the full fee. Nevertheless, the 1999 calculations show: TABLE 8b ST LUCIE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL IMPACT FEE AS PROPOSED IN 1999 UNIT TYPE OCCUPANCY TOTAL COST STATE CREDIT LOCAL COST LOCAL CREDIT NET COST Single Family 0.363 $5 027 $826 $4,201 $2,742 $1 459 Mobile Home/ Rec. Vehicle (Park only) 0.084 $1,163 $191 $972 $635 $338 St. Lucie County Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Page #9 Draft #1 TABLE 8b ST LUCIE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL IMPACT FEE AS PROPOSED IN 1999 UNIT TYPE OCCUPANCY TOTAL COST STATE CREDIT LOCAL COST LOCAL CREDIT NET COST Multi -Family 3 + Stories 0.267 $3,699 $608 $3,092 $2,018 $1,074 Multi -Family 1 & 2 Story . 0.267 $3,699 $608 $3,092 $2,018 $1,074 Hotel/Motel - Room 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bed & Breakfast - Room 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All Other Residential 0.363 $5,027 $826 $4,201 $2,742 $1,459 TABLE 8c CHANGES 1999 — 2003 TOTAL COST 17.46% STATE CREDIT -72.03% LOCAL COST 35.05% LOCAL CREDIT -9.50% NET COST 118.78% Between 1999 and 2003 — • School construction cost increased by 17.46% • State construction allocations decreased by 72% • Local cost increased by 35% • The local credit decreased by 9.5% • The net cost increased by 119%. Had state funding remained as it had been as of 1999, the net cost schedule would be: 1999 2003 With Constant State Aid 2003 proposed fee — accounting for toss of State Aid Single Family $1,459 $2,597 $3,192 Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $338 $1,684 $1,749 Multi -Family 3 + Stories $1,074 $2,079 $2,505 Multi -Family 1 & 2 Story $1,074 $2,079 $2,505 Hotel/Motel - Room $0 $0 $0 Bed & Breakfast - Room $0 $0 $0 All Other Residential $1,459 1 $2,597 1 $3,192 St. Lucie County Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Page #10 Draft #1 Impact Fee Summary: EDUCATION IMPACT FEES ST. LUCIE COUNTY 2000, 2003 & % CHANGE Current 2003 Proposed % Change from current Single Family ' $800 $3,192 399 % Mobile Home/Rec. Vehicle $182 $1,749 960 % Multi -Family $608 $2,505 412 % Hotel/Motel - Room $0 $0 Bed & Breakfast - Room $0 $0 All Other Residential $800 $3,192 399 % St. Lucie County Page #11 Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 APPENDIX St. Lucie County has a number of age -restricted developments. It is presumed hat there will be more age -restricted units in the future. Age -restricted units could not have an impact on pubic school enrollment. The standard methodology for calculating school impact multipliers, i.e. the number of additional enrollees resulting for the addition of one dwelling unit, is to examine census data. However, census data no not report whether the residence is age -restricted. A study was conducted in St. Lucie County to determine what portion of residential dwellings were age -restricted and then to adjust the school enrollment multipliers so that they reflect the impact characteristics of non -age -restricted units. Table Al shows the age -restricted developments and the number and type of restricted units that existed in 1995. TABLE Al AGE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENTS & UNITS ST LUCIE COUNTY 1995 DEVELOPMENT UNITS TYPE Spanish Lakes -Fairways 1,072 MHP Spanish Lakes-C.C. 1,300 MHP Orchard Acres 78 MHP Tall Pines 287 MHP Whispering Creek 246 MHP Colony Club 60 MHP Rid ecrest 162 MHP Rid ecrest-South 0 MHP Golden Ponds 379 MHP Pleasure Cove 209 MHP Plantation Manor 376 MHP Spanish Lakes 1,387 MHP Spanish Lakes-Riverfront 621 MHP La Buona Vita 188 MHP Savanna Club 479 MHP Spanish Lakes 740 MHP High Point 812 MF The Savannah's 362 MF The Grove 144 MF Palm Grove 73 SF-D Kings Isle 250 SF-D TOTAL 9,224 There were 9,224 age -restricted units. The age -restricted and the total number of units in 1995 are shown in Table A2. St. Lucie County Page #12 Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Draft #1 TABLE A2 AGE RESTRICTED UNITS/ NON -RESTRICTED UNITS ST LUCIE COUNTY --- 1995 RESTRICTED TOTAL NOT RESTRICTED Single Family 322 51,152 50,830 Mobile Home 7,584 12,993 5,409 Multi Family 1,318 19,228 17,910 TOTAL 7,906 83,374 75,468 Table A3 adjusts the school impact multipliers to the ratio of school enrollees from non- age -restricted units and then updates those ratios to 2003. TABLE A3 DWELLING TYPE STUDENTS PER UNIT PROJECTED STUDENTS UNITS NOT RESTRICTED NOT AGE RESTRICTED PER UNIT STUDENTS PER UNIT NOT AGE RESTRICTED PER UNIT 1995 1995 2003 2003 Single Family 0.364 18,619 50,830 0.366 0.358 0.360 Mobile Home/ Rec. Vehicle 0.035 455 5,409 0.084 0.082 0.197 Multi -Family 3 + Stories 0.251 4,826 17,910 0.269 0.263 0.282 Multi -Family 1 & 2 Story 0.251 0.269 0.263 0.282 Hotel/Motel - Room 0.000 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 All Other Residential 0.364 0.366 0.358 0.360 TOTALS 23,900 74,150 1995 enrollment 25,930 1998 enrollment 27,845 2000 enrollment 28,650 2002 enrollment 30,070 2003 enrollment 31,057 Household size base year 2.543 Household size target year 2.483 St. Lucie County Educational Facilities Impact Fee 2003 Update Page #13 Draft #1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ORDINANCE NO. 03-023 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING, ARTICLE V, CHAPTER 1-6.5, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE, ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE AND COMPILED LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 1-6.5 53(9), RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, TO PROVIDE FOR CLARIFICATION OF CORRECT TEXT REFERENCE; AMENDING SECTION 1=6.5-56, FEE SCHEDULE, TO INCREASE THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES >TO ,BE ASSESSED; AMENDING SECTION 1.6 5-57 PAYMENT OF FEESf CREDITS, AMENDING PARAGRAPH (D) TO' REFLECT CORRECT STATUTORY CITATIONS AND BY CREATING;: PARAGRAPH (F) DESCRIBING THE REQUIREMENT FO.R THE PAYMENT OF THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE PRIOR TO THEISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS; AMENDING SECTION 1 6 5 58, USE OF FUNDS, TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE TO BE`RETAINED-BY THE COLLECTING UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT; AMENDING SECTION 1-6.5-59 BY CHANGING THE AMOUNT THE FEE THAT MAY BE RETAINED BY A UNIT OF LOCALGOVERNMENT AND THE SCHOOL BOARD IN THE EVENT.OF REFUND REQUEST; AMENDING SECTION 1-6.5-61, REVIEW, BY AMENDING THE LANGUAGE GOVERNING THE SCHEDULE OF REVIEW FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE AND CREATING SECTION 16 5 62, APPEALS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY, PR' VIDIN.G FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR . EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION, AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. On August 5;1988, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted Ordinance 88-16, imposing an educational facilities impact fee in St. Lucie County. ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition 6!rike THrengk is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft p2 Page 1 Print Date: 07/07/03 2. On February 16, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted Ordinance 93-003, amending the educational facilities impact fee ordinance to account for certain editorial and legislative reference changes. 3. On September 5, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted Ordinance 95-22, amending the fee schedule for imposing an educational facilities impact fee in St. Lucie County. 4. On October 15, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners of St Lucie County, Florida, adopted Ordinance 96-026, amending the fee schedule for imposing an educational facilities impact fee in St. Lucie County. 5. On June 19, 2003, the Local Planning Agency/St Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposod ordinance after publishing two notices in The Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune at lea staen (10) days prior to the hearing and recommended that the proposed ordinance be adopted as drafted. 6. On July 15, 2003, this Board held its #irst public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing m Th"e Tnbune and the Port St. Lucie News on July 1, 2003. 7. On August 19, 2003, this`Board held its second public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing a not' such hearing in The Tribune and the Port St. Lucie;;News on August 5, 2003 9. The- proposed amendments to Article V, Educational Facilities Impact Fees are consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. 36 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie 37 County, Florida: 38 ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition 6MikeT-Hreugh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Page 2 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 PART A. Article V, Chapter 1-6.5, Sections 1-6.5-51 through 1-6.5-61, of the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Law is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE V. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIE Section 1-6.5-51. Short title, authority, (c) This article shall apply opinion of the Florida S Association, Inc 583, (a) This article i Comprehens (b) ;;:The purpose assure that r expenditures Lucie County le' is intended to implement the policies established in Section 235-1-93, Florida Statutes. iucational facilities impact fee to adopt this article pursuant to and Chapter 125 and sections f'the Florida Statutes. [a eas of.St. Lucie, dounty in a manner consistent with the me CQL1rt In St J. h-hs County v. Northeast Florida Builders 2nd 635 (Fla i991). and purposes. (c) and be consistent with the St. Lucie County icle is to regulate the use and development of land so as to opment bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital y to provide educational facilities as contemplated by the St. iensive Plan. ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition Strike T-Fxeugh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Page 3 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 (d) The Florida Legislature through the enactment of Section 163.3202, Local Government 2 Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and Section 3 380.06(16) of the Environmental Land and Water Management Act, Florida Statutes 4 Chapters 163 and 380, respectively, has sought to encourage local governments to 5 enact impact fees as a part of their land development regulation program. 6 7 8 Section 1-6.5-53. Rules of construction. 9 10 (a) The provisions of this article shall be liberally; construed so as tot. arryouteffectively 11 its purpose in the interest of the public health, s..afety, and welfare. 12 13 (b) For the purposes of administration and enforcement of this article, unless otherwise 14 stated in this article, the following rules of construction shall apply to the text of this 15 article: 16 17 (1) In case of any difference cf mea Ain gr implication between the text of this 18 article and any caption, illustration, summarysable, or illustrative table, the text 19 shall control. 20 21 (2) The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary; the word "may" 22 permissive. 23 24 (3) Words usepresenttense shall include the future; the masculine gender 2 5 shall inc(utle tle;feminine and neuter and vice versa; and words used in the 26 singular nurnberslaall include the plural, and the plural the singular, unless the 27 context clearly: indicates the contrary. 28 29 (4) The phrase ....used for" includes "arranged for," "designed for," "maintained for," 30 or "occupied for," 31 32 (5) The word.'.""person" includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an 33 incorporated association, or any other similar entity. 34 35 (6) Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a regulation involves two 36 (2) or more items, conditions, provisions, or events connected by the .............. . ............. 37 'conjunction "and," `or," or "either... or," the conjunction shall be interpreted as 38 follows: ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition 6041te T-#er3gk is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Page 4 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 (i) "And" indicates that all the connected terms, conditions, provisions, or events shall apply. Section 1-6.5-54. Capital costs of educandMI faeUities are expenditures for the acquisition of fixed assets or additionso fae;d :assets and expenditures for site acquisition, construction design, site development, necessary off site improvements, and equipment. A feepayeris a person commencing a land development activity by applying for the issuance of a buddrng permit to construct a residential unit or by applying for an electrical permit for a mobile home or recreational vehicle. Residential unit is any building or structure or portion thereof, or any mobile home or recreational vehicle, .that is designed for or used for residential purposed by a single housekeeping unit. ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition 61filee T+xedgk is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Page 5 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Section 1.6.5-55. Imposition. Any person, after the effective date of this article, seeks to make any improvement to land by applying for a building permit for a residential unit or an electrical permit for a mobile home or recreational vehicle used for residential purposes shall be required to pay an educational facilities impact fee in the amount set forth in this article. No such building or electrical permit shall be issued and until the educational facilities impactfee hereby imposed has been paid pursuant to section 1-6.5-57 of this article. Section 1-6.5-56. Fee schedule. