Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09-18-2003A St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting Commission Chambers, 3`d Floor Roger Poitras Annex September 18, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES — August 21, 2003 Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1: Minutes of August 21, 2003, meeting AGENDA ITEM 2: KENNETH F. LOWE JR. - FILE NO. RZ-03-027 / PUD-03-018: This is the petition of KENNETH F. LOWE JR., for a'Preliminary Planned Non Residential Development (PNRD) approval for a 12,000 square foot office building; Preliminary and Final PNRD approval for a 170-unit hotel and a Change in Zoning from the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District to the PNRD (Planned Non -Residential Development) Zoning District. Cyndi Snay will present Staff comments. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff Report, Site Plan, and Site Location Maps !MMIMM►n=:riMISMIA s� This is the petition of GLASSMAN PROPERTIES, LLC., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development — Johnston Lakes) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 4: GLASSMAN PROPERTIES, LLC. — FILE NO. RZ-03-035: This is the petition of GLASSMAN PROPERTIES, LLC., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation -to County - Commission - - Exhibit #4: Staff Report and Site Location Maps St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency September 18, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 5: T&T LAND LTD. - FILE NO. RZ-03-032: This is the petition of T&T LAND LTD., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended. Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #5: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 6: GERHARD KAMPICHLER — FILE NO. RZ-03-034: This is the petition of GERHARD KAMPICHLER, for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #6: Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 7: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF FT. PIERCE — FILE NO. CU-03-014: This is the petition of FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF FT. PIERCE, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) and RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning Districts. Hank Flores will present Staff comments. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #7. Staff Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 8: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY PLANNING: This is a discussion regarding the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning in St. Lucie County. 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 October 16, 2003, in the Commission Chambers at the Roger Poitras Annex Building. ADJOURN - NOTICE: All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at (772) 462-1586. 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 Commission/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 •t4 f l,r. r n t , • 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 1 it was anticipated that based on the volume of land clearing debris in St. Lucie County th t ' gle 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 andAis 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 Xor the operation of the existing air curtain incinerator because Treasure Coast Land Clea4ing �� perates 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 thetNelves. 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 vmw 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 wWs a flow -well. Mr. John Talley, owner of Treasure Coast Land Clearing, stated that they �� 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 &Wt. 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 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 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 reyiewed the info rmat' . and ould interpret that the horticultural and landscaping servicesWaddress what was 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 e 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 nurseg he is afraid that if the owner chooses not to implement the nursery listed in the conditional useoptions 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 y 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 6: GLASSMAN REALTY, LTD. — File No. RZ-03-035: This item was continued to the September 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 20 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. 1 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• olicy land Policy 1.1.2.3 C are found to be in conflict with o er u u nations 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 a 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.* 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'���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 J causing a problem with invest 200and making agricultural development more difficult. He continued that there needs to beAanswer 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 resolutionA,l 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 concernedAAM 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,-ati+the basic cost to provide a school and the necessary student work stations, has increased substantially, any local communities have not, or cannot, adjust their local taxing structures to meet the costs of the community. He continued that�l�erojected costs of providing public educational facilities per student in St. Lucie County stimated 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 refine based on more current rates. He stated that the net effect of all these adjustments J 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 Commission consider4geww€ any fee adjustment 4m-Feadig to the educational impact fee, thatconsider 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 's not paid by the buyer at the closing, it is paid earlier than that by whomever the developer rior 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 capital needs tWmust b+ enhancing- j'VV_4,+, 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 It ative if their development is so different than what is represented in the ordinance. �e- 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&ddressed 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 d volunteer to pay higher fees. He advised that in the stated t er all righ with the amount, but had issue with the phase in V v period, but the presentation was built ar 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 bac some n 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 ---�transferi� is the fee that is in effect at the time the permit is issued. He advised that he didn't beI ieve 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 Budget 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 $3 million lag in funding needed. Mr. Hearn stated that he too agreed that the November 1, 2003 effective date is best. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-j (with Ms. Morgan voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 29 i LAND USE DESIGNATION: GQM �Cotlmercial) ti ' ' PROPOSED USE: 170 unit hotel - (With. &,000 slue fgot: re$#aurant , ancl. ti ;s r 1,004 square foot 66td00r - ining ;patio) acid a 12 000' �- square foof office bu�iding (future development use) r $UfROUNDING ZONING PUD�(planned Uhit Development) Iesoive DII%RUD; PNRD (Punned Non ResideMOD I60nent) LearndhI g Qenter • C. (Cbmmfoblia aGenersl)_ 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE: To tine North is Mamst"refit Vittaggtttte-leserv, Sough Js tho PGA l.earrYing Center; to the hest is 19 afid to the Wes( js the;Maii�afay Suites at the.i es'erV 5 FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: '� fort St t;ude (fit, Luce West) 3#ation #14 is IAGa#ed, approXimat�ly 2 miles to the UTILITY SERVICE: ii Water and, sewer services- to be prdvided by the 'Reserve Utility Corporation: i Scheduled Area I mprove[t�ents ENCY TYPE OF CONCURR DOCUMENT RE�QUIREU (• office building. Both uses are consistent with the approved Final Development Order for the Reserve Development of Regional Impact. The proposed development is to be served by the Reserve Utility Corporation. Parcel 37 is part of the Reserve a Development of Regional Impact. The Partial Final Development Order for this project identifies the necessary community infrastructure improvements that are to be completed as the Reserve develops. Through the monitoring and enforcement of the requirements of this Development Order, adequate public services are being provided for. 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 1-95 and reserve Boulevard. It has recently been determined that existing traffic conditions warrant the signalization of the ramps at this intersection. In order to ensure that the improvements are completed, staff is recommending the following conditions of approval: 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 provide 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 — southbound off ramp 1-95/Reserve Boulevard — Northbound off -ramp The applicant's project design provides for a pedestrian crosswalk from the hotel entrance crossing Commerce Centre Drive to the sidewalk along the southern side of Commerce Centre Drive. During the Development Review Committee meeting on this project, the applicant was informed that no signalization would occur at this location. In order to ensure that the existing sidewalk is not damaged during the development of the site, Staff recommends the following condition of approval: 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. The proposed pedestrian crosswalk will provide for a crossing from the Hotel to the entrance to the PGA Learning Center and Historical Museum. The project site design also provides for the construction of a sidewalk along the northern property line that directs pedestrians from the hotel west to- the corner before they cross Reserve Boulevard from the site to the Mainstreet Village Shops and Restaurants. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed development is not anticipated to create significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed project design has microsited the preservation of vegetation when possible. The submitted site plan has been determined to be i 951RirSbrrve Boulevard sputhbound off=ramp l g 95/R�s rv� BduiOVar nbrthbound off `ram 3 p 7, Y Rib 6, Prlor tq the )ssia�nce of a certificate of occupancy far the proposed h6tei,, theappiicant PW will be i'espoh$,I fot repairtn� any damage t the extstirtg sidewalk resulting from the; cieartng and cortistr�acton of the liotei If'you have any questions, please Jet its ;know... H /wp%prajects/.Reserve/i'GA Village Hotel/pz mem fnl ddc . CountyAd?Pih(stretor A�,st: County Administ at ' County Aitbmey Pubh� Woil�s,Diredfor'- ` �'-� - Cour�ty i=iiginee� Fire'I�arshell-� � � Care �o�gs,�Thomas LUcido &Associates < orƒdnaDk 7}kk/US A\Q . y \L Sgnakn qoa/ ?y "MIN! Mum k/ / \ m\qUW ? +)M On ) Section 7.02.00 Planned Non -Residential Development G. LANDSCAPING AND NATURAL FEATURES Native trees and vegetation and other natural features shall be preserved to the extent practicable. 2. All sensitive environmental vegetation, trees and areas shall be preserved to the extent practicable. 3. Landscaping for off-street parking and loading areas shall meet the minimum requirements of Section 7.09.00. H. OPEN SPACE STANDARDS 1. For development projects of less than ten (10) acres, a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the gross area of land to be committed to a Planned Non -Residential 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 or planting areas, or other areas of public purposes other than street or road rights -of -way, utility easements, excluding exclusive stormwater treatment facilities, and parking areas. For development projects of ten (10) acres or more, a minimum of thirty-five (35) percent of the gross area of land to be committed to a Planned Non -Residential 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 or planting areas, or other areas of public purposes other than street or road rights -of -way, utility easements, excluding exclusive stormwater treatment facilities, and parking areas. At the request of the developer, and subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, use of recreational facilities may be offered to the general public. A minimum of 15 percent of any existing native upland habitat on the property, must be preserved in its natural condition as part of the required 35 percent common open space, For each acre of preserved native habitat above the required minimum 15 percent that is preserved in its original state, credit shall be given at a rate of 150 percent per acre towards the remaining common open space requirement. All areas to be dedicated for common open space Shall be identified as part of the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Nonresidential -Development. Areas that are floodways, lakes, wetlands, and stormwater retention areas may be applied to satisfy the total common open space requirement subject to the requirement that 15% of any existing native habitat on the property must be included as part of the required 35% common open space. As part of the Final Planned Nonresidential Development submission process, the developer or petitioner for the Planned Nonresidential Development shall provide for one of the Adopted August 1, 1990 387 Revised Through 08/01/00 �' .: r ;� ;� �, . r � r.� :r: ,. �; i rA _ .: .�._. ... _ �. _. _ ... e. ��_ .. f `, ti ` t_ { i ,�i �1 . ,1 �; ,: ��: �• �t; �(:� l i.N {N �:M � \� � � � � � � \ \� � - �\� %6�\�<w.. - \� \+k��&«�%� %� `2{ \ %/� . p� 2� \� ,ate )d\` j:� \� k� \� � \� � � : \� &�� /% /� � / ., ? d\� )� � /� 3� ~ \\}����\% \y/� f� � � ,� ~� \� d« . . j}� \� � »� ■� \� \� « a, � \� \ «� » $� §� \ \} d <: �. d _\1��£� � t w »� »� �/�:�§�� ? d«� »� \�\� \���j�§�/� d '� t / f q��.Y ( �: 3 3- i � � \ f + III r• t'. TS t � TO jot T i VATIVA MOO f� t�, „t �s , �`` �� -� ,.0 �". ..__ _ _ , .. .. . . .... O 61, NO: m�,o .1-0115-m 'o %b 0, 'o 0 !w W%M—w W. . * C'. C', wo M,200 i�l H cq!� �i;;� 1.m h1 C,1 c', O. 11 C'. m C4, ON a, ;I A w , o c-'O 0. Mi. 6i �Nbi&,6 m mlbIb 6: T M;Wo %0 ! 'o . 6. b 10 .o 10: 1.0 11D IWO 10 10 'D. 10 w No w ,w a, 01 C, 0', CL CY, 01 C, clim 01 O. 01: a, O. i (7, a. 01 m 11: (71 a, WM Ai m m M. A A m M:m M.- M: m M. t�U!zr.! Lei O'."ie dire rdiH, ml.rd 4! rdlditd li4rdird leirejejd ri;21 t, H, 4d Otd� .2 A! .21.2 .2 tj .2 0 .�.2 .2 tttt .9 5.5 .5.::, !.5 0 0 M NIM MIA A1.9 .5 J1.5 3; m MA, I 67,1.z ;5 C, r, ;5 CA -z CZ. (;S; cl;); c .0105; I;i r7, �,;5 C% Z en jw 1 rZ 65 CZ, CZ Os CZ1 t ro: W I 91. C�..Pm! P�: P. A. 1, k 13. la, )2-2 �15 -cl Aid Ag;:xxY W, A a !A 001-n A g. Al 8:01 A gts 00 00 00 00 W: 00 w E : a lot 10 tn cc ag 0 L. cc jbC4 .119 0. : jp•om E OR R100 00 ell "m P4 . ....... . ........ . ... . ..... ...... .41 Z r \ 4 &0 �- -2/ . ,.� / \ \ \ \ \\ Ed«>r;w» d ?»� f � � } ....... . .. . . ......... ij 'It 10 P1, 10 'D 'o 'o 'o 'o 0, "-2 '0 dt. r- 61: 10 1-t N�. . 4 1 W': W, "0': W, M` 5z F1 1W, 0 1W, CP N Ni 0, C, C1,;z m OT a, O. Ow, 'm I in 0" 110, w -�8.85, w 'It� CD; O. -q 10 mfc% � ch C', 6 100 C, C, C, 01 01,01. :m c, O't00; C, 01 01 C, A71.'00. 01 C, It -,t "t MFm Q U i.5 �i rn 0 .5 3I.T 2i.9 �ii .2 31i -1.91A SM, X�3 1 3 .5 3 �i: �1 o .5 cn CZ z c5i CO) In - (z 4;5 ;5 35 c) c Cnio Rzi i en c) Cl) CZ Z: 615 C;5. 051 �u 4Z C', j �4 i E�5 z ti t: E t: v 0 Vi t t: t:k t; ti tl v t t ti t ti r; w V t g,v g: v U 0 gi-41: t� E 2 9 93 RicoZ�i 'I', ofg[Ri 9�1 ..... .... . 92 z2i C3 (518 S:1 01 rj < < p i U o " n M N A.03(M`MR=va . ....... ....... ... ti 0: ZO: v) Ulu U ot o 0: y CO �01 i .1 01 810 Y o to 0. 0 Ix Ix ix I cz P4 . . ... . . .. ... ....... < U —0 0 91Z w 01 U, r .4 r ol 0 A . . . ........ VnI J9 0, lo 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >, aaaYa it. cn, lIi 004 94 ix 11 l § 0§0 00 E 010 I ii ; 1100 CIO M- 1,;; i mn m AIR 'A .4 gig A 1AH] 1 § t v AIR -1 00 -12 a .9 1R 9 R C4 E �C-11 nici M; M.M M: eNn 0 m w r ,. tar .` . .. t ? . a a \� � �� � � � � � � � � \ < �-- . _ -�-��.va�,a.wws - � � � � � � � ?? � � � � <� y� w � � � \ � � � � � � = � � � � � \ � � � � � � � � \ � � � � � � �� � � � s DATE September 10, 2QQ3 SUBJECT Petition of Glassman Properties, LLC j fora Change in'zon from`the AC 1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre},zgnmg District to the PUD (plaanned Unit` , Development Lakes) Zoning —;District: and for Preliminary. x7 ,.Johnston Planned Unit. Doveloprnent SitePlan Approval for the Residential I�roleet ;d to bo known as., Johnston Lakes. PUR LOCATION: NgrthvlrpSt C thO_ of -the in#ersection of Johnslon ;Road and Indrio Road d EXISTING ZONING: AG41 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) PROF�OSED ZONING: - pUD Unit Develpprrient—:Jghnstan Lakes) " ,(Planned .f. LAND USE DESIGNATION: MXD = Indrio Road PARCEL SIZE: 115;64 acres , - PROPOSED- USE:, - Sin' gle=Family Lots PROPOSED DENSITY: -SA du/acro g" " ;SURROUNDING ZONINC:- AG-1 :(Agricultu,ral = .1 duYacre) is located to the north, south, and west: , CG - (Commercial, an Zoning is _ located to the west along Ktiblegard `Road, y . SURROUNDING LAND USES: The exiting use of land surrounding ttie property is some residential and agricUl#ur21. The Future hand" Use Classification of ,the immediate . surrounding area is MXD, Indrio Road (Misted Use Development - Indrio-Road); To the east the future land use classification is RE (Residential Estate). September 10, 2003 Page 4 Subject: Glassman Properties, LLC. Johnston Lakes - PUD RZ-03-017/P U D-03-011 for urban uses. No determination of consistency with proposed uses can be made at this time. 4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; There have not been physical changes that would require an amendment. The County is experiencing considerable pressure to transition the Indrio Road Corridor into a significantly more urban environment. The petitioned parcel has been designated with a Future Land Use Classification of MXD — Indrio Road (Mixed Use Development — Indrio Road), which stipulates that the parcel may be developed at up to 5 dwelling units per acre. This parcel of land has been designated as such since the County established its land use pattern and adopted the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the 1990 Growth Management Act. The site is located within the Urban Service Boundary of St. Lucie County and will have adequate water, sewer and roadway capacity available to service the project. No final approval should be granted until the provision of these services is scheduled. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The proposed site plan, which is tied to this change in zoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD), is not expected to create demands that exceed the ultimate capacity of public facilities in this area. The subject property is located within the Urban Service Boundary of St. Lucie County. Water and sewer service will be available and provided by the St. Lucie County Utilities Department. The applicant's Transportation Impact Report indicates that the proposed development project is projected to create an additional 3,464 trips per day. According to the study 20% of the trips are projected to be northbound from the project entrance onto Johnston Road, 40% of the trips are projected to be westbound from the entrance on Indrio Road, and 40% are projected to be eastbound on Indrio Road from the project entrance. In accordance with the St. Lucie County standards, all roadways under the County's jurisdiction were evaluated using the criteria of Level of Service D. According to the applicant's traffic impact analysis report, all roadway links impacted by this project are expected to meet the St. Lucie County level -of -service standards. Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.8.10 encourages a demonstration of service availability before authorizing zoning amendments. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; r 7: Whether and'the n6- gdtlV-}� waff. ects of such patterns, 'An s , - Wi}4 The subject ..property is within an isolated and detached area Service Area. The entire area east's 'Interstate 05 is the'subject of ajGharrette being conducted ini cooparaj(on v�+ith �tho rtreasur oaat F�egtonal Plaening 4 Couneii'in January ;2 04 it is nqt possf�le to deterrnmeSif this proposal provides J ;: ��;, # for an grderly and logical development pattern prior`to evaluatlhg a meter plan . . .. for the whgle"area. r . The intersection ofo8+d and Johnsto ldad ttma be a" entral mint in the R n- Y c p"� -Irdrio ultimate° develpprnertt of .this 8r"ee Asurnr)g `#hit tl1i is .tfe case, highor,{ densities and/or other housing tykes May, more.appropriat this lopation:; 8. Whether the proposed arhend ent :would be in conflict: vvlth "thd pUblrc 4k interest; and i in"harrnot ywith the pt��pose aild ntbtt`t`of.this Codes The proposetl amendment is ,ot in conflict with the purpose and intent of the St Lucie ourityr Comprehensive °Man " ` and "the 'requirements; of the : Land "� Dveloprrient Code? _ The., proposed .arnendnent :may not be 'in harmony with ' future: plans,for this "COMMENTS The applicant is proposing a tesiclential. development of 36� Single-i=arnily lots This . protect is to be known as Joiirrston.Lakes :PUS.: As a .Planned Unit Development, the .design of 'this"project utilizes a rang$ a small lot sues ano uprt-kypefi- hile at the samo: k�me preserving minimum open space on "the subject :property; through file creation. of lakes. and ' �.. "required"" landscaping ajnd,a-recreation f Seubon 7 01,03(t) of th St Lucie Caunty Land;; bevelopmertit Coda tegra res that 35% of ' the site must consistQf open spate; a njinlmurn of 15Q/o of -which."muat b N'tive upland habitat preserved in its natural; condtrorf :Thc.subtrrct property can#sins" no native upland habitat The ptap'osed plannetl'de�%lopment maintains 35 0% (39.45 acres) bf the project area in`total Open ` space. i I n i1� i tr►�rtl�.ut.1 UrKAL I uWAI Mt; 4UNIPM ulo I Kll. Is I u i t-�t ruu �r�.Al�lv�v UNIT pOVELOPMENT JOHNST(�N LAKES) ZQNING' DISTRICT' AND FOR PRELIMINARYz' 4'{ PLANNEQ UNIT" DEVELOPMEN'C SITE PLAN APPRQVAL :FOR `TIDE' R SIpENTIAI� "= n PROJECT TO B:E KNOWN AS JOMNSTpN, LAKES PIJD,"BECAUSE , [CITE REASbN[S] 1NHY PLEASE BI SPECIFIC].`; fi 4 RM x MOTION TO DENY AFTER CC?NSIDERINC'TW fiETIMQNY PRESENTED .pURIN.0 TWA PUBt_IC WEANING, s INCLUDING STAFF GbMMNTS; `AND 1'HTANpAItQS' OF REVIIN AS SET FORTH IN • ; ,ARR SETtON" 11 0603, ST LUt✓IE COUNTY I.AN© DEUL,QPMENI` COgE, I kIEREBY MOVEill THAT TWE PLANNING ANi BONING COMIVlISSION RtGOMMND THAT THE ST LUGIE" ." ' ' COUNTY ` 66 R, OF COUNTY CC�;MMIS$IONERS bENY` TFiE APPLICATION -OF { GLASSIVIQN P120EFtT1E3 LLC., FOR A CHAN6F. 'IN ZONING { EI�ONt THE Ar; 1 f ,' . UTRTIG UD,RPLANN5N .(AGRCJ TURA1 DUAC . DEVELOtMENT JbHNSTON " LAKES) ZONING < DISTRICT AND FOR PRLIIVIINARY . J PLANI4ED UNIT DEVELOIIVIENT SITE PLAN APPROVAL ; POR THE RESII�EN1`IAL PROJECT TO BE KNOWNS JOINSTON LAKES-_PB1=CAU;S�.,,, : I [MITE REAS4N[Sj WHY *'`PLEASE B� SPECIFIC].: 1 }a!!N7ia.M+)y.; r Spyy,*F t Iz Research ec�iitttes, Noncomrriarciat WAnON F t es Ruing stablJ,� k S�ngie fartnly detabhed c(wellins� < r c� a ci�-aF ' 3 Lot Stze Requirements sE Q}t; Lot stze requirements st4a11 be in aaeordane� inrittt Table '1 In `Sectl n 7.0C , � 4. Dirhensionai Regulations f t , j f w �tmal regGirements shall be in accordance vViM bfe;;1 in Sectiorf 7,04.00.' r 5 dff,street Parking and Ls�admg Requifernents Off etreet parking and Ioatling raqutremsnts are subject to Seaton .7 06 00X f j g 6 Landscaping Requtremens , 4 Landscaping requirements are stabjeat to Section 7 09 OK 7: p onditional `Uses a. Agricultural labor housing t* Adopted Augustl 1990 ` 94 Revised rhrough 08/01/00' F 1 h Manufactujnng r , (1) AgnC4 rai chemicals,00) (2) Food &kindred products ao� 3 urhber &wood products. except furi�ture �a� ;_ i Mtnmg and quarrying of nonmetal�c miner�ls;;except fuels;a� f' (1) Faun equipment and related assones car - () Apparel'& accessory k $swage disposal subject to the`requaements of $ectipn -7 4 cs r� 1 Tetecbnjrhunicatton Towers ; subject to the standards of Section 7,1 . , mT , damps sporbgg and,recreational pail ... 1 8 Aacesory uses ; Accessory uses are subteGt tb the requirements of Seaton $00 OO.,anii include t1e followinv a . Af[obile homes subject t(t the requtretnents of Sectton'� 10 U5 71 etail traeesuthose or activity,tl wde aoa c. " Guest h0ise cUbject.to the requirements of Secfiort -71� 04; tit " '=_ti7nii::i�'H-i�.a.;.i :....t...�.;.�-�,�a_� L=: 1 rig>._ ..::::: ....� .:�._ .. ,-e c. _ Petition of Glassman Properties, LLC for a Change in Zoning from the AG1 (icultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development— nston Lakes) Zonina District. RZ z 0 0 v Indrio Road P. F. W. M. U. Conal No. t 03-017 This pattern indicates subject parcel 0 z 0 c 0 U Map prepared September 4, 2003 Th4 map t- man owrOW tore—r PWq and reta— P-Paea 0* N throe &" ~ha man made to Prattle the ""quart and a =-W hWnIWW POGWe, l 10 not Worded br u a a tog* btrwkq donanga Zoni I LI Glassman Properties, LLC 00 Z I IZ 0 Z 0 o c U Z 'a 0 c � 3 0 L a: 3 a 4 Pendin0. (g-- CG zoning) inano Canal Map prepared September 4, 2003 R.nWh.b— f. P—" .dW.— �. N itlornaWn P099b1 � k 18 nd MerKW laru a e leg* �q Aocrer" g4if""3vTii yj1� �j w. - k i srcY :. - wfatp'Mi"+i'k r rrkrr3•f a. ^n �..t..r r 3 F i`�tl _ ! ?{ =r {) t e v4. - L i >rr , r r«N J6 +r++ ..r �,j f!{ ` ' f t l •` }� 5t y V - a y+Fun u film - } � _ i i. ;� -�i�J �£SE [�S [��j{fit � " _' {� r�` # � S.#1 �- r �{'i � Y a jr 2 ? tt e�•, aL � € "r n :�� <_. f a s TIt r.�rf f` lr _ s)•� i• t ' t 5 >! _ I fits l � I �xF s 'r�R� { J � (r 'd �l ♦E �r V{� LZ e f 4 {r t i • ,' C1 4 r nil 14 j x t y ttzt n A _ on 1 No. =4 F. P. F. W. M. D, „ Cpnol No. 1 .r -s ,.. ~'�Si 3c: `ar.wis'..�°` Yk.. _ �'{(. � ([ "w P w .o-b:A_,n,. � . - _r' � " f t k ♦ � f � �'- _ �_ may+, i • i 4 ��¢IF`�.y�3y�Aa�. X `l/ r .., n. +r. c. .4 ,jt s ,,yy,,,,..• t i u�..='4. s .ssvci � SI `.' - [ 5.�, r 1l I � ,# k _ {? 4 X k r*�.f..M s«r,z .'� r+�,^Y'7E�t+ � rr�. • � } � sc - - r AX��i��}7 - m>� �l+s. X � .. � ., t > :h ` { f +F��qe.. i C �F �� 4 _ � �- c i. _ •y.T- � �. '1 � t (� i I li - i �. ,. r ��:.:. ": ...._rr� .-'�_:.�'a.. J f `t..z���' l;'"',�(u.�z; i-- ��❑ sY r. �y f ltr T M xi:-,� .ii . ..+. _,... _,.. ., � _.-.._... fff � ♦. :mar., :w •;� a._.:... -... .. �{... ,, .�-r' .i'. .. Sz' r} RE & ru h,66 RZ U3 035 ., { °MEMOR�A�NDU:M ,. � v. riannmg ana coning vammission � . , � _ �� FROM Planning Manager Mr kL DATE September 10, 2003 B� '4 SUBJECT: Application of Glassman; Properties,, LLC, for a Change in Zoning from } the:AG=1 (Agrjcultoral 1:du/acre)on�ng ptnct,to the C� (Corr�mercial, . = 5" 'General) Zoning District � LOfrATION; - , -{Eke fi Northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Load and f. Johnston kgad" : '# EXISTING ZONING: At;"y1 (AgriCultraral �-1 du/acre) PROPOSED ZONING: ° GG (Cvmmercipl General) t=U1'UR ;LAND. USE:° MXi Ihno R©ad (Muted Ilse I�eveippment r' Intensity Area)), . PARCEL SIZE!''33:1.3 acres. PROPOSED USE: Generai'Comnie`cWl'uses PERMITTED USES: Attachment "A"" `� Sactioh 3 �1:03(SCCU° .) " (Commercial, General) - con#pins the dat inated usos, which' are.. permlttetl .by right, per�nittd e' an accesoiy use, or-, permittetl through the conditional use process. ` Any use designpfed as Conditional„Use" ,is required -;to .undergo further `review -and: approvals: Any; uses. not found within . thezoning: distriot regulatibns are. designated as prohibited uses.for that district ; SURROUNDING ZONINGt ACs1_ (AgrdultUri. }1 'du/acre:) to the,riorth, south; ;east, pnd west." Thive is a separate appiicationby Glassman 1 Properties, LLC , o rezone the -property. fb ttia north -antl west ' of , the subject property, to the ' Planned Unit Development Zoning pstrict. September 10, 2003 Page 2 Subject: Glassman Properties, LLC. File No.: RZ-03-035 SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing land uses surrounding the property are agricultural and vacant. These properties are primarily citrus groves with several single-family houses located on the agricultural land to the south of the subject site. The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area is MXD — Indrio (Mixed Use Development) to the north, south, and west. RE (Residential Estate) is located to the east across Johnston Road. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #7 (4900 Ft. Pierce Boulevard), is located approximately 2 miles to the east. UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is in the St. Lucie County Utilities Department service area. At the present time no water or sewer service lines exist to the property. There are plans to extend trunk lines to this area. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way for Indrio Road is 124 feet. Additional right-of-way will be required for Indrio Road. The existing right-of-way for Johnston Road is 60 feet. No right-of-way dedication is indicated along Johnston Road as Fort Pierce Farms Water Management District Canal No. 8 currently lies between this property and the road. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: No improvements to Indrio Road were included in the County's or Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) Five -Year Work Programs. Developer funding may accelerate the needed improvements to Indrio Road. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: The prgposed;_change �n z9rnng is con tsten# with III appl r ble elements of the r St Lucie CQ�inty C0'mprehflsiva; Plan. ` Thy rglaest is cotnpatitile with the NiXQ Indno'(Mixed uso.Deveipprnert) Future Land Use dla$stfica#ion, which allows cornIn or, 1,al general zoning: x i?oUcy 1; 1 1 tip�)ates {had �arben deveiopme , active es shall` be restncfed to #hose areas identified as iha Planned Urban Service Area Urban deVelopan r activities shsli include nor agricultural cornrnercial-aotiv�ty Tle proposed t. 7. (Comrercial, "Geperal)nmg l�stfict is within thle designated `Urbandery�ce Area and meets this.;polipy. Policy 1 1 7.$ >es#abl�shes :intensity dEfin�tions for the Mixed Use activity areas: LCG T.he sub�ect,praperty is lopated in a low intensity activity.rarea 'This low fntetsi#y" , area Olews fqr cernr ercial d�v lopmer t hot to exceed door Area Redo (BAR) of0: Policy 1 8 1.0 encourages the use: of ex�stirtg commercial. and industrial _ designated lands V►ithin "tfie Urbaneruice area; through requirmg a strict damcnstratjon- of service vallabili#y, before" authoriph 4antl lJse and oohing"_ arnerrdrnents in areal not presently rndit�ated as having such a designation The subject property is locates within the urban service area and the St Lucie County utilities `Qeparkment ;has plans„to extend trunk fines tb the area to`service `the propertj% 'The only ether prdpeit�es honed for comrnerci�l` use it the area pf the propoeed rezon�rlg are locaied`at the corner of lndrib toad andmerson,Avenue and aacie�te at the .northeast corner ofindr�o;Road and Koblejrd which is,currently being proposed for a:service station - , 3.' Vllhether and the eXtertt to which the proposed zoning rs'ineonsistent,wtth the existing acid p�opc�sed ""des.;, " The proposed `CC (Cornmercial, General) Zan�ng is net consistent with existing (Agricultural land and large lots) grid cannot be defermined toe consistent with ` the proposed land uses in the area until hose uses"are better defined. C. l - .V yRvc� FIM �G/v�i. ■�/GVL7 VIA; �G QiMQ.rir\MG�, .. _ :^. � So The proposed, ameidmen# �s not anticipated to create aduerse impacts on;` the g natural :environment The Site i� currently 'an old, citrus gCove and does not e £� contain' a Sigrlificart aouht cif native vdgetatiot� and` habitat Any development of this site v�rtll be required to comply with all :state and locai ertviroCirnentaL regulations . rs fh V1lhethel' and the extent #.o uirhrah the amendimertt would rQsult to proposed n orderly a'nd logical, dovelQpment pa>tern, 3peoifallyi identifying ar�y -` g negative affects of suFh pattd�rns, .r J While staff rgepgnies thatthe subject propertyAs,iouated in atached" section ; cif the urban 'service botan taryy inquiries about developmeynt along in ylo Road - would itpludethis site as p df logical devvelopment pttern,albng, the 'Indr�p lead eorndor As previously rnenttoned,' Chia prgpory would 'become a � cornplin eritary eotY mercial dbrriponent to :several res der%tial deYelppments- proposed JhdridiRoa8 corridor. 3 ; , b3 8 Whether ttte'prdposed arrtendment would be: in cdhfhet ninth the public ' interest, and is m harmony with the purpose andintent of this Cade; h Matot roadway mtersectigns n this area have bean 'identified for =varying degrees , of_oomrmero�al "nodel° development To the ;tha'proposed arriet`idhi66t is ,extent . in harmony with the:pUrpgse and intent of.the Code, As previously referenced, ` th parcel becomes: an integral part of fhe oveCall ",Brie d Belo menf pattern- for tie area Thie intersection` of (ndrio Road and Johnston Road, rhay'be a c"antral point in the ult mate,developMe-O w the`ate Assuming that this is tl1e. case, the eonfiguroton of the parcel'or thy; uses:on thr; panel may be mpdified': COMMENTS - The petitioner,- Qlassman Realty, Inc.,. has requested this change in zoning from th-e AG= ; 1 (Agnculfurai =�, du/acre) Zoning :District to. fhe CG (CQrr9merpial General):.oning pistricf on property located on the ncrthWest to of the intersection of Indrio Road and Johnston Road ' in order to' allow the pC"ciperty to be deve16' d for general commercial purposes. The sufsjeet l \ ' . i I I_.�����r„ .E... _ ._,..... _ __ z. permittad Uses = ..since 6S£hhTw vi 4 a Agnculturaf prouuction =crops tq,r "€ b Agncuiturai produc#ion-livestock &animal specialties ro�i Agncultuifai aetvices d Family day care homes, rwo) r ; e Family reslder�tial horses provided That such" horses shall not be lgcated wrthRt "a radius of T one thoiasand (1000) feet of atQther existin.uch f m�ly rsident�at home.and prpvided�that } the s�onsoririg agency or Qeparrtent of Health and. Rehabiii#ati�e Services (HRH) notifies, f t the Board. of CouM� oriirhissioners of the tifie of home occupancy that the home is licensed i bj HRS 1e�s). 3 Fishing,.huntrng trapping g. f Forestry 0ei t , X� h� . Kennels (o�s2y� i Researc'FactiitiesNor►eorrZrriercial tense 'tz§W> Riding stables ings19, k Single-family detachedciWeil" 3. Lot=Size Requirements Lot size rdquirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in,' 5ectioh 7. 04.Odt, 4. " Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirernerits shall be in accordance with Table 1 in`Sectiort 7 04 00 f i ZM 5 Off street,Parking'and loading Requ-rements f Offs street parking . loading requirements are subject'to Section 7.06.Qt). ..' '. , i 6. Larislscaping,Requirements" Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00, 7. Conditional Uses a. ' Agricultural labor housing. t9ssr , Adopted August 1, 1990 94 ti . Revised Through 08/01/00 ' <. t _ ${fin i c ti. a y .� .: Y,11 - b .," cc ;storage and equipment iitaintenance to s ,Y c Airports'eand flying, landing, and takeoff fields tasezi�7 � f, F i , tl E Family residential homes located within a radius of oe tiousand (1',000) feet of another such family residential home ti r e 1' t farm products warehousing,andstorage ta2va22ij f Gasoline service stations tssa+), 7 g Industrial wastewater disposal (ssei ,: '! h < Manufacturing (1.) AgnculZiral chemicals t2e>i aI z (2) Food &kindred products tzoj i _' il (3) Lumber; &wood products. except furniture (zai i Mining and quarrying of nonrrietaltc minerals; except,ft�els tlai ,, " { ' - , ' :. Retail trade - - r -• - - -r (I) Farm equipment and r.elated'access*64 i, " < '' ; (2) Apparel=& accessory. stores. tssi tt ` k Sewage disposal subject to the requirements of Sec>iofi 7 10 13 cses " I 7elecgmtnunication Towers Subject to.the standards at $action;? I0:23 tes9i ,;zF m Camps ='sporting and�recreational.,tro3zi Y,, !s } 8. Accessory Uses" ; S , Acties�ory uses are, subject to the requirements of.Section $ 00 OQ and'ir�clude;the following: 4 a. Mobile homes subject to the'rdgL!" .ants of Section 7 10 06 . -­` - b.. Retail tratle and wh0leeale trade - subordinate to the primary authorized'use or activity: ; ` c* west house subtect to tt►e requirements of Sectton7,10 04 tsssi 11 1. �.4 z s \ , Y iF s# ,l \' l t l v Adopted AugustIII '1, 1990 - 95 Ravi$ed Through o8101./00 11 II I II ., a Ad�ustment/collec#up! u & credit reporting services b Ad�ertisln9 n3,i :Y F �-�1� c ` AmphithWaWit tq) d Amusemen#s & recreation'servites except stadium;;, arenas, race #racks, amusement parks i Y r and bingo par lors`ai , e Apparel $� atxesst rystores 0,S) fi,t f � Autgmobile dtaleis cssi � -'�� t g Automotiverepairs & sery (except body repairs) h Beauty and #0rber N service$ .�� ;-= i Building materials, hardvrare an en supply I Cleaning §ervices ,f ; k _. F CoPi mmercial panting cs�i _ t I. Cominunicetions 4x�eQt toin►ers l�f t� 7 4f f m, . C4rrputer programming, dote processing other computer se fir) a C¢ntrac# tnstrucctct t sbN (olce & intpnbh storage>o`rSly) t+siiertri ` g z o �uliurai activities attd natuYe eict bikions, si ` ` _' p Duplicating; mailing, commercial art/photo & stenog ' q Bating places tse>> fi ` r l�ducationaiservices except public schools isz�' sngtneenng, atx;bunting, research, management &.related services,ce>). t Bquipthent rental and eeasing setvtt;es cast u. Executive, legislative, and fudte'al functions t v Farm labor and management services cosi w Financial, insurants, and cool estate ,,ssra,;ssrsii , x l=ood storo, Ay y P nerai 'and crematory services ci si z Gasoline seance stations csu» f General merchandise stores cssi . Health services (sd)==- cc& `Home furniture and furnishings (vi dd. Landscape A hortu ultural "sexy ces carol . eb. t_aundry, cleaning and garment services.+t ` - ff Membership orgartltpons ex:pt for religious organizations as. provided in .5ectidh r .: 8.02tt)1(M) of this,code ces� ; gg: Miscellaneous, retail (see StGde CoMajor Groiip 59): (1 i Drug stores css,i } Adopted August 1 1990 + >:. 11ti Revised Through'08/01/00 3. Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations (2) Used merchandise stores (s93) (3) Sporting goods (sw) (4) Book & stationary (5942/5943) (5) Jewelry (5944) (6) Hobby, toy and games (sm) (7) Camera & photographic supplies (s946) (8) Gifts, novelty and souvenir (5947) (9) Luggage & leather goods (sw) (10) Fabric and mill products (5949) (11) Catalog, mail order and direct selling (596115963) (12) liquified petroleum gas (propane) (sm) (13) Florists (5992) (14) Tobacco (5993) (15) News dealers/newsstands (699e) (16) Optical goods (sm) (17) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (5999) hh. Miscellaneous personal services (see SIC Code Major Group 72): (1) Tax return services (n9,) (2) Misc. retail (See SIC Code for specific uses) (nm) ii. Miscellaneous business services (see SIC Code Major Group 73): (1) Detective, guard and armored car services (ie,) (2) Security system services um) (3) News syndicate r►m) r (4) Photofinishing laboratories rims) (5) Business services - misc. mm) jj. Mobile home dealers m?,) .. kk. Mobile food vendors (eating places, fruits & vegetables -retail) (s9s> Il. Motion pictures (re) mm. Motor vehicle parking - commercial parking & vehicle storage. (752) nn. Museums, galleries and gardens (ee) oo. Personnel supply services (7e) pp. Photo finishing services (73u) qq. Photographic services (») rr. Postal services (e3) ss. Recreation facilities (s99) ft. Repair services (7e) uu. Retail trade -indoor display and sales only, except as provided in Section 7.00.00. (999) W. Social services: (1) Individual & family social services (632M39) (2) Child care services (=) (3) Job training and vocational rehabilitation services (e33) ww. Travel agencies (4724) xx. Veterinary services torah Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. Adopted August 1, 1990 119 Revised Through 08/01/00 LO cr CY) cc% E N CO) cr CO) ca o su r. cc CL00 I WW at S K L Lt %-s it yv Luis Flo s K I WQ 1 0.0 la: Petition of Glassman Realty Ltd. for a Change in Jukacre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, C W tcpnoj no, '* F. P. F. W. M. D. Gonol No. from the AGA :onina District. ��NGtb GIs�- Map prepared PAvia 11. MW � �"Now PWOMa* N M� wI Aultr Own ■� b pwlf w 4=0OW ft" I � ooblY�t� rttrnant bnw r � YPMttdY �� 3 RE d GIs. Map prepared 'August M. MW "ft om ~bn Mw as** Paft M wmta moot" sam Mnw�s W"kKh M WmM lour • • WW VA&0 eos�ril Zoning �nm i i Glassman R C z 61 AG-1 LL21 3rz d F. P. F. W. M. D. Ltd. 0 z ,JG. 0.cG G1S� . MP Prepared XQLM ii. MM I.MMIMU,-*raw," � N *M "" 4ftetlm Aw ash b Pam b wadomwr d sawY bbnrabn OwAklis aMkftr4 d brim r • YOr r WnO dxuwt AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 18, 2003 7.00 P.M. GLASSMAN PROPERTIES, LLC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the Ag-1(Agricultural - I dulacre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the following described property. - Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Johnston Road and Indrio Road. Please note that all proceedings before the Planning and Zoning CommissionlLocal Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning CommissionlLocal Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners _ September 8, 2003. Legal- notice was published in The News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on September 8, 2003. File No. RZ-03-035 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS September 8, 2003 JL�C BOG ti .� COMMUNITY ' DEVELOPMENT ODIRECTOR �RI�P In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that GLASSMAN PROPERTIES, LLC.., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Johnston Road and Indrio Road. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST The first public hearing on the petition will be held at . 7.00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on September 18, 2003, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date -certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462- 1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. If you -no longer own property adjacent to the above -described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. Please call 7721462-1582 if you have any questions, and refer -to: - File -Number RZ-03-0,35. -- - Sincerely, STT..�LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Ed Merritt, Chairman ,JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 - DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 - PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 - FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. District No. 4 • CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (772) 462-1590 • Planning: (772) 462-2822 GIS/Technical Services: (772) 462-1553 Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 Fax: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 • Fax: (772) 462-2132 www.co.st-lucie.fl.us O N N V1 (- 00 d' kD 0 O M k V'1 kn M 00 �O �D l'D — V1 I'DQ vM1 vMl M dam' .M-i T k�l kn 00 o0 O kn M aON d' d' M e} M N M M M M d M M M O O N U � co N O P, 0 0 O O U w wwaa3xxUwaaw AQ3 � �xx 3 ' G403 C-2000 134 vx �00 y ti ti w ib � o ��� o�� k k -+ o oNz m - .00Utntn I-O P I- N Cl R Crn as fl, ON 0- Cl o z � z M � � O W N y' W. 0 0a z_ciw'Pw"c7aaH3 U O O O O O O O O O O O ,O O OO O p.O.O:O.00.O p O O-0 O O O O O O t� O O O O N-.-...-. k O N 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 O O O a �- 0 0 0 0 0: O. O: O G O O N. 0 N m m N m d M It I'O ON k.O �o %D O M -n ID ON %10 43 DATE September 10, 20(- ` SUBJECT, -,Application of T & T I_attd, Ltt, for , CharSge itignin from ,, (P►grtcultural.-1 du%acre)rZpnth Dt�tnt to (he IL (Idutral, L:igh District: LOCAT#ON a East" side of North Kings Highway, appr¢xitria t ,< feet south of gngle R2a EXISTING ZQNINGs , . AC3=1' (Agricultural 1 du/sere).; PROPOSED ZONING: IL (Industrial, Ught) e F#1TURE LAND USE:. IND (industrial) PARCEL' SIDE 19.'11 acres PROGSEUSE# MUMriallig,t uses PERMITTED IJ3ES At 0thent "A" Section 3 01 Q3(T} IL (IMUstrial contains the designated; uses, `;which ;are permitted permitted as art accessory use, lob permitted thr conditional :Use � process Any iase designatE "Conditional Use`s' is required to underg( further re approwais, Any ;use Enbt found within the zorni regulations are desig"nsted as prohibited uses; district, SURRbUNDING ZONINGt AG-1 (Agricultural 1..`du/acre) to the north, so We st: AR-1 tk Wltu►ti R : iderlt al 1' du/acr, east. IL (Industrial, Light) tb the sotathwet; . ll SURROUNDING LAND USES: The: existing surrounding "the general use prc agricultural ,and some" in. dustrial:. 1 1 QI ly 14t4.11 Gt4aGYGIV`.JI1IG114 4�1 411ti a>,wtrfGt,t IJ141�,/GI ty SC�IEDULEb ' r i s IMPRQUEMENTS;.' None TYPE 00NCURR0'NCY DOCI�MI=NT REQUIRED oncurrerlCy Deferral Affidavit " STANDARDS OF REVIEWAS $ET FORTH 1N S,C'101� 9�Id60, ST, LUCIE COUNTY LAipEVELOf'IV� N"'�bDE 4 _, reviawmg 'this applicafibn ` fbr prgpdsed reor��ng� the Planning" and Zoning r Cornmisslon shall consider and make the folio vl ig defan m bons V1Che#he' the proposed i'ezon�ti is in conflict With any applcabie portions wJ% of the St= Lucie County Land De_velopfnentotle` The pr4posad zort�ng d�stnct cohtstant ;With thet Luce County Land velo`pent.ode and has met._tha �tdarda of.1 fi06 03 r - sl a. 2. Whe#her the ' ro tiled amendmen# Is consistent `wit all elerrtents of the.: St p p - "' Lucie Coun#y`Compreher ah an The proposed change monn� is corts�stenf with III;Ierltirit of th$` fit, 1, ugle C "Ut CbMote eMil flan Thy request Is Cbri�p-twith the Ih1D (Industrial) Future Land Use classjfltign, Wlieh allows light Inustni `Zoning. o f?oliy 1.1 2.A establishes a site assastsment` process to, ,evaluate the potetjtial conversion of existing agricultural land uses to nog agncialturai land fuses; In a rtionai and orderly•manri�r the proposedomnghariga meets this policy by: Y3 {� f �7 t E r a i� S* l — ; 1 _ s V� i a 1 t i Adopted Aiigusf 1, 1990 95 kwsed Through 08/01/00 .( Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations T. IL INDUSTRIAL. LIGHT Purpose The purpose of this district istoprovide and protect an environment suitable for light manufacturing, wholesale, and warehousing activities that do not impose undesirable noise, vibration, odor. dust, or other offensive effects on the surrounding are, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with light industrial surroundings. The number in it following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Business services (73) b. Communications - including telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 toe) C. Construction services: (1) Building construction - general contractors (is) (2) Other construction - general contractors (1e) (3) Construction - special trade contractors (17) d. Engineering, architectural and surveying services (e71) e. Commercial fishing (oll) f. Laundry, cleaning & garment services (721) g. Local & suburban transit (at) h. Manufacturing: (1) Food and kindred products (2o) (2) Tobacco products (21) (3) Textile mill products p2) (4) Apparel & other finished products t23) (5) Furniture & fixtures ps) (6) Printing, publishing and allied industries (27) (7) Drugs (2e3) (8) Leather & leather products (31) (9) Glass: (a) Flat glass t321) (b) Glass & glassware - pressed or blown (322) (c) Glass products - made of purchased glass (323) (10) Fabricated metal prod. - except machinery & transport. equip.: (a) Metal cans & shipping containers t341) (b) Cutlery, handtools & general hardware p42) _ (c) Heating equipment, except electric and warm air, and plumbing fixtures (343) (d) Fabricated structural metal products (344) (e) Coating, engraving & allied services (347) (f) Miscellaneous fabricated metal products - (1) Wire products pegs) (2) Misc. fabricated wire products (uge) (3) Metal foil & leaf p497) (4) Fabricated metal products - NEC (3499) (11) Industrial/commercial machinery & computer equipment: (a) Metalworking machinery & equipment (3s4) ; Adopted August 1, 1990 121 Revised Through 08/01/00 (.'S) ; YYBIGU, GIU(�►4 4t Jrtwc,►!y lc�a1# w► (�)x Reuphofstery &furniture rep(76ar s�� 3 � . 5 Nlc re errs & sery ces 69r� ( ) p- a n Retail trade { Lumber & other building mat00- Ojy> (2) Paint, glass 8� wailpa for (54 # j . (�) I�ardiNare 4 Nurseries, lawn;& garden suppMres 109 x- (5) M bile home deWait t i J (E ). L omativ, 60i ab-1motorcycle dealers tssr (Z) Gasofrne service tsar r 8 Furnii reJZ-i fumishings o)r` o Re'search' davelopme�tt; and testing sr+nces- p Ship, boat building & �eparnng less ban forty-i'ive.