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the following fee schedule. The fees shown on ee3t: Schedule of Educational Facilities Impact Fees Land Use Type ear^-• • -- r-• I Impact Fee per Unit Single Family $9G $800 3 192 Multi -Family $7-1-2 $608 11,749 Mobile HomesPRecreational Vehicles $i29 $}82 2,505 (MHP/RV park6bnly)< $0 $o Other Residential $96r7 $899 3 192 evelopment activity for which a building permit is applied is not schedule, the county administrator shall use the fee applicable to )le type of land use on the above fee schedule. ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition GirikeTlireagh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Page 6 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft R2 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 Section 1-6.5-57. Payment of fees; credits. (a) The person applying for the issuance of a building permit or an electrical permit for a mobile home or recreational vehicle shall pay the fee to the County Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit or an electrical permit for mobile home or recreational vehicle. (b) In lieu of or part of an educational impact fee payable pursuant to. this article, the School Board may accept an offer of a feepayer to dedicate or convey land to the School Board for School sites. If the School.B bard accepts such an offer, it shall so inform the County Administrator, who shall credit the amount indicated by the School Board against the sum otherwise due. Except asprovided in subsection (c) of this section, the fee or portion thereof satisfied by the: dedication or conveyance shall be deemed paid when the dedication or conveyance has occurred pursuant to the following procedure: (1) The delivery to the School Board of a title insurance commitment, to insure the property in a sum to be agreed upon by the. Board. (2) The delivery to the Board of a deed, with sufficient funds to pay all costs of transfer of title includina recordina. (3) The escrow of taxes for the purrent year; pursuant to Section 196.265, Florida Statutes, as the same maybe amended, or the payment of the taxes for the year. (c) Notwithstanding the procedure set forth in subsection (b) of this section, the educational impo fee credit allowed for property that is the subject of an impact fee agreement between the School Board and the feepayer or the feepayer's predecessor in interest shall.be determined as provided in such agreement. (d) Pursuant to.Section 380.06(16)1 Florida Statutes, the value of educational capital facilities required pursuant to a county -or city -approved development order shall be credited against the educational facilities impact fee. ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition FMilee Thferxdh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Page 7 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 (e) Credit for contributions, payments, construction or dedications of the educational facilities impact fee shall not be transferable as a credit against other impact fees for purposes other than for educational facilities. No credit shall exceed the amount due for the educational facilities impact fee. M equity to collect the unpaid fees. Section 1-6.5-58. Use of funds. (a) The funds collected bythe county and mun at least monthly to the St. Lucie County Schc shall be entitled to retain up to but not more collected to compensate them for, he a administering the educational facilities irr (b) The remaining funds solely to meet the ed therein shall be remitted ecting governmental unit LUpercent of the funds ;uses of collecting and School Board shall be spent by new development. (c) The St. Lucie County Board of County,Commtssioners and the School Board will enter appropriate interlocal;agreements between or among themselves and the governing bodes:of the murncipalifres in the`Courity to provide for the collection of fees imposed and to ensure proper use of the funds collected pursuant to this article. Section 1-6.5-59 Refund., of fees paid. (a) If a building perrr�it <ar electrical permit expires, then the feepayer, his heirs, successors, orassigns shall be entitled to a refund of the impact fee paid as a condition for its.j. ssuance, except that the School Board of the county shall retain three } four 4 per cent of the fee to offset the cost of refunding, and the collecting .governmental unit shall retain three (8) four 4 per cent of the fee to compensate for thecost of collection and administration. (b) Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the calendar quarter immediately ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition &N+keT-Hreegh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Page 8 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 following ten (10) years from the date the educational impact fee payment was received shall, upon application of the current ownerwithin one hundred eighty (180) days of the expiration of the ten-year period, be refunded to the current owner by the School Board of the county with interest at the rate of six (6) per cent annum. Section 1-6.5-60. Exemptions. (a) The following shall be exempted from payment of the educational facilities impact fee: (1) Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building where no additional residential unit is created and where :the 'use is not changed. (2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures. (3) The replacement of a residential land use unit with a newunit of the same type and use. (4) The construction of adult -facilities or residential structures in which minors cannot reside because of enforceable land use restrictions. An exemption must be claimed by thefeepayer at the time of the issuance of a building permit or electrical permit'Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed waived by the fewaver. Section 1-6 5-f U U ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition Gifike T-lifedgh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Page 9 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Extension Date) has increased over the Beginning Index, the fee for the following year (until the next Fee Adjustment) shall beset by multiplying the appropriate fee set forth in the schedule above by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Extension Index and the denominator of which is the Beainning Index. U Sectic U U ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition 6H.. —Hrect-. is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Page 10 Print Date: 07/07/03 decision fails to comply with this article. *************************************** 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 the, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance°#o 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 romairnng portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be f napplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, properly, or circumstance. PART D. APPLICABI RDINANCE. t'Lucie County's jurisdiction, including the interlocal agreements with the affected THE`DEPARTMENT OF STATE. )cted forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the e and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition Ste' (aTHreagh Is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Page 11 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Print Date: 07/07/03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Amendments contained in this Ordinance, except Section 1-6.5-56, Fee schedule; shall become effective upon the filing with the Department of State. Commissioner Doug PART H. CODIFIC PASSED AND DULY:I ward' XXX -iall b*;incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled ;e"may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate )rdmance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such that,,.B through H shall not be codified. D this th day of August, 2003. ------------------------------------------------- Underline is for addition Girike Threagh is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Page 12 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Draft #2 Print Date: 07/07/03 ATTEST: DEPUTY CLERK OR03-234(IMPACT2003) DJM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Underline is for addition Slfike�Nreagir is for deletion Ordinance 03-023b Page 13 Educational Facilities impact Fee Draft #2 Print Date: 07/07/03 SUBJECT (OR TITLE): AUTHORITY FOR ACTION: ECONOMIC IMPACT: r /I Agenda Item No. - SCHOOL BOARD MEETING OF August 12thth, 2003 Educational Impact Fee Recommendation. Proposed County Ordinance #03-023 and County Interlocal Agreement This will provide an additional annual $10,897,958 revenue based upon current building permit rate. FUNDING SOURCE: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Purpose: This item is to provide public comment and the board adopt a recommendation on the proposed educational impact fees and forward the school board's recommendation to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration prior to the adoption. The recommendation is based upon the analysis by the St. Lucie County consultant and the impact to the capital needs of the school district. Background: The School Board reviewed the educational impact fees and staff recommendations at the June 13, 2003 special board meeting. The County's consultant calculated the educational impact fee per single family resident at $2,380 per unit. The School Board recommended: Implement the full impact fee of $ 2,380 as calculated by the County's educational consultant. Provide a phasing that: - Implements approximately 50% of the increase on January 1, 2004 raising the fee to $1,600. - Implements the remaining 50% of the increase on October 1, 2004 raising the fee to $2,380. • Work with the TCBA, Chamber of Commerce and other business/trade groups to support additional fund sources recognizing that a portion of the revenue from those sources would apply as a credit against (and therefore reduce the maximum) education impact fee. Since that special board meeting several things have occurred: • The SLC Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission (LPA/P&Z) held a public hearing on the recommended educational impact fees. The Planning and zoning commission recommended that the full impact fee be adopted and with no provisions for phase -in. • Change to impact fee calculations occurred to correct errata and change the discount rate as a result of the recent changes in the discount rates. Revisions to the calculations made by the County's consultant, James Nicholas, PhD. This resulted in a change in the educational impact fee from $2,380 to $3,192. t l (1 • St. Lucie County Board of County Commission (BCC) met on July 15, 2003. Because of the substantial nature in the change in the calculations from the time. the SBSLC and the LPA/P&Z held public hearings and made their recommendations, the BCC has sent the Educational impact fees back to the LPA/P&Z. This will allow the public to provide comments and allow both the School Board and the LPA/P&Z to provide their recommendations on the new fee amount. • The Treasure Coast Builders Association (TCBA) has hired a consultant to review the impact fee study. Staff is working with the TCBA in the review of the impact fee analysis. The consultant's review has not been completed at the time of the preparation of this agenda item. • A common concern based upon the discussion is that the implementation should be phased or delayed so that a home buyer who has completed a loan application does not geta new out of pocket expense between the time that the financing process and the final permit and impact fee is paid. This time has been substantiated by area home mortgage lenders and is established to be from*3-6 months depending upon appraisal, financing and building permit review time. Recommendation: 1. Implement the full impact fee as calculated by the County's educational consultant and ratified by the BCC. Provide a delay in the phase in period to minimize the impact on the industry and home buyers. 2'. Implement the education impact fee increase on February 1, 2004 or such earlier date as area home mortgage lenders substantiate would not cause the disqualification of previously approved borrowers. Proposed/approved by: Approved for Approved as to Form: Oft E. Sanders, P.E., Executive Director for Facilities Services Michael J. ntendent Dan Harrell, School Board Attorney BUILDE11.r 41PVeal J F°C., � Z �A9nN . stUCIE-1N0\PN�� TREASURE COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION David C. Thompson August 20, 2003 President Vernon F. Toulson Local Planning Authority First Vice President St. Lucie County Arlene Brown Ft. Pierce, Florida Second Vice President RE: SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Dennis A. Buford Treasurer Dear Members, George E. Cooper Secretary As the Chairman of the Treasure Coast Builders Associations Governmental Robert Kemper Affairs Committee, I apologize for not being in attendance this evening due Immediate Past President to my traveling out of state. However, I did feel that it is important to relay the associations position and actions relative to the proposed new school Gail Kavanagh impact fees to your committee. Executive Vice President First, as to the actual dollar amount, when the initial consultant's report was amended to correct errors and omissions, our Board of Directors expressed real concern regarding the validity of the entire report. The Board then authorized the hiring of an impact fee consultant, Kirk Sorenson, to provide our members, the School Board and the County an independent review of the methodology and calculations. Unfortunately, this report is not complete at this time. We will, however, provide this report to all interested stakeholders as soon as it is completed. 772/464-8222 Second, in regard to the implementation. date, a delay in the date is essential St. Lucie to prevent new home buyers from paying an unexpected several thousand 772/336-8222 dollars at closing for their new homes. One can not over emphasis the fact St. Lucie/Martin that builders DO NOT pay impact fees, homeowners pay impact fees. As 772/287 7795 builders we are just the conduit for the money. I have attached a time line to Martin show the time delay from signing of a contract to the actual payment of impact fees. This line shows a delay of approximately 144 days. (I.e. 772/562-8222 Contract signed on October 15, 2003 - Impact Fees paid on March 6, 2004). Indian River Why is this timeline important? Most builders have a clause in their contract 772/461-4054 similar to the following. Fax (&�NAHB 6560 South Federal Highway • Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 fibo E-mail: info@treasurecoastba.com Website: www.treasurecoastba.com CODE CHANGES: Any items added to this house due to changes in building codes or changes in enforcement of building codes or by changes in governmental requirements, including but not limited to, impact fees, after the Contract date shall be paid by the buyer at time of closing. This results in the schoolteacher, policemen, factory worker, retail manager all having to come up with additional cash at a time, (closing and moving into a new home), when cash is really in short supply. The School Board understood this unfair burden and voted unanimous for this delay in implementation, realizing that in the short run their would be a loss of funds. This delay is not unique and has been done at every impact fee review. Also, except for homebuyers in the first year of school impact fees, there is NOT one new homebuyer in St. Lucie County who has paid their fair share in school impact fees. By either delaying implementation or by giving a credit, all existing homebuyers were shown some leniency. Thus, the Treasure Coast Builders Association recommends that the LPA follows the lead of the School Board regarding the date of implementation resulting in equal treatment of new and existing residents. Sincerely, Donald Santos Chairman, Governmental Affairs Attachment SCHOOL IMPACT FEE TIMELINE Day 1 (OCT. 15, 2003) Customer signs contract to buy house. Customer signs contract and writes a deposit check. Contract is contingent on mortgage approval for financing home purchase. Customer normally will receive 45 days to apply for and receive a mortgage commitment. Day 45 Customer receives mortgage commitment and builder has a completed contract. Customer proceeds with design changes and color selections, this process usually takes approximately 30 days. Day 75 Customer approved set of redlined plans are turned over to the architect or design professional for completion of final building and engineered plans that will be used for construction. This process takes 21 days on average. Day 86 Completed , approved set of engineered plans are turned over to Truss manufacturer for truss design (required for submission to building department) and A/C Contractor for energy calculations (another requirement of the building permit process). This process takes an additional 21 days. Day 107 Plans and submittals are combined together along with the building permit application for submittal. This process takes 2 days. Day 109 Plans are submitted for building permit and impact fees are calculated. Permit process takes 35 days. Day 144 (MARCH 6, 2004) Permit is ready to pick up along with payment of all fees . St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING August 21, 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. Lounds, Mr. McCurdy, Ms. Hilson and Chairman Merritt. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Trias (Absent 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; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Merritt called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Comtnission/Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS / DISCLOSURES: Mr. Lounds stated that he had conversations with the agency representing Glassman Realty, which is Agenda Item #6. Mr. Hearn, Mr. Akins, Mr. McCurdy, and Mr. Grande each stated that they too had conversations with the representatives for Glassman Realty, Agenda Item #6. Ms. Hammer, Ms. Morgan, and Chairman Merritt each stated that they were approached by the representative for Glassman Realty to meet, but declined to meet with them and had no conversations regarding Agenda Item #6. Ms. Hammer stated that she did have several conversations with community residents regarding the Education Impact Fee ordinance, including the Homeowner's Association where she lives. 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. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 2 • 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. No other announcements or discussion. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — JULY 17, 2003: Ms. Hammer made a motion to approve. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Mr. Grande stated that he believed on page 11, in the second paragraph, the next to the last line; he stated underlying future land use, not zoning. After review of the tapes, the minutes were not changed. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent) — File No. CU-03-011: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Treasure Coast Tractor Services, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a second air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for property located on the south side of Orange Avenue approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed road. She continued that on June 6, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning on a 9.9-acre tract of land, from AG-1 to U for property jointly owned by Treasure Coast Land Clearing and Treasure Coast Tractor Service. She also stated that at the same meeting the Board approved a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a single air curtain incinerator. Ms. Snay stated that on March 10, 2003, the petitioners submitted an application for a lot split of the subject parcel that would take the approximate 40 acres under joint ownership of Treasure Coast Land Clearing and Treasure Coast Tractor Service and split it into two separate 20-acre tracts. She advised that the resultant split would leave just less than 5 acres each of utility -zoned property for each owner and that Section 7.10.12(C)(2) of the County's Land Development Code establishes a minimum lot size for the operation of Land Clearing and Yard Trash recycling operation. She continued that the smallest parcel of which such an activity may be considered is 5 acres and the maximum parcel size for any such facility is 15 acres and that the splitting of the property would, in effect, make both the existing and proposed air curtain incinerator sites non- conforming. She stated that without rezoning additional property, the county couldn't sanction the expansion of this conditional use. Ms. Snay also stated that based upon the local performance record of the current operators and complaints filed with the County, the proposed expansion of this conditional use permit is expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. She advised that within the last few years, since granting the first conditional use permit, the applicant's have been cited numerous times due to excessive smoke and continuous smoke conditions occurring from the burning operation. She continued that the current facility has not met the assurances represented to the Board of County Commissioners to ensure that the facility would not have an undue negative effect on the surrounding properties. She advised that the apparent improper use of this facility, has caused a number of nuisance calls to the County's Code Enforcement Division as well as to the State Division of Forestry and that area residents have also complained directly to the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Snay stated that the State Division of Forestry has issued a number of stop work orders in order for the operation to redesign/rebuild the trenches to meet regulatory standards. On October 1, 2002, the FDEP issued a stop work order due to the operation not having appropriate permits. In addition, on April 7 of this year, due to vegetative stacking a "massive" fire was started by a spark from the pit. 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. Today we received a letter from the County Code Enforcement Division that stated that no active code violations were in effect; staff also received a copy of the applicant's DEP application. No information from the Division of Forestry has been submitted to date. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Snay advised that the proposed conditional use expansion is anticipated to create additional adverse impacts on the natural environment. She stated that the surrounding environment has been impacted by smoke and odors from the existing operation on the subject property. She also stated that in order to ensure that no additional air pollution would result from the second air curtain incinerator being operated on the subject parcel, staff requested that the applicant submit an air quality report using as a baseline the conditions existing in the area prior to the firing -up of the first air curtain incinerator, conditions after the start of the facility and then the project cumulative effects on the operation of the second incinerator at the location. The applicant failed to submit this data, and therefore staff was unable to completely analyze the petition. Staff also request 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. The applicant failed to submit the requested information, and therefore staff was unable to complete the analysis on this petition. Staff finds that the requested expansion to an existing approved Conditional Use Permit does not meet the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and that it is in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the reasons outlined tonight, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Rick Farrell stated that he was the attorney representing the applicant, Treasure Coast Tractor Service. He stated that back in June 2000, the property was rezoned and granted a conditional use permit on this site. He advised that at the time it was anticipated that based on the volume of land clearing debris in St. Lucie County that single air curtain burner would be sufficient. He continued that since then the rate and amount of growth in St. Lucie County has increased significantly and as a result a lot more debris to dispose of. He stated that using the air burner is much more aesthetic, burns material more completely and quickly with a minimal amount of smoke and odor, and more environmentally friendly. He also stated that they believe using an air curtain incinerator is the best of all of the alternatives that exist. He continued that the other alternative would be to mulch it, but in his experience, it is not a profitable venture. He advised that this would not be a viable alternative for his client, even though Treasure Coast Land Clearing is attempting to do some on the site. He stated that it would have some impact on the people in the community, but the best option of those available. Mr. Farrell stated that his client did originally file an application for a lot split with the county based on advice received by his client from the employees of the County. He advised that it is necessary to have a second air curtain incinerator on the property to handle the volume of material. He stated that counsel did not represent his client at the time she originally applied for the lot split and conditional use permit. He also stated that if the property is split, then both sides become non -conforming, and neither side could engage in the business that they do. He advised that they did not want to proceed with a lot split and understand the ramifications of that. He continued that since the property will remain under common ownership, the only thing needed would be to modify the existing conditional use permit to allow for a second air curtain incinerator with the necessary additional equipment. He stated that there have been problems on the site, but that the problems were because it was a start up operation and new type of business. He also stated that the complaints could not be specifically attributed to Treasure Coast Tractor Service. He continued that originally they utilized a trench burner, which is why they had so P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 6 many issues with excessive smoke. He advised that the trench burner was eliminated and an air curtain incinerator was put in its place by Treasure Coast Land Clearing to reduce the amount of emissions. He stated that in the last four months of operation he has no knowledge of any complaint about the air curtain box that is being utilized. He also stated that his client would be utilizing an even more technologically advanced air curtain box that is run with an electric motor rather than a diesel motor, operates at a higher temperature, and costs a lot more money. He continued that his client is willing to do this to make sure this is a minimal impact on the neighbors. He advised that this location is in a relatively