(45) ft t373r .. q: - Surfing, grading - packaging services - tushregetabtes r Uoeatronai. Schools s _. .. Wholesale Made =durable goods. Adopted August 1,1990 122 Revs p Throuah 08l01/00 t r r• � _ 193) . ` ` =�` �vt{ a, CQ-generation facliities cas$� � t � , F �� h puelin faoildie� °c J ' � 'dus4riaj k wastewater disposal tee) F d Qh detached single-family dwelbng .qr mobe home for .on'site sec�nty purposes per L e Retail trade accessory tothe primaryanufa(ring or wholesaimg;_use isss?,s "4 F t i i v ' i tL INS z 2L 'R x of }�g £M£fy"r Sid tj i r 3Fr' zf a / f 1 t F L Adopted August 1. 1990 . >j I ReWsed ThrougB 08/01/00 1 f Zon;na T & T Land, Ltd. I . C'3 AR-1 R AR-1 AR-11 GISG Map prepared August 28, 2003 has been cwp+ed t« WpWa V &W reference p OW N MW every effort has been node to provide the Most avrerd and aaa We irdon atm passible. it is nor mended for use w a ftWty binduq dommem. )d` "-'•'ItlflKtli:dt-n "fMf�S t � t ,; k �; ! t i 1 { � ; 1 '- ..J."+•.c-lJ�caw�+e] �'� `"4k.'�"T�fitlfr«Mks � L� M :, N � t 1 1` 1 Y� S } � � Ili f � S ry , - a.�:...., v v 7.t.4m.d f { Birth ''r - sv� i s ;?n r tra.•..e+..n•da, ... 1 a `. ry; �'�f(.! t ,IZ -1:,J r#Sj3w..`y�t....F+ett. `..4.'4ra!2:.��'t ��311 ',t { I£ "S Jrsr•z*Ti y i. P t d 7' 1 l> ?. s ' 1 w:, .t .s s aaL.�...�..�s+n.tr��.�. k +I �7.1i ' �. � T. w(a �l tl � :.y5 1� •�. { } i.��� r 1� ? " ( 1 S��w�-. Y i Ie Y� � � �+ �1�' Y �S Y J� � E - •i 7 r���t �t �� �i�iFj �f S Y r t''-d''t, � x� r � t 1 r -•mow d K�1 met' S ! r �y�" ���%'• i 4+1 t. f i�` ,j' '1't �frc %ti5 �i 'i.+ � l4� t �:`. 'di r `IR�ij4r - aq ryct"'+'''. n r•r S ,.,s.� 1•' t ..I. �s ! 1.f-E,1t�{ ..�} �' { - f�r. � g�'��w - !'1 � tt 13 }r lis a s t E3� r zt 1 i 2 ?�< 3 (4 i Eta 4 , + r fry _ f (i� su j - a °6 P"`" °'++.•,4 � `�. 1.���3@Ht� f � � 11 �y a � �t �.1't t{-+ sl°f }fit r.{" hi _ uJ. f 1 2. - � .3• ass .3�fr l5 IF tY'f ti , Ott ' t< { f Aj 4"j";I ' .jry � { L'� JI'. srii�♦ ++sn dIYXALn65t 5'swRr�1� 1ecs...� hit, "" '.t l �`tyy'• t a t �`, \, � � r 1 � t : ri i� 1 I i t• t t� 3 -- i(I K > 4..\� _ f `..�iM s'KI! "�� .4 c ',•+*d�+�eaw •c-{�.iry #. x T�r�t M- f' 1 1 C f J '_" < t I t1 r LmN s �} { Jz u , y' p al Ad 00, w o : 88►8�$$8$3858I��. f 8'8 818j8�8 8881si Nl.on M i M! M (s1 i N(Nj'NO`O�N�NN�N�N PROPOSED ZONING; CG;(Comrperc�el, Qenerai) PI�T�R� LAND'�lSE: CdlVl (Commercial) i ati PAFtL SiZ 0,91aere. ' ' s L T Pi70POSED USE Co►mercial Genaral usesg Ai . PERMITTED USES; , At#achm i "A"' Sedtioh ` 01,Q (S) GG (Comrrierdial, General} = is ins the designated, uses, ; wh;c : art . .Tl permitted by right„ perrhttted as an accessary use; or rmitted throu'0h the ronditi©real use process,' Any peuse ,. desigi��tgd as a:"�ondtionalUse".is required to undergo ; review and approvals, Any uses not found within s .. theor�ing "district regula#�otis are desigriafed as prohibited uses for tat district SURROUNDING ZONING CN (Cormercia[, Neigth ,=end (�ornrriercial genera(} tt the north and further south= R4 (F�esrdential 4 4) Js 1od'teci to the east; in the tarty of Ft; Pieroe SURROUNDING LAND USES: Th.general existing land uses surrounding the progarky a:cotnrnercial (two food stors),on;the west.side of South re 33, Streef aria single=family end, multiple=family residential `the east side of~South 33 on fdtCeet . r. September 10, 2003 Page 2 FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: UTILITY SERVICE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Subject: Gerhard Kampichler File No.: RZ-03-034 The Future Land Use Classification of the surrounding area is COM (Commercial) to the south, north, and west. Station #1 (Rhode Island Avenue) is located approximately 1 mile to the east. The subject property is in the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority service area. The existing right-of-way for South 33`d Street in the area of the proposed rezoning is 60 feet. No additional right-of- way is required at this time. There are no scheduled improvements for this area of South 33`d Street. Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed zoning. district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and has met the standards of 11.06.03. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The proposed change in zoning is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The request is compatible with the COM (Commercial) Future Land Use classification, which allows general commercial zoning. 6 �ocatea witnm .me urQan service area ' 3. Whether and, the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with 4 s ° ®R£r 1 the existing and proposed land uses; z The proposed CG (Gomrnerciai, General) Zgnipg is con`sjstent .with the existing 'toposedtomri e-cial;.use$ rt the area .The comrnerctal zoning is,at ted vi,and fjy So 'th 3`� ;Street #ram'the residential �omr g.to the t _j _ Whether there have been=changed conditions that require an; amendment;} ;. y� Gondittons have not changed so as to,roquire an arendment lMN 5. Whether and the extent to `which the proposed amendrr►ent would resu.It m demands on puf�iic facilities, ;,and whether or to the extent to yvhich ;theXM proposed amendrrient viioi�ld eiccoed thecapac�ty of suchublic;facilites`, includif>g but not limited to tl'ans00rtati0646611110esy'sewage facilites,.wter 4 ; supply,' parks, drainage, schools, soiid waste, mass transit, `and emergency medica;l,facilties, " `# The intended use for #his rezoning is not exported to create significant :additional de' rnancls on public facilities in #his areafAny addi#tonal cleveloprrient,will -need to demof5strate ,that#here are adequate p00116,facilities to the area ;tosupport"such .. development: ,. 69 Whether and 'the extent. to which tfie proposed amendment would result in significant adverseimpacts ontho natural environment, The proposed` arrierdrnent is not anticipated to create adversa 4tr�ipacts an;:the.. nature) environment; Any ldevelopment will be required to comply with all ;state . '. acid local envirpnme�ntal: regulati0i�s. ;, The ;safe . is, currently ;reveioped fqr a refrigeration ehtl photography business.. No expansion. of current structures. is proposed. , 7. Whether _and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result ,in an orderly and logical development pattern, specifically _identifying any negative affects Of, such patterns; - t Pagei4 i� nrmony with. me purpose ana mzen> or=tne pguucie county nano ueveiopment - Coder , COMMENTS E` 4 The petitioner, Gerhard Kampichler, has requested change m zoning from the .this js (Commerciai� neighborhood) Zoning District to the CG `(C&hnI rclal, Genarai) �ornn Q�strict°on property located at '1:123 South 33`� Street in order to allow the fsropei�ty to ba developed for ' = geheral cornm0rdial purposes Nlr,. Kampichler operates a sealing and coating busitless and , thus a reofiing to GC`is �rrquired. The our►'elit gperation,of a refri�ereton b�isihe;;s-�s a -,non conforming use :and ,:the pho#ography lusin�ss conforms '.to b9th the CG andW zoning ., Districts:.. � ,t Attached is a copy of Section 3 01 Q() CG r?Cbmmercial, Ge'neral);. of the St Lucie 4. Cotaht�r'Lan'd pe�elopr lent Code,, which elihe;atcs the pae'rhitted adc-eseorW A) . Qn,,itionel _; 4 uses allowed it] these,zonirig fdistriots If a change in op ig is approved, :the appliaaiit; by ri jht; � � _ T i _ would be allowed to etabiish any- of "the GSes under the Permitted Uses seofion Any use _ xf `under the AccUses 90tion would be allowed only if one oO r more of the.` perm tied uses . : . eXist on tine Vubtect ropi;rty Ahy use.<ut�clr r the Goinditional `Uses r ction ,caul l' only; be allowed if it first receive"s approval through the Hoard of County ComrXii sinners. Staff has; reviewed fihis petition :and de#ermined that it conforms to the standards' -of review as set forth in Section 11 (?6.03 of ;the St Lucie County Land pevelopment Coderd not in confligt with the gofiis.,` objectives,: Gildpiicies' of #lie St Lucie Geunty.;omptehetlsive , Plan'. Staff is, thjer fore redotaimendin thet this �ioard forward a` reCommendatipn o a royal . ` : 9 pp to Board :of County.Commissioners. , Please contact'this offibd if you have. any questions. on this matter. Attachment hf CC" . County Adrnninistrator County Attorney Gerhard Kampichler RIO r. MO TJ O N =TO -APPROVE..' I. ' UN 1 Y t�UHKU UI- UUUN I Y UUMM1551UNCK5 <UKAN I AI'I'KUVAL TO THE �%� APPLICATION OF GRHARD KAMPtGHI,t=R;.'FOR A CHANGE IN BONING FROM THE CN 7 � } (COMMCIA ERL, NEIGHB02HOOD) BONING QISTRICT TO THE "CG (COMMERCIAL, OF ZONfNG,RiSTRICT, BeCAU.SE ;:.. i mx [CITE R ASON[S] VVHY -_ PLEASE. BE IVI --TION TO DENY.' . AFTER CONSIDERiIVG THE TESTIMQNY 'PRESENTED .bURING THE IY'UBLIC NEARING, r .: INCLUDiNO STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS> OF REVIEW ASSET f=02TH ;IN SECTION.11,QfiO3, ST LUCIE COUNTY.LANb DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT Till* PLANNING AND ,ZONING COMMISSION RECOMfVIND THAT THE ST LUCII=,. COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE AFPLICATION.O:GERHARD KAMPICHLI�R,.. FOR ' A. CHANGE III BONING" .FROM THE CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORIHOD) ZONING "DISTRICT. TO THE' CG (COMMERCIAL; ; GENERAL) ONING t DISTRICT, BECAUSE.; [CITE REASONS] WHY - PLEASE B -SPECIFIC], { r ;` to the Sl�i code reference described its$+Cbon 3 0 02(Bj The nu� appit defined under the SIC code but may be'fi defined Section 2 b000of�is cod irtfur �� 2 Permit#ed ? 3 j IF H Uses. t 4 a Beauty and baifier services . . 1. yl c Depository institutions tsoi , 3X7h dLaundering and drycieaning (self service) rn;s� y� , e , ` Real estate 4 Y 7 f Repair services�`nE E (ih rlectncal repair.: �szi (2) Shoe repairs (m) (3j Wa�tdt. °odc, fewelry, end musical instrument repast 4r}r g Retad trade (each► building shall be less than 6�000 square f p gross fleor-area, ail usas inciusivej ues tsuit (1 Atr►tiqeee f Apparel and accessone"s tssi (3): Books and stat!onery, is94tis9+ai' ' (4) Cameras and pholK tographic supplies. tssm t (5j prugs acid prnprIetary ,isle (6) ° Eating places tse�zi ear s f � 7 )orists () Ptsar{ , s,# , i8), Food stores <ssi' � ...(�� b. Gifts. rtovelbes,:apd souvenirs +n (10j Hobbys toy and,game A, opssy ousehold aplali ineds rs7*i �(12)` Jewelry tsii - (13)` Newspapers andjmagazines (14) Optical goods. ts9ssi (15) Nurseries, lawn and garden supplies,tsxsi " (16) t2att10s, 'l V's. ctinsumei:'eleotranics .arld music supplies (17j Sporting goods and bicycles t5"I �1$j Tobacco products. 1 h. Video tape rental rraar 3. LoCSize f�equirements ' l.ot sizd regt�ri3ments shall be in accordance wih'Section 7,04.00. 4: imensronal_Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.t)t). Adopted August 1 1990 ^ 114 Revised-rhreug`h08/01/00 . l Wl Itb;dl G ,UY�GI.I }V OCl.uvl I fvv vq: <' Used merchandise stores tssaix (3) Sporting goods tss.ntzs (4). Book S. stat►onarjr tss�z�sgeai (5)"; Jewelry isq+u . z (6) Hobby tty and games E 7 Camara & hota r8 htc; su Ites tssaey ( ) P 9 P, - PP , (8)'' Gifts, nbvelty and souvenir (�+ij Tf �9) ` a Ltaggage & leatli'er goods tss+sy /.' (1`i)) F Wa brill mill productsisp.49) Gatal ail order and�direct sellin esa ( .) og. rrt g tsss i. (12) LtqutAel' d petroleum gas (propane) tss!'4) f Flbnsts ts9szi ; (14) Tt�acbo isss3i . (15) News dpalers7newsstands isasa)'. (16) C?ptit, goods ts99si (1T) Mtsc retail (See SIG aide ftir`Specfic"uses) ts�sj r s z` hh Miscellap, _s personal services (see SIC Gods Major Group 72); ' .5 M Tax return services » v , ' � retail (See "SIC,Cdde for spec uses) cam) `+< _ Miscellaneous business services (see SIG Gods Matti! Group 73): ` .. - .. ear 9 4 i peteottve guard; and armored secvtc;eb {riss 1 (2) Securtty system' services t `51, News syndicate tri41,7 r g M -- (4j Potofinlst%ing laboratoties t2 (5) _ Bt�sines� seniices : !Wise trasst "D D Mobilefiptntc dealers tszr) h Moltle fdod venddts (eating places. frtiiis &. vegetaf�tes-retail) ts9si j 11 Mo ion i ures, t p cX; , �z A : Motor vehlelo parking `cxSmrtterctai ptirktng & vehicle storage.,os�` An Museumsgq ., lens and gardert5 t80 4 oo. Personnel suppl)r services (136) .. pp. Photo mist tng serVices, tnm qq: Phtit991apttc setvlct#s► - s ai services tag ; ss.. Retreattor' facilities tgssi tt: (2epatr services rr6) uu. Retatl trade_ indoor dispfav and sales only, except ats,provided in:SecWn 7 OO.OE?: tit vv: Soc a! services, , (1) Ind'ividual &.family social services ara3si' Child care; services ta35i (3) ; Jot traming and vocational rehabilitation services i+i `; - ww. ?ravel agencies xx. Veteinaty.services taT<r - - '1 3: Lot Size' Requirements Lot size requirements"shailbe in accordan.ce with Section 7.04 00. , Adopted August 1., 1990 119 Revised Ttttough 6t31t?1/ilo ff string rSezcti�n7p 06,00 Oeet parking ,end load 6 t_anclscaptng Requirements Lar►ciscapmg requirements are to $ecuari 1.09. 'sirb)ect 7:" ,Gorditionai Uses = Adult esbhshments st�bdci to reg4i�er�tents of Seep 7 10.10 tss�f =� *ram rKZ fee-standi0g b Drinklo ptabes (alcottgltq�beve agcqR c d. Distnfecttng & pest control services21� Arrusert�ent parks e Gt-cart tracks c> f ' J t} J ' T f Notes$ &motel$ co>> r Y { r g Household `f oods werettousing`antl st6rage-rnlw varehause tr y k tba x h Marine = tcreattonal only t+ r i z Mator vetitde repair,der!rces - faody rspa�t. �xsr �' � . Sporting and refxeabgnal camps F k Retail fade quo f stores (4,02 k StaoiumsW at+ertaSi anda}ce tfack t s ''' 1`eetSdrOrtfurtication taws st�tije�t to; the standards c1fi;etn y 1eiy ' 8: Accessory -Uses � r- Arxessory.uses are subject to the,quierrients of Setltiott 8' 00 Ot� arttl �nc�luofe tt is Pc�f(1 ���g X a. Dunking places (ak�ltoltebeverages as an acce$sory tCse to s i estaurant art, civic social " y and fratemal orgarttzaiio�s) 1. One slrlgle-famy dwetitg unit c:orttamed wiilttn the ooirttrierota[ b�t�idin9, oe a `detached siriglfamily dwelling ortttoi�ild homes (for tsrl-site securtfy purposes):. f c: Reims trade ` ' 4 1 (1 j UndiitNled alcot oito beverages (accessorytd rot it $ale of food). F I l / 1 r�- f' 1 l 7 Adopted August 1, 1990 120 Revised Through 08/01100 -04,M- Z U� d QCY) 7 u Z_ M Q Hemlock Circle d, CN N o, o, ,y,'• �, a? En N J CU E 0)0 Ca —G-�Z UL a ca Q U 0 N ai U CO a� a� U U (Y) Q- Q- C) U) Cn 0 a 4aaa4S PuZC `4}nos �R' �+m ,+., imp •`�• m � N ' , cv' I • �i• , p `6 , ,-�--r r g ` w W oL G'1 ;...._..------------- 4aaaIS pjS,S, U1noC ""MEN low i I � I I I I � I I w GO, i Z ; rr --a-4dFD— Z ' Hemlock Circle" O O' }aaj}S PuZ� y}`noS C 1-0 74,77 00 n , Y ^+ `'k, O . Iaaj:S Pa�C_ u4noS I I N I LL I U V U rr Ca o o " CO a) U_ U_ L L `0 � C C Q Q CD L CO L rr rr N OC ' 16 1fj-1.; www. co.st-lucie. fL us I „za{ l September 10, 2003 Subject: First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce Page 2 File No.: CU-03-014 4 . ' j UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property is serviced by a well and septic ' system. The addition of classrooms < may require a modification to the system. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY r ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way width for South 25th Street in front of the subject property varies from .80 feet to 111.14 feet. Additional right-of-way for ; South 251'' Street is currently being pursued by the Property Acquisitions Division. This right-of-way acquisition varies from 26.14 feet in width at the north to 3033 feet at the south. I SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: This section of South 25th .Streetis scheduled tabe four- laned withmedian in the Spring of 2004. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Certificate of Capacity. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTIONA 1.07.03! ST..LUCiE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - In :reviewing, this application, for. the proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the fo lowing determinations: 1. Whether the' proposed conditional use is in conflictwith any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(X)(7) of the I (institutional) Zoning District and RF (Religious Facilities) Zoniho District, allows educational services and facilities as a conditional use subject to Board of - County Commission approvah 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have li an adverse impact on nearby properties; The proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The subject .property .is currently_ the location of a church facility. The proposed project would add two 672 square foot classrooms to the site. S Suggested motion to recommend'approval/denial of this requested•conditional use. MOTION TO APPROVE:. ' AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS -SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT iCODE, 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 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF FT. PIERCE, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES` IN THE 'l (INSTITUTIONAL) AND RF (RELIGIOUS FACILITIES) ZONING DISTRICTS, BECAUSE... [LIST CONDITION(S)] L , MOTION TO DENY: I AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 41 i07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSDENY THE APPLICATION OF FIRST I BAPTIST CHURCH. Of FT PIERCE, FOR A_CONDITIONAL USE -PERMIT TO ALLOW EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES , IN THE .I (INSTITUTIONAL) AND RP I (RELIGIOUS FACILITIES) ZONING' DISTRICTS, BECAUSE... i I - [CITE REASON(S) WHY = PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] I _ I - II . w I, Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations X. I INSTITUTIONAL —. 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect and environment suitable for institutional, public, and quasi -public uses, together with such other uses as may be compatible with institutional, public, and quasi -public surroundings. The number in it following each identified use corresponds to the eference described in Sectiorr3.01.02(13). The number 999. applies to a use not defined SIC code reference, I under the SIG code but may be further defined in Section 2:00.00 of this code. 2. I Permitted Uses - a. Community residential homes subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.07. tml b. Family day care homes; t l C. Family residential homes provided that such homes�shali not be located within,a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family residentiai'home and provided that the sponsoring agency or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative' Services (HRS) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of. home occupancy that the home F is, licensed by HRS. tsesy d. Institutional residentialhomes. tsssi e. Parks. t"9► f. Police & fire protection ts2zt.md� g. Recreational activities. iswy. h. Refigious organizations;* 3. Lot Size Requirements`, I Lot Size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00, 4. Dimensional Regulations I Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.0400. 5. Off-street Parking'. and Loading Requirements i Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. '. 6. I Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09,00. 7'. Conditional Uses a. Amphitheaters. tsssl b, _ Cemeteries. t6mi ` c. Membership organizations tall d.. Correctional institutions. mml e.' Cultural activities and nature exhibitions. tmt f Educational services and facilities @2) g. Executive, legislative, and judicial functions, t91,az93.94,90.96,971 Adopted August 1, 1990 132 Revised Through 08/01/00 I Section 3.01.03 Zoning.District Use Regulations h. Fairgrounds. (9w) i. Funeral and crematory services. (726) j. Theaters. (ees) k. Medical and other health services. (so) I. Postal service. (43) M. Residential care facilities for serious or habitual juvenile offenders. (ees) n. Social services (w) o. Sporting and recreational camps j7m) p. Stadiums, arenas, race tracks (7sa) q. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (ees) 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages related to civic, social, and fraternal uses). (ees) b. Restaurants. (including the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premises consumption only.) (M) C. Funeral and crematory services. v26) d. Heliport landing/takeoff pads. (m) e. Detached single-family dwelling unit or mobile home, for on -site security purposes. (M) f. Residence halls or dormitories. (m) U Adopted August 1, 1990 133 Revised Through W01100 Section 3.01.03 s Zoning District Use Regulations , Y. RF RELIGIOUS FACILITIES - t Z 1. Purpose . The purpose of this District is to provide and protect an environment suitable for the establishment and operation of churches, synagogues; temples, and similar uses. The number in"()" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(8). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted .Uses a. Churches. synagogues, temples, and similar uses. (sss) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00: Y 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements Off4street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. - 6. Landscaping Requirements. • , I Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses" a. tray care facilities, associated and operated by the `principal religious use located on that property. This would include the operation of a day care facility during the normal business week, as licensed by the State of Florida, as well as during any religious function or associated activity. (m) b. Educational services, associated with and operated by the principal religious use located on that property. This would include the operation of an educational facility providing general academicand/or special training from grades K to-12, and as licensed by State of Florida. . tsssi . _ C. ` Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 .tml 8. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following; a Parking lots & parking areas, to with related circulation elements. b. Enclosed storage structures. c. Playgrounds and athletic fields (no artificial lights) provided that no activity area shallbe i permitted within twenty-five (25) feet of the perimeter of the property. Adopted August 1, 1990 134 Revised Through 08/01/00 Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations I d. Private water and sews a utifi services provided that they are for the sole use of the S ty particular private development, are not intended to be a sub -regional system, and do not involve industrial wastewater as defined., e. Single family dwelling (detached or as part of the principal structure). (1) Private swimming pool accessory to the single family dwelling provided that the swimming pools shall be walled or,fenced.to prevent uncontrolled access to such swimming pool from the street or from adjacent prop'erties., (2) Non-commercial garages accessory to the single family dwelling. C i I Adopted August 1.1990 135 Revised Through 08/01/00 i I Z U C— C) o '� Sep }, o ` d v L- Vs a 0.0 O — � aec Is PAM AT 8 w WNW yPc �7 a £lL- 3s' a n WUMV NO&SNHOr W ow �/ r U no lvrjm ovum vn "M U � i arou TVNn u3ors� • � � � Z L1C W � � ON 9MOlON T30 W � M1 N _ GrOtl 11011yq Z 0 ' 1L•3 1TMT3 z / � i tlN W W � in t- � i s 6£ 1 s S£ 1 s 9£ 1 JdNf100 3380H033>10 o, A Petition of First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce fo educational services and facilities in the (Institut Zoning Districts. Serenity Circle North 0 s ---�') PJee 1 5 e R A • a A a n « w c a c .t ,» o • Conol No. 102 oil 1 F-I 89 C U 03-014 This pattern indicates subject parcel r a Conditional Use Permit to allow ional) and RF (Religious Facilities) Map prepared August 28, 2003 This map has been ooffOW for 9st W0WW*0 Sod MWe^o• paMs•s enrr. N WNe me„ effort has been made to P�de Cie most anent" aonnae Wanatlon Po O., C b W Y.andad for — .a. In* bir." doa M. 1® Zoning First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce 1 GO-% C U 03-014 - 4� This pattern indicates Map prepared August28,2003 subject parcel �PVhtlbw Im�d " 0* N ft" spy ~hn seen rtrtle b P.,4C% the .1m a—ftaw —ts onam. ile M W kd_WPam. Im— ® a Wg* W.*V d ..—A. Land Use First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce Ser nity Circle North i 46 A n a 5' A « A o e+ � • A P/f:: L LO L N t 7 O V) Conol No. 102 DevineR -Rs LSI I i I Q U 03-014 This pattern indicates subject parcel G Map prepared August 28, 2003 RU mW �- beenb 9•rNpWri p .nd W.— N..— �. N rode .my~ ms b.en male to piwfde " most-4 w .-..v MamWwn po..U.. It h na Mended W m u . boey bhatq don.na.. I First Baptist Church of Ft. Pierce C U 03-014------- 500' boundary This pattern indicates subject parcel 5 r Y. Map prepared August 28, 2003 VJh% even' ~ hr bean mma to W&148 ma mat a "and aoarak iM mIagm posaRk. M b na aarb"d la m n a kg* bin5 d=xno . of ;.asiq t tv Ai 4 Px r ,� {�, t,dv�31�� �.t 1"iq"f �.• L ( ft{ r. ► y w-y�: -•,"# u...tl.'.vis Lstl '.� r,.: - M M N N •"' O .'r ;e h rc 1p �. h ti ar (+S'. -N 00 ..� 1p N DD 00 h h 00� V'1 10 00 h 00 h 04 00 h 10 00 QO 00 ,H 10 1/1 00 64 :00 tn in c01i�o�orn-� o1c1o1It Itm c1 v"g � c,00so.o,�cr�19t?W? c, M' M CO ('M M M' ' ' ' M' ''fin M M M M' ' ' M M M If i ao! 00 ; 001 ! 00 I -00 00 { 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ON rn ien _c) M M M M oj 01: �. !?N,Uv v UN .�U4ai 'U UOD U U U U Q. i ''"U.0 ua.L. UNaiei i u 40; i 12 .12 a {! NUII! •U•.y ('-NU � o: "o 0 0= 0 0. o o.:o+ o! o o O o O 0 O, of o O o: a,At: w;w'a:w i d a a b >; x: x s4 x ,; i a'. �4{ : i U cd a-U U .UUo ! a � ti a+ • a.+. � ` $ L03 f.+ cd «+:. � Qc � w I �y , " � � bQ '-�.G7? .r ,M�`n tn' b id 'n„n, a' 0 �' a �.a` a' +nitn1 rn a G; 'n a + a 'nI if I �, K iNjC4 N; .. {N� IN V��Cn:tnl�I�tVyW tn); O! 0; U]jt/11 �;� 3' IS/] �'C/� {V) �� U] i•-r•011O�!ren�:GO 10 o0:V1jmim,.�: f Q01 V-�.in MsQ�(O1Nic'*1 .--1 'th O N O ~. p� II �R7'I�IOIa h{NIO (VI�1(�iOfQ:�1O1 h h �M ©lOf� �1M'�I�I� M M d 0 10! „ t 1!' l :M -i `iIN`Paii131N, d tt�._ ! �tIN;Ni"'1 dSet�d�N NIN ct d�N b� N t -f- 1.43, ,4) >1(`d ti ia� -_�x if +i ' 'i a�j•�, li ' + df! Q)''a) ?x- �'. N .a! yt•W'i !.v, y` , ai Nt (dl ! ! •U i ,� .� N II !II�I�{ I o� {IS`�c� �I► I i� oi'o ,a �zw : 1 Iii x ti O A � a i I aNi�' ccVi',p g; (� �1cd.b' 0 O{ �•�;olO (d UD 1 '►i I p' 1�► ram! cbi '� y �' s i" cd 4), I :' Q N ti 1 .o' ! i a•, O I (.:- 00 - '.c m ot�,:a a ao+ OQlcdow,(d�cua >> � �% O �� I��, �zll�aacaoaoa�u�Ulu,a��Aw ww Iww�wwwwctiaa ..r 1D { oo h O� h h o0 0o N d M Mri '� t1• ff 1p 10 ii M M ! �t 'etCl ' ,sue i� (O1O d O OlCIC!C 61(6 C �� N 01 MI ! =+ O Q�b G Q O O M C O O -.1 42 j- t - - -t - - O% d' M 11 ON M h j'n '•+ j" h " h 1 h hCA OI M N 00. N �i�.O _.I $'i'�tl'd•�.-�IC�tet •"•''M1Mid'.:et{MIMi'd• !.00.F i(VIieh M�l�`d; M.'�t 00 If o y�hpC.OiM{ItOf O�OLG3O.OIOjO!OIO.I �hj101",! H.iQ�O�O N O,CIOIC ClO O 9 O {Ii.Ilwwo :w•�+ {�':I i :.r'S���n o�o�0 o QQ g' O8 0 pM QM M M 00 V) C� An CA � .=r 'cr , .-1 .-1 :-, e~ �--, ..c f .r ..a w H .-a M : 'd' .-1 .--, w .M ; ..-� �--, .-� :-� v.-, `H• .M ...� .'r ..r i{ !G O O -1 O O O OtO:O:O C OId ti { 4 -� L O O M Oie}IO C O •+GOO O tn, I- h h l '• (, l, h h M Mcn 'MIM�M M M M MM�M{MIM M M MI+I iM,M.M M M MIM M M M M.M M MM et eq AL. } et d O �t et et IN d• d Cq at R4 (A ,!- -_.E"N N1N NON N�N N?N1NiNI;N �tN N NLE"� — --. N;NiN (V Cl N N N N - -� (V _N N -=--- p� W •:� �D t` N �=+ ' 1 �O 'O W 00 "a •*+ !1 N N rt bb 00 e} 00 (V 00 1n M 00 N l� �n a� Ch O t` G� v •d• a\ a� O O+` N tl t� �n d In V N �t '�t �t v� N d N t- d d to 4n V) M :N ti M M M M M cM. M cM �', ,!, M „'� ;,'y.. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1 a% a�) a1 (I O� td' M— Mi IV) (M�LMIM 1 }M-71 - W 00 d fM : l 00 d Kl •-1 00 d c'M ...M. N W M -- N' U N N Wj N uu N i N N. i nu u; NJ ) u' u3• u` .t 1 N N" N a+ u' yi P ::4 4 w rn:v� cC a �: i1r ? c ,� a :ink o 0 0' .o o' o 0 0 0• 0 0: a� �+ o 0 0 0; o. of U. ww 44. w w aa,w_ w w; w,tn O•w-n. w a: w;wl { 1 0 0 0 ;wv� U l A o b a,a; a d}bi ! l f i >bo w.U 21; � UiU U U j.Z. i 00 �lU3 a I o, o a;•a, � a, a�:� N';� , �' a}P. A �.�'. u�t�l a aj a al a'a h { � � a b .ti a4 a' :Tf!'C7 vs x.�i N;N C. d o:�raW,C'n U,-ja13} {� 3s, , ,tea ?oho `^� } a300 I~ <V .++ W W 100 ai l+ � W I W t Q\ N I •r 1/i W } Vi'I ':d } O}O4co, }C-4.t6 {. { i�.lk�$ �OIh N M'V�'I�iWr .Wi :. �.M � M t M In N �.� N h!lV��-!y"/}•-+;_ .}•-� "-•��_...1 .:N(VIIIN %101O��N�-1��tt. ichiM d d �! 1 yti y } i cv l j ,� w� 0en t t a� ea' v b w u(� O a___ �v� a� FF3 o _ I}jj r� GI jW W V �pqi O-F.IFri_l tz V] l A Ri Rif i J V] }�di�. n0ilw;fj C/) 'C� U ` p, V aaa -gyp' of li .a 3 aai a'4i o zOawa. �� vJVJFE+E-IFE-+�" O% 00 t� y �y W N M v 1 ��}• l� .��}} M N ��}} h .tom C !n cM M II M �t Yd O �F M tt q 1I O 4 of O alCq 00 00 N �-7 �G V•1 O C �O Cl N O� cn 00 8 C M l� l 00 M � ee}} 1 W 1n !! �• l� Ijj M } W I 1n O l� O 00 C C �OIIO�cn Cl? ' �t�'' .M��F} {Oi(n (n ��t iMi ��n}M1:4 d �M� �r oo to 10GJ .!CIO 6 O 010, ri O O} Q}O1OIO1.4 -410 �4 cn (, V i, Ip7.N! }�ppi'o0'00 M !- {M{. ' N�.'+It�' {00 w0 w I {O�O {vl I �§ 80 C> § o 08' N 00 W l� ao I M N l� V I W W N t� ! W !N N 0 M W h Yf1 i 4='8818 to cri . r N cV M to N 88o'.e8� 8Hl ; {. W W W "R } W, W W W W p , i'O�OIlQIM O G O :O�O) I O O Q?Ol.�'O O O t�lt-,cf) rt r t`��r� �' 1F R M M NM MMcMMM MM1M IM M N M !N N O ,tom M C M O r-M}M M 8 A MM7 Md�� M'M cnf M�t+1IMIIMIM f�'1 M M �M M �1N - M N�+1-N�NF-FNt_NJNjNyNIN N N N EiN N 1 oo ( i f f i fN` f 0�0 ` L` I f - PC ''i. CcIll LA j t r f Id � R tiI f 4- i cn 41 1 ffill �'i .,z i;,(! a f� • N � i, � y 4j, �+ r rr it