unpopulated area of the county in the western area. He stated that in addition to the one burner being operated on the site, there is another one also being operated to the west on the Wynne Ranch, which has not received any complaints. He advised that some of the complaint calls had validity but on at least seven occasions there were complaints that were found by the Department of Forestry to be coming from open fires burning on the ranches and groves in the area, not his clients site. He stated that there was a fire in April, which was a result of learning how to do business. He advised that they have learned that it is necessary to separate the piles by a greater distance. He also stated that Treasure Coast Land Clearing has placed two fire hydrants on site, Treasure Coast Tractor Service has one fire hydrant on site, and if this request is approved, they intend to install a second fire hydrant. He continued that there is also a twelve -inch well that is run by a three- phase pump to provide fire protection to the site and is also a benefit to the Fire Departments in the area. Mr. Farrell stated that there are not any current code violations and anytime there has been a complaint the operators have immediately addressed and resolved it. He also stated that the problems that occurred previously were from learning how to do this business and now that they have learned the complaints have stopped. He advised that there was a representation made by correspondence from the public indicating that the Forestry Department has issued Stop Work orders, which is not true to his knowledge. He continued that there was a situation in 2002 where DEP claimed a permit was necessary, which in a clear reading of the law, shows it is not required. He stated that after several meetings with DEP Treasure Coast Land Clearing did receive a permit. He advised that with respect to Treasure Coast Tractor Service, two employees of the corporation have gone through several weeks of training, are certified in the operation of an air curtain incinerator, and have spent in excess of $116,000 buying the incinerator. He stated they would prefer to operate the second incinerator instead of piling up the debris and burning it openly at different locations throughout the county. He also stated that the staff report states that they are asking for a six-month temporary change to the conditional use permit and is not accurate. He advised that their request is to have a permanent modification of the existing conditional use permit, which is also a permanent conditional use permit. Mr. Farrell stated Treasure Coast Tractor Service originally submitted this application without the assistance of counsel. He continued that if there were any deficiencies in what staff is looking for, they would be willing to provide it. He advised that there is not an air quality report for the operation of the existing air curtain incinerator because Treasure Coast Land Cleaming operates it and was not provided to them. He stated that he believes they provided the County with a drawing showing where this air curtain would be located on the site. He also stated that the certifications of training completion and the DEP permit were also provided to the County. He continued that according to DEP, they don't care if there are two air curtain incinerators on site because they feel the site is appropriate. He stated that the only entity concerned with the number of incinerators on the site would be the County as a result of this conditional use permit. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 7 Chairman McCurdy questioned how the ash is disposed of on the site. Mr. Farrell stated that there is ash on site, which is removed from the box by a backhoe daily. He continued that he is not sure what Treasure Coast Land Clearing does with their ash. He advised that another client of his spreads their ash on agricultural property because it has significant beneficial impacts. He also stated that in the literature that came from the manufacturer of one of the incinerators it comments on the desirability of the ash as a soil amendment for agricultural purposes. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the ash is currently being stored on site or removed. Mr. Ed Becht stated that the ash is not being stored on site. Chairman McCurdy stated in the original proposed split would have made both lots non -conforming and wondered if changing the line of the split would have resolved that issue. Mr. Farrell stated that they have 9.9 acres of Utilities zoned property and if they split it in two, one of them would not have the required minimum of five acres. He continued that doing that would mean that one of the two would therefore be put out of business. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Ms. Cyndi Adams stated that she lives two miles west of the site and has written several letters. She stated that BP Technologies mulches and removes all of the land debris everyday, so none of it ends up in the St. Lucie County land fill. She also stated that both applicants signed a petition for a rezoning in April of 2000, in which they stated they would obtain DEP permits. She advised that the Conditional Use Permit also stated they would obtain DEP permits, which they never did. She continued these applicants were notified by the County many times that there were complaints, which only helped for a couple of days, sometimes 24 hours a day. She stated that Mr. Wynne's operation is a 9.9-acre utility site that is encompassed within 4000 acres and only has one company utilizing his site. She also stated that on Sunday, June 1, 2003 at 8:15 p.m. there was smoke coming from their pit. She advised that there was also smoke coming from the pit tonight, but both gates were locked. She continued that the new machine has made a world of difference but it is not perfect. She stated that there are many people who have driven by the site through very thick smoke, not during the initial start-up period of three minutes. She advised that there is a smell from this burning on this site. She stated that Leo Codero, the Solid Waste Manager, told her that they don't use air curtain incinerators because of too many complications. She also stated that there are too many variables that affect the performance of the machine; weather conditions, wet vegetation, dirt on the vegetation, operator handling. She continued that these variables would generate more smoke, which would affect them. She advised that Ken Burg and Mark Ewington, from West Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority, stated that when they had them in Palm Beach County, the Health Department, Fire Department, DEP, as well as the Solid Waste Authority strictly regulated them. She continued that they advised they don't use them anymore because of all of the variables. She stated that Patrick Graham from Martin County landfill stated that the operational requirements are too strict and not efficient enough of an operation to work properly. She also stated that there are no air curtain incinerators in Martin County and that St. Lucie County is the only county in the entire southeast district that has permanent air curtain incinerator sites. She advised that she received an email on August 13 from Locks Monotawum, the air program engineer for DEP in Palm Beach that gave her the name of a facility that was operating an air curtain incinerator. She stated that it was Indian Trail Improvement District Facility, but when she called and spoke w/ AJ from DEP, she was told it was used by the SFWMD when they need to dispose of vegetation. She also stated that they advised it is only used on an as needed basis, which could be several months in between. She continued that in September 2002 she advised that Mr. Wynne's request was a very special circumstance with very strict conditions and that they would oppose any other requests for incinerators on Orange Avenue. She stated that she was told that Mr. and Mrs. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 8 Vickers spoke with Ray Wazny and one of the Commissioners about buying the second incinerator. She was advised that they told the Vicker's not to buy the second incinerator but they did anyway. She continued that their family has always tried to be good neighbors but air pollution is something they don't want to be exposed to. She advised that there are twenty-one companies listed in the yellow pages under land clearing and if half of them come forward with a request for air curtain incinerators, would they grant all of these utility -zoning changes all over the county. She stated that all of this can be properly done out at the landfill. She also stated that it may be more expensive than what these applicants want to pay, but everyone else pays their fair share. She advised that Mr. Vickers has other options because he could mulch the debris, have Mr. Talley burn it for him, or they can go before a mediation judge. Mr. Grande questioned how far Ms. Adams was from the Wynne site. Ms. Adams stated that their property is approximately 4 miles down the road. Mr. Grande questioned if her opinion was that the two operations were run very differently. Ms. Adams confirmed that there have never been any problems with the Wynne site, so yes, their operations were like night and day. Mr. Mike Adams stated that he resides at 25501 Orange Avenue and had sent his letter in previously to indicate his opposition to a second air curtain incinerator. He also stated that they already have a second incinerator on the site, but are only permitted through the County for one. He advised that the second incinerator might also be in operation. He continued that there seems to be some internal problems between the two owners since they established the one site together. He advised that they are now trying to run two separate businesses out of the one site. He stated that he is concerned about who is going to regulate these incinerators and try to determine which of the two, which are on the same site, are the violators. He also stated that there were already issues in the beginning about who was supposed to be the governing authority over these issues and is very concerned about a second incinerator. He advised that DEP does not have the staff to regulate these sites and the County has not been providing over site for them either. He continued that the difference with this site is that they burn 5 days a week, but with other agricultural permits, you have to get the permit from the Forestry Department. He stated that they are very strict with issuing the permits and take into account many other factors before issuing them. He also stated that with this site, they are allowed to burn at any time, regardless of the weather conditions. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Adams burned his pastures in the springtime. Mr. Adams confirmed that they do some burning, but must call to get a burn permit. He also stated the Forestry Department checks the weather to be sure everything is conducive and they must also do fire control suppression. Mr. Rick Farrell stated that he would like to address some of the issues raised during the public comment. He advised that Ms. Adams attributed a fire that was burning over the weekend to their pit, which is exactly what he was trying to point out earlier. He continued that the fire that was burning all night long over the weekend was open burning at the corner of Sneed Road and Orange Avenue, not their site. He stated that Ms. Adams stated that BP Technologies mulches all of the land clearing debris, but they don't have the capacity to handle all of the land clearing debris that the county generates. He also stated that when they met with the County they discussed that issue and if all of the land clearing companies showed up at the landfill, they would not be able to handle it. He continued that this is one of the oldest, largest, and most responsible companies in the land clearing business in St. Lucie County. He advised that the statement that all of the debris can be taken to the landfill and be mulched is not accurate. He P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 9 also stated that he is offended that those with a certain name can come in and get consent and approval for what they want, but those without that name are denied. He advised that this should not be a "good old boy" community or system where you get things based on who you are and how long you have been here, or who you know. He continued that it should be based upon what is right, appropriate, and what the law provides for. He stated that it is appropriate for this debris to be burned and the only issue to decide is where to burn it appropriately. He also stated that St. Lucie County would not operate an air curtain incinerator at the landfill. He continued that they are asking for an opportunity to do this the right way. Ms. Hammer stated that the staff report consistently states that information was requested from the applicant but never provided. She questioned Mr. Farrell as to why his client did not provide the information that was requested. Mr. Farrell stated that he believes that everything that was requested has been submitted, but was not all submitted at the time of application. He stated that Staff had also received some additional information yesterday or today to supplement what had been requested. He also stated that an attorney, land planner, did not provide the original application or professional, it was submitted by the Vickers their selves. He again stated that he believed all of the items requested had been provided and the staff report was prepared prior to receiving the requested information. Chairman McCurdy stated that Mr. Farrell's implication regarding the members of this board's integrity with regard to certain families was inappropriate. Mr. Farrell apologized stating that he was not trying to impugn the integrity of this board. He also stated that his comment was not directed to this board, it was directed more towards the statement of Ms. Adams. He continued that what he meant was that if you are Matthew Wynne and want to do it, it is okay, but if you aren't it's not. He advised that he knows this board reviewed all of the issues and concerns with the previous requests the same as this one. He stated that he would not imply they were not doing their job to the best of their ability and was only addressing the inference created by Ms. Adams. Ms. Hilson questioned what Mr. Wynne has done on his property more appropriately to be acceptable with the neighborhood than what the Vickers' has not done. Mr. Farrell stated that there isn't anything different that he is aware of. He advised that the location of the incinerator is a mile from the road or the nearest property line, so it is a bit more isolated. He continued that in terms of operation, it is operated the same way. Mr. Akins questioned staff if there is any requested information that has still not been provided by the applicant as of this date. Ms. Snay confirmed that they still had not received an air quality report, the site plan showing specifically where the burner was going to be placed, and information regarding the specific burner. She also stated that they had not received an issued DEP permit, only a copy of the application for the permit and the training certificates for the two employees. Mr. Farrell stated that there are no air quality reports, none exist, and none are required by DEP. He also stated that their DEP permit was hand delivered to Mr. Wasny's office several months ago. Ms. Doris Vickers of Treasure Coast Tractor Service, 1210 Pulitzer Road, stated that she faxed everything that she thought was needed. She also stated that she didn't realize they were missing anything else until they were faxed a copy of the staff report on Monday. She continued that she thought that the eleven sheets she faxed over today were everything that was requested. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Hearn stated that it is compelling to him that so many people's lives are disrupted by the activities of others in their neighborhood. He questioned if there was a way that one of the conditions could be that if the conditional use permit is granted the business could be shut down for being a continuous nuisance. Mr. Murphy stated that there is already an area in the conditional use provisions of the Land Development Code regarding monitoring and also giving the Board the ability to revoke the permit. He advised that there is also the ability to add any reasonable limiting condition within the application if they feel it is necessary, but the enforcement provisions are already there within the Code. Mr. Hearn questioned if there could be a time limitation added to ensure long periods of time don't pass before the business is shut down for violations. Ms. Young stated that the County would not be able to permanently shut it down immediately, but there may be possibilities of temporary injunctions while they go through the process. Mr. Ed Becht stated that DEP has the authority to shut them down on the spot for violations. He also stated that many people have made complaints, but they believe that not all of the complaints were valid from their particular site. He advised that there is a testing program that Treasure Coast Land Clearing employees have gone through to get certification for testing the smoke to verify the air curtain incinerator is operating within the specified limits. Mr. Akins questioned again if the applicant had satisfied all of the requests made by Staff of them. Ms. Snay stated they have still not provided were the air quality report, a site plan depicting the location, the specs on what type of burner they would be using, and details on how the site would be operated. Mr. Murphy advised that if an air quality report is not available the Board of County Commissioners could still reserve the right, if there is a compelling enough reason to do so, to require one to be done. He stated that it might not be required by DEP, but the Board of County Commissioners could require one be done. He advised that the applicants have indicated that none exists because none has been required by an outside agency. Mr. Grande stated that he could not understand why the applicant chose not to provide the specs on a piece of equipment that has already been purchased and is on the site. Ms. Cyndi Adams stated that one of the conditions of the original conditional use permit were that the gates on the property be locked. She provided pictures for the Board to review from several occasions this year where she took photographs of the property not being locked. Ms. Morgan questioned if the idea of the incinerator was to increase the burn and lessen the smoke. Chairman McCurdy stated that the hotter the temperature, the less smoke there is emitted. Ms. Morgan questioned if there are other land clearing companies bringing their debris to this site. Mr. Murphy stated that as far as they are aware there are two separate companies operating on this one site, Treasure Coast Land Clearing and Treasure Coast Tractor Service. He also stated that they are bringing their own material into the site and are not bringing or receiving materials from any other land clearing operators. He continued that the compound has a ridge or dividing line for the two operations, one operates on the east side and the other operates on the west side. Ms. Morgan questioned if the companies would be able to burn at the individual sites they were clearing if they could not burn on their property. Mr. Murphy stated they usually would not be able to burn on the individual sites. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 11 Ms. Morgan questioned where all of the land clearing debris would go if this operation were not able to be in business. Mr. Murphy stated that the only other option available would be the County landfill through their recycling and mulching program. Mr. Lounds questioned if the site has a flow -well and if they do is the pressure enough to put a fire out before it gets out of control. Mr. Farrell stated he did not believe it was a flow -well. Mr. John Talley, owner of Treasure Coast Land Clearing, stated that they have a three-phase pump with 400 pounds of pressure. Mr. Lounds questioned where the pump is located on the property and what the white residue is on the property. Mr. Talley stated that it is coquina rock base. Mr. Lounds questioned how long it would take to burn the entire site clean if they didn't bring any more material in right now. Mr. Becht stated that they are not just burning the debris they are also mulching it. Mr. Lounds asked how long it would take for them to entirely clear the site of all debris, by mulching or burning, or any other means. Mr. Talley stated it would take them approximately 30 days. Mr. Lounds questioned if the air curtain incinerators are run by a diesel engine or by electric with the diesel engine being backup power unit for it. Mr. Talley advised that his one air curtain incinerator is run by a diesel engine. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing. Ms. Morgan questioned if the applicant had stated that they wanted to change their request from a temporary use to a permanent one. Mr. Murphy stated that the purpose of the conditional use application was to modify the original one to allow for the operation of a second air curtain incinerator. He continued that currently their permit only allows for the use of one burner on the property. He advised that previously there was a rotation of burning where one side burned on one day and the other company burned on another day. He continued that if approved this conditional use permit would essentially allow the operations to continue with the operation of a second independent burner so that Treasure Coast Tractor Service would work on one side of the property and Treasure Coast Land Clearing would work on the other. Ms. Morgan stated that they would be operating two separate independent businesses on the one site. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Ms. Morgan stated that the packet stated that it was a temporary request for a maximum of six months. Mr. Murphy stated that was the original request by the applicant, prior to having legal counsel, but believes their counsel had stated this evening that they would like it permanent instead. Mr. Lounds stated that when the original application came before them several years ago he believed this was the appropriate place for this because it was outside of the urban area in western St. Lucie County. He also stated that he believes there have been some wrongdoings in the stewardship of the land for this. He advised that they got started off on the wrong foot and it has never been corrected. He continued that they have not been operating it properly from the beginning and would hesitate to allow a second one when the first one isn't operated properly. He stated that there was other air curtains that have been operated around the county without issues and no one even knew they were there. He also stated that air curtains that are operated properly are a very efficient way to dispose of the land clearing debris. He continued that he would be in favor of having the companies come back for this request after they have cleaned up the mess and operate their one existing burner without complaints. He stated that he believes there could even be some drainage issues on the property that have not been addressed. He also stated that he could not vote favorably upon this request until they clean up the mess they currently have on the property. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Grande stated that when the applicants came for the initial conditional use permit all of these questioned were raised and they were assured that they knew this business, knew the equipment, and there would not be any problems or issues. He continued that virtually every problem that had been reported relating to this operation relates to a topic that came up at that meeting and they were assured would not happen. He stated that this operation has not operated effectively since its inception and the track record of this firm has caused problems for others seeking the same type of operation in the county. He also stated that another company that did finally receive approval proved that these types of operations can be run correctly and a benefit to the county. He advised that they could not support a second burner for this operator until they run for at least a year without a complaint and bring the current operation up to the standard of the other company in the county. He continued that this operator might have an unfair disadvantage because they are further east than the Wynne operation and may be in the wrong place. Mr. Lounds questioned if the applicants would be willing to clean up the two sites so that there is no more than two or three days worth of debris piled up on the site at any one time. He stated he would like to see the families clean the site up and show that they are capable of doing what they should be doing. Ms. Hammer stated that she has real concerns when staff requests items and the applicants aren't willing to work with staff to provide that information or request more time to obtain the information. She also stated that she is concerned that the attorney now announces that they are not asking for a temporary six-month permit but a permanent one. She continued that the smoke from burning affects anyone with allergy problems and becomes a detriment to your way of life. She advised that if the applicant can get their act together, get it cleaned up, and operate without violation there may be some hope, but currently she would not support this expansion. 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 11.07.03, 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 TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a second air curtain incinerator on property located on the south side of Orange Avenue, approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed Road in the U (Utilities) Zoning District because there is a track record based on their first incinerator that does not indicate that a second incinerator would be handled better and their application does not contain the proper supporting documentation as requested by the staff. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Mr. Lounds questioned if the applicants would be able to dispose of the remaining debris on the site if this request is denied. Ms. Young explained that this petition is only for a second incinerator and would not affect the first incinerator that was previously approved. Mr. Farrell stated that Treasure Coast Land Clearing operates the existing incinerator on the site. He continued that this request was for Treasure Coast Tractor Service to be able to operate their own incinerator separately because the capacity of land clearing debris that is generated is more than the one air curtain incinerator and mulching operations of Treasure Coast Land Clearing can accommodate. He stated that the material that is on the Treasure Coast Tractor Service side of this property couldn't be disposed of in the original burner because that is used exclusively for P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 13 debris generated by Treasure Coast Land Clearing, which is why they wanted the second incinerator. He also stated that there is difficulty with having only two to three days worth of debris on the site because there is a requirement that this material must sit and dry for 30 or 35 days before it can legally be burned. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 6-1 (Ms. Morgan voting against and Mr. Merritt abstaining) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 14 j AGENDA ITEM 3: KENNETH F. LOWE, JR. — File No. RZ-03-027 / PUD-03-018: This item was requested to be continued to the September 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Staff will re -advertise and re -notice the item for that meeting. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 15 AGENDA ITEM 4: DALE T. MOSHER — File No. RZ-03-024: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items # 4 & # 5 were the applications 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 and the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a commercial plant nursery (landscaping & horticultural services). He stated that several months prior they had reviewed this petition and had recommended that the Board of County Commissioners grants approval. He continued that when it was heard before the Board of County Commissioners there was not a full board present but the three members that were present had voted to not recommend approval. He advised that they instead requested to send it back to staff and through the process again to see if the applicant's request could be achieved. He stated that the concern was that if it was simply rezoned to AR-1 without any limiting conditions there could be some problems if the applicant changed their mind and decided to do something else that may be permitted or an accessory use in the new zoning. He also stated that staff reviewed the information and could interpret that the horticultural and landscaping services to address what was addressed at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. He continued that staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation of approval for the Change in Zoning and the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of operating a commercial plant nursery. Mr. Hearn questioned how this request is different from what they had previously heard. Mr. Murphy explained that the previous item was only a rezoning and any of the uses allowed as an accessory or permitted would be allowed on the property without any future review. He continued that it was represented that there should be a more narrowly focused petition. He stated that the conditional use permit would allow reasonable limiting conditions to be placed on the property and affecting the proposed use of the property. Mr. Hearn stated that if the property were zoned to AR-1 then the accessory uses would not be permitted. Mr. Murphy stated that they could still be permitted on the property but the representations made to them were that the conditional use process would limit that. He also stated that there were some discussions about doing a planned unit designation on this property but staff did not feel this was within the scope of the planned unit designations. He continued that the Board wanted to have some degree of assurance that the representations of the applicant were going to be followed through with some reasonable certainty. Mr. Hearn stated that he has known the applicant since he was a little boy and that it is horrible that he has been held up from doing this project. He also stated that he will probably vote for this petition but still feels very uncomfortable with the fact that the property could be used for things that could be very detrimental to the residential neighborhood surrounding the property. Ms. Hammer stated that she believed that previously the applicant had stated that there would not be greenhouses on the property but the report states that the request is for greenhouses. Mr. Dale Mosher stated that there would be in ground plants, possibly in containers, but no greenhouses. Ms. Hammer questioned if they could make a condition of the approval that there would be no greenhouses. Ms. Young confirmed that could be one of the conditions. Mr. Mosher stated they are just trying to get their nursery going by using the best method possible to accomplish that. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 16 Mr. Larry Cabanoff stated that he owns the property directly across Rodgers Road that fronts the 200-foot frontage of the proposed nursery. He advised that he bought his property with the sole intent of putting his single-family home on it. He continued that he chose this property to build on because of the zoning that surrounds it. He stated that the area has a rural feel enhanced by the lack of commercial development in the immediate area. He also stated that the reality of a commercial nursery is that along with that comes compost heaps, fertilizer, insecticides, chemicals, heavy equipment, tractor -trailers, and other heavy trucks loading and unloading early in the morning and throughout the day. He advised that there are inevitable smells, noises, and chemical pollution associated with running a commercial nursery. He continued that the entrance of his driveway would be directly across from the 200-foot frontage of the proposed nursery. He stated that this property is within the urban service boundary and the Comprehensive Plan discourages the location of productive agricultural uses in the urban service boundary. He also stated that taking a 9 1/2 acre parcel and making it unavailable for RS-3 zoning removed the possibility of putting a number of homes on the same site or on vacant land nearby. He advised that the loss of future housing within the urban service area forces the future homeowners to seek housing outside of the urban service area therefore encouraging urban sprawl. He continued that the staff report states that the proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties but he disagreed. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that he doesn't believe that by doing this it limits the applicant to having only a commercial nursery on the property. He advised that he is very concerned about some of the items allowed as accessory uses on the property under the requested zoning. He advised that he doesn't believe that if they approve the change in zoning they would be able to prevent the present or any future owners from doing something that is an accessory use and could be detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Young stated that there are two petitions being reviewed, the first for the change in zoning and the second one, which limits it to a commercial nursery. She continued that the accessory uses are possible but the conditional use permit would limit the actual agricultural operation to a commercial plant nursery. Mr. Grande stated that if they grant the change in zoning and then grant the conditional use permit for the nursery he is afraid that if the owner chooses not to implement the nursery listed in the conditional use his options he could fall back to anything available under the AR-1 zoning. He continued that he believes the conditional use permit does not force him to use it only for that use, but that use can be used if they comply with the conditions. He stated that he believes the applicant would still be able to use it for any other use within the zoning if it is not the use covered by the conditional use. Mr. Murphy stated that there is only three permitted uses in the AR-1 zoning district. Mr. Grande stated that their concern is with the allowed accessory uses under the proposed zoning. Mr. Murphy stated that if they wish to add reasonable limiting conditions that specifically state that the accessory uses listed in the AR-1 zoning could not be done on the property that may ease the concerns. He continued that by doing this it would limit the applicant to anything that is permitted and what the conditional use permit allows, but not any of the accessory uses. Mr. Akins questioned if it is possible to add a reverter clause to this stating that if the property is no longer used for the conditional use purpose it would revert back to the original zoning. Ms. Young stated that once the change in zoning is granted it stays with the property as long as it P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 17 meets the conditions imposed with it. Mr. Murphy stated that would be the case unless there was a positive action taken by another party or the County to change it back, it cannot be automatic. Mr. Hearn stated that his understanding of a rezoning is that there cannot be any conditions attached to it. Ms. Young stated that was correct and was why there was a conditional use application too. Mr. Hearn stated that he believed any attorney could successfully argue that once you change the zoning you cannot place a condition on that rezoning that limits the accessory uses on that property. He questioned if there was any way to put a conditional use permit on the RS-3 zoning that would allow Mr. Mosher to operate his commercial nursery. Mr. Murphy stated that was not possible. He also stated that they are not asking to put conditions on the rezoning, only upon the conditional use permit. Chairman Merritt questioned if the conditional use permit followed the rezoned property or only the owner of the property. Mr. Murphy stated that the conditional use permit would be on the land, not the owner exclusively. 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 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, because the planned use for the land to be covered by a subsequent conditional use is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and will be a positive impact on the community. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 6-2 (with Mr. Hearn and Mr. McCurdy voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM 5: DALE T. MOSHER — File No. CU-03-015: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items # 4 & # 5 were the applications 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 and the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a commercial plant nursery (landscaping & horticultural services). Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. 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 11.07.03, 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 Dale T. Mosher for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a commercial plant nursery (landscaping & horticultural services) in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District with three conditions. Because with the inclusion of these four conditions, this should be a benefit to the community. 1. No greenhouses on the property. 2. The property will not be eligible for accessory uses A — D as listed in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District definition in the Land Development Code. 3. No commercial access on Rogers Road. 4. A twenty-five foot setback for any commercial activities from Rogers Road frontage. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. 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 August 21, 2003 Page 19 AGENDA ITEM 7: ORDINANCE 03-005 — PUD REOUIREMENTS/OPEN SPACE STANDARDS: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was to consider Draft Ordinance 03-005 amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by amending the Open Space Standards for Planned Unit Developments, to provide for Clarification of Standards applicable to areas of the unincorporated county with a future land use designation of Agricultural, Residential and Mixed Use and by creating new Paragraph K, Clustering of Development for Planned Unit Developments. He continued that these proposed revisions were intended to address certain unintentional conflicts that exist between the County's Land Development Code Regulations and the County's Comprehensive Plan Development Policies effecting non-agricultural activities in the western areas of the County. Mr. Murphy stated that Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2.2 and 1.1.2.3 were originally placed into the Plan as a part of a settlement agreement in 1991 between the State of Florida and St. Lucie County to have the Plan now be considered "in compliance". He advised that when the County Commission first adopted a Unified Land Development Code for the County in 1990, they developed minimum open space standards that were applicable to all Planned Unit Developments. He stated that when these standards were first created, the term common open space was not specifically defined in the Land Development Code. Instead, the term "open space" was defined and the application of the word "common" was left to an individual, and sometimes subjective, understanding of the term. He also stated that there were recently some concerns expressed to the County Commission over how the term "common open space" was being interpreted by the County in regard to Planned Unit Developments in the agricultural areas of the community. Mr. Murphy stated that Draft Ordinance 03-005 provides for a series of variable standards in regard to agricultural open space requirements based upon the size of the parent parcel. He advised that all AG PUD's, regardless of size, are required to set aside a minimum of 50% of their gross site areas as open space. He continued that 35% of that 50% gross area is to be set aside as common open space. However, at the option of the County Commission, it may be possible for someone to "buy-out" the required common open element on parcels with a gross acreage of 40 acres or less. He stated that the basic requirement of 50% open space in these instances would still apply, but that open space could be held individually as opposed to common interest. Mr. Murphy stated that in addressing Policy 1.1.2.2 of the County's Comprehensive Plan, new paragraph K addresses clustering of development areas in a Planned Unit Development. He advised that after review of several general planning and project design documents it indicated a variety of definitions for the term "clustering". He continued that all of them have the same general theme, that being, clustering is considered to be the concentrating of development units or activities in a manner that provides for the highest utilization of the land area under development but with a minimum of new infrastructure development resulting in lower land development costs. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward a recommendation of consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan and that Draft Ordinance 03-005 be approved. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 21 Mr. McCurdy questioned if the common open space requirement is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated it is not. Mr. McCurdy stated that by instituting common open space they are in essence instituting a taking of a portion of the parcels and could cause serious problems. Mr. Grande stated that he feels this is being over complicated. He advised that the owners groups made a logical presentation based on the fact that clustering that is designed for a more urban area might not make sense in the western portion of the county. He continued that clustering was originally designed to give shorter utility runs most of that does not apply to the kind of development that would occur out west. He stated that clustering outside of the urban service boundary should be treated differently and should have its own definition for those areas. He also stated that they should be learning from the mistakes made in development over the past years. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Jerry James stated that he is a member of the Ad -Hoc Committee that has been working for close to a year to address these issues. He stated that he believes there is someone at the County Commission level who is directing Staff with a hidden agenda. He also stated that they came up with very simple recommendations with regards to this ordinance and is having no luck getting their recommendations voted upon. He continued that the Local Planning Agency previously voted in favor of their recommendations but the County Commission did not vote and sent it back to them again. He advised that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to delete Policy 1.1.2.2. regarding the 4-unit PUD threshold. He stated that in lieu of the deletion, the existing land use categories found in Chapter 1, Pages 23-25 of the Comprehensive Plan should remain in place and control PUD threshold under the following existing language. "All residential development proposals in excess of 10 units must be approved through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process as provided for in the Land Development Regulations." Mr. James also stated that the existing Comprehensive Plan future land use designation for Agricultural 2.5 contained on page 1-25 of the Comprehensive Plan should remain unchanged. He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan 1.1.2.3 sub section (c) should be deleted because it conflicts with their recommendations. He continued that common open space as presently defined under county codes, building codes, and Comprehensive Plan s be exempt and deleted from those areas of the County with a future land use of AG - 2.5 and AG - 5. He stated that they feel the presently defined "open space" should continue unchanged. He also stated that unit or parcel clustering under Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan PUD requirements should be exempt as a mandatory development requirement for those areas of the county designated AG - 2.5 and AG - 5. Mr. James stated that he also doesn't feel that the buyout options are appropriate because it requires someone to basically buy their property twice. He continued that he finds these ordinances offensive and thinks all property owners feel that way. He also stated that he believes the buyout options are illegal as well. He advised they would like to move forward in a very simple direction, which is why their committee drafted their three-point recommendation. He stated that they were unable to get the Commission to vote and is now back before the Local Planning Agency for review again. He advised that they would like to propose their own ordinance, which is as follows: Policy land Policy 1.1.2.3 C are found to be in conflict with other future land use designations and are deleted from the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. County Staff shall immediately undertake and expedite all necessary actions to finalize this P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 22 amendment with all appropriate Regional and State Jurisdictions. 7.01.03 Standards and Requirements A through H have no change. Section LA should read: All residential development of lands within future land use designation of agriculture shall be exempt from open space, common open space, and clustering provisions of the code. He continued that clustering is an urban concept and living on five or ten acres is a rural concept, so they don't belong together. Mr. Grande stated he believes they are asking them not to support Draft Ordinance 03-005, but isn't sure what the next step should be if they do that. He stated that they have been presented an alternative ordinance by them on the spot but doesn't think it is right for them to vote on supporting something they had just received tonight. He suggested that they should vote to not support 03-005 but would like to have the Ad -Hoc committee work with Staff to bring forward a new revised ordinance, which addresses their points. Mr. Lounds stated that Mr. James' ordinance that he presented tonight is just a condensed version of what they had reviewed several months previously. He questioned what triggers the PUD process under Mr. James' recommendations. Mr. James stated that under their proposal any development in excess of ten dwelling units would require a PUD. Mr. Lounds questioned what the problem is with having common open space. Mr. James stated that usually common open space has been utilized for condos, multi -family developments, zero lot line areas, higher density, and low land areas. He advised that property owners associations usually administer the parks and recreation of these types of facilities. Mr. Lounds questioned if the buy-out is an option and not mandatory. Mr. Murphy confirmed that it is a proposed option. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned with the exemption from open space is concerning the percentage of land that can be built on. Mr. James explained that they are not asking for that portion to be changed. He stated that he means they would be exempt from the open space requirements of the PUD. Mr. Jeff Furst stated that he is the property appraiser for St. Lucie County. He stated that he has had quite a few foreclosures on agricultural land and that time is an issue with regards to these matters and his not being able to give the exemptions. He advised that all of the uncertainty is causing a problem with investors and making agricultural development more difficult. He continued that there needs to be answer for those people who want to go out and live on ten, twenty, or more acres in a rural setting. He also stated that the agricultural people were here long before the developments and they need to have answers. He stated that there is nothing wrong with a large development with people owning large tracts because that is what people want to own today. He continued that a PUD on a small tract of land would cost more money to develop than they would get back out of it. He advised that he came here in 1970 because of the rural nature of the area but had some regrets about changing the area originally. He stated that they have an opportunity to reserve some of the west and north by not doing what was done in South Florida. He also stated that the only way to stop this is to allow reasonable rural possibilities. He advised the Ad -Hoc committee spent a lot of time since January and they were projecting to have this resolved by June. He stated that they had a simple recommendation by that time but nothing has been finalized by the County Commission yet. He also stated that they thought their three simple recommendations would be able to help start the process and send it to the State for the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He continued that no one understood the ordinance as it was previously written, which is why they decided to try and write their own in the simplest of terms. He advised that if the State were the one saying they needed to modify their P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 23 suggestions, they could understand that but they cannot get to that point yet. He continued that people who want to buy agricultural land would not buy it if you require that they must give a portion of it to another group. He stated that there aren't enough people to take care of the publicly owned lands let alone to take care of rural common areas in developments. He also stated that this is the best that can do and if this isn't want the county wants they should alter it and give them some resolution. Mr. Murphy stated this issue should be resolved as soon as possible. He stated that Staff recommends that they make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners with regard to Draft Ordinance 03-005, as amended, revert back to original language, or incorporate Mr. James' suggestions into it. Mr. Grande stated it is impractical for them to vote on Mr. James' proposed ordinance tonight because he doesn't feel they have had enough time to thoroughly review it and understand it. Chairman Merritt stated that he believes there should be a vote on both proposals. Mr. Hearn stated that he is still struggling with the term "exempt from open space" that is used in Mr. James' ordinance. He continued that he fully agrees with the suggestions regarding common open space and clustering but doesn't know why the exemption needs to be in there. Mr. James stated that they concede that there is no problem with open space as it is presently defined in the code. Mr. Hearn stated that he still doesn't understand why the exempt from open space has to be included in the ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that he believed that is conflicting the other statements and Mr. Hearn is concerned about that term could create the potential for a conflict. Mr. James stated he agreed that it should read "exempt from common open space" rather than just open space and would not have an objection to that change. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn made a motion to deny Draft Ordinance 03-005 as it is currently written. Mr. Hearn made a motion to recommend the insertion of the language that is in Mr. James' proposed ordinance in its place with the deletion of the wording of open space that is in 1A. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Mr. Grande stated that he would be voting against this motion because he supports the denial of the ordinance as it currently is but he believes the right thing to do would be to take Mr. James' proposed ordinance and send it back to Staff with the instruction that they format a new ordinance and the explanatory documents needed. He continued that he doesn't believe they are in a position tonight to understand what the impact of such things, such as two deletions from the Comprehensive Plan. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Grande voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 24 AGENDA ITEM 8: ORDINANCE 03-023 — EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES: 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 March 1, 2004. 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 $16,000 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 $3,192, per single family home, in meeting our facility obligations to address new community growth. Mr. Murphy stated that since the June review of the material by the Local Planning Agency, there have been several refinements to the impact fee calculations brought about as a result of further School District review. He advised that the School District has asked that a revised student station cost; updated land cost, and certain adjustments to the school enrollment credits and discount rates be made. He continued that the land cost adjustment is designed to address an inadvertent omission from previously supplied data; the updated school construction costs uses the more current data than was originally available, and the enrollment credits and discount rates have been refined based on more current rates. He stated that the net effect of all these adjustment is to increase the proposed Education Facilities Impact Fee from the original recommendation (June 2003) of $2,380 to $3192, or an additional $812. He advised that if the fee were approved in full, St. Lucie County would be among the upper 1/4 of fee assessments for educational facilities in the State of Florida. Mr. Murphy stated that on August 12, 2003, the St. Lucie County School Board asked that if the County Commissions consideration of any fee adjustment in reading to the educational impact fee, that the County Commission consider a delayed effective date of March 1, 2004. He continued that the reason for this delay would be to provide an opportunity for pending construction contracts to clear before the fee increases take effect. He stated that the Treasure Coast Builders Association had requested the delay. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-023 to the Board of County Commissioners with a finding of consistency with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan with a recommendation of approval and that the fee be enacted as outlined at $3192 but effective February 1, 2004 as opposed to the previously indicated March 1, 2004. Mr. Grande stated that the ordinance that was attached to their packets, showed an effective date of October 1, 2003. Mr. Murphy stated that was an error, it should read February 1, 2004, and would be corrected throughout the entire document before being finalized. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 25 Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Harrell stated he was the attorney for the School Board. He stated that the impact fees do provide a great source of greatly needed capital funding for the district. He also stated that on the second page of the meeting memorandum it shows that the School Board is asking that the entire amount of $3192 on single-family dwellings be put into place. He continued that they believe there could be some additional review of the numbers, but are fairly confident that those numbers are accurate. He advised that the second part of their recommendation is that the education impact fee increase be put in place February 1, 2004 or such earlier date as area home mortgage lenders substantiate would not cause disqualification of previously approved borrowers. He continued that the reason for the delay is so that those who might be mid -stream won't get stuck with the additional $2000 having to be paid by them at their closing, which may be more than most first time home buyers could afford. He stated that this large of an increase could cause some individuals to be unable to close and they believe that ninety days or so should allow all of those who are in process to work their way through to the end. He also stated that the fees are calculated when an application for a building permit is submitted and as long as the application is complete then the fee calculation occurs. He advised that is the sole reason that the School Board is suggesting a delay. Mr. Grande stated that his understanding is that the impact fee is not paid by the buyer at the closing, it is paid earlier than that by whomever the developer prior to getting a certificate of occupancy. He continued that it would leave the choice of either the builder paying the fees or the buyer would have the choice of either increasing his down payment by the amount of the fee at closing time or could be capitalized into the loan. He advised that the fee itself actually would have been paid, the only thing left to the homebuyer would be whatever fee or part of the fee the seller chooses to pass onto the buyer and that would not be passed on as an impact fee or separate item, it would be built into the price of the home. Mr. Dennis Murphy stated that a unit of local government at the time a building permit is issued collects an impact fee. He also stated that there was a concern about the mid -stream effect on pending contracts for a home to be built. He continued that the contract includes a certain fixed amount of costs and also has a clause that states the buyer is subject to any changes in fee structure that the local government may impose. He advised that is why there is a request for a phase in since there is such a substantial change in the amounts. Mr. Grande questioned what the earliest effective date could be if they chose not to go with the suggested February 1, 2004 date. Mr. Murphy stated that it could be around November 1, 2003. Mr. Harrell stated that Mr. Grande's information was correct with respect to an acquisition from a developer but they were concerned with those homes that are acquired through a builder, where a purchaser may or may not acquire the lot through the builder at the same time. He stated in that circumstance they have an agreed upon price up front, make an application, get qualified for a loan, and in between the time they sign and close, the contract clause kicks in and they have to come up with the additional monies. Mr. Lounds stated last year the School Board did not increase the impact fees and questioned if that is one of the reasons that the increase is so drastic. Mr. Harrell stated that it had been about three or four years with no increase, they were under a moratorium for a time, and they reviewed other alternative funding sources that did not work out. He also stated that they cannot fund a P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 26 deficit with impact fees, they can only fund future needs and future capital needs that must be enhancing. Mr. Kirk Sorensen stated that he was representing the Treasure Coast Builders Association (TCBA). He advised that their position that a March 1, 2004 implementation date would be appropriate because of the time lag from the mortgage to the building permit process. He stated that the TCBA were in the process of reviewing the numbers provided in Dr. Nicholas' report. He also stated that the TCBA objective is to simply represent a fair share amount for the builders, residents, and taxpayers of the county. He advised that over 22% of the existing residents of St. Lucie County occupy the new homes being built in St. Lucie County. He stated that those are the people who have paid their fair share and are now being charged additional fees to pay for additional infrastructure. He also stated that the need for impact fees is there but they feel that given time they will be in a position to discuss a proposed fee schedule that they feel is in the best interest of all parties involved, a fair assessment of the impact fees, and will be verifiable. He continued that an impact fee technical memorandum must be valid, if you cannot reproduce the results; you are setting yourself up for a legal challenge. He advised that any fee that is charged in excess of a fair share, under State and Federal law, is considered an authorized, illegal, and unconstitutional taxation. He stated that at the rate of $800, if you increase the impact fee at C.P.I, in constant dollars, the fee today would be less than $2,000 per unit. He continued that there is a need in the ordinance for an individual builder or developer to use an independent fee calculation if his development is so unique that it requires an individual review of the characteristics of that development. He advised that there should be an alterative if their development is so different than what is represented in the ordinance. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Sorensen for an example of a unique situation that might require a change. Mr. Sorensen stated that there are types of developments that are part of a PUD or are multi- family developments that have a demographic make-up that doesn't really utilize the school system. He continued that the only item addressed in the ordinance is those developments that are fifty-five years old and older are exempt. He advised that there are other types of developments that are not exempt because of the age restriction but have certain demographic characteristics that put them in a different category. Mr. Grande stated that he believes that the types of situations that Mr. Sorensen brought up are already contained within the ordinance. He questioned if they could come up with a situation where it impacts the school system more than the average single-family home and has a developer who would be willing to come in and volunteer to pay higher fees. He advised that in the beginning they stated that they were all right with the amount, but had issue with the phase in period, but the presentation was built around reviewing the amount and contributing to the final decision. Mr. Sorensen stated that they don't have issue with an amount, they aren't saying this amount is accurate or not, but they want a fair amount reflected. Mr. Grande questioned if the TCBA's recommendation was for them to approve the amount requested. Mr. Sorensen stated they have no alternative at this time, so they would ask that it be approved. Mr. Lounds stated he didn't understand why this needed to be phased in and should be enacted as of January 1, 2004. Mr. Sorensen stated that they are just trying to protect those people who may not have easy access to funds for a new home. Mr. Lounds questioned how possible it would be to petition those in Tallahassee to develop a transfer fee in real estate that would lessen the impact on new construction and put the burden back some on resale's. Mr. Sorensen stated that he didn't believe that was an optimistic idea. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 27 Mr. Grande stated that the buyer or builder would not be paying the impact fee at the date of transfer; it is the fee that is in effect at the time the permit is issued. He advised that he didn't believe there would be a long stretch of time where someone would end up with a surprise. He stated that he believes that if they use the November 1, 2003 date, anyone who has pulled their permits prior to that date, even if they don't close for another six months, would be paying the old fee amount. He advised that there is no benefit to delaying enacting the fee and they would be collecting fewer dollars for the school system. Ms. Hammer stated that she is frustrated because this has been discussed for many months and there are no surprises. She also stated that when there are increases in any other household bills you don't get a phase in period, so she doesn't feel this should receive one either. She continued that by phasing this in over three months, there would be over $3,000,192 that the new buyers are not paying towards the school systems. She advised that if it isn't being paid by the new homes it will end up coming from the existing residents who have already paid their fair share. She continued that she would like to have a recommendation forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners that this gets enacted as soon as possible, don't wait another three months. Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed with Ms. Hammer and that the Comprehensive Plan states very clearly that new development should be paying for its impact on the community. Mr. Bill Hammer, 7672 Charleston Way, stated that there were some inconsistencies in the tables where the multi -family numbers were switched with the mobile homes. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was an error that would be corrected prior to finalization. Mr. Hammer also questioned if the multi -family number was per dwelling unit. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Hammer stated that the money needs to be spent for the schools and someone needs to pay. He also stated that he is speaking for those who already live in the county and pay taxes. He advised that people should all be alerting the client that there is a potential increase in the impact fees. He continued that the road systems cannot handle all of the development that is pending or approved. He stated that on behalf of all of the taxpayers he would request that this be put into effect at the earliest practical date so that the burden that is transferred to those taxpayers be limited and minimized. Mr. Kenny Hogan stated that he is Chairman of the Citizens Budge Committee and that on August 15, 2003 they overviewed the proposed ordinance and had a cross section of business people, builders, and construction related industry. He stated that he agreed with Ms. Hammer and they unanimously agreed to approve this ordinance. Seeing no one else Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. Mr. Akins questioned why this was brought back to them. Mr. Murphy explained that when the matter was presented to them previously the amount of the fee has increased around $800 and with such an increase the Board of County Commissioners felt they should review it again for their comments. Mr. Akins stated that he didn't believe there was any need to put this off. Mr. Grande stated that he is a licensed real estate broker, they are required legally to disclose everything they know about the property, and if a realtor knows there is a pending change in this kind of fee they should reveal it. He advised that this would apply ethically to the builders and developers locally too. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 28 Ms. Lounds made a motion of approval of Draft Ordinance 03-023, finding it consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and full implementation be November 1, 2003. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Ms. Morgan stated that the School Board and the TCBA both recommended a February 1, 2004 effective date and she thinks this recommendation should be followed. Ms. Hammer stated that by using the November 1, 2003 date the rest of the residents of the county don't have to pick up the $3 million lag in funding needed. Mr. Hearn stated that he too agreed that the November 1, 2003 effective date is best. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-0 (with Ms. Morgan voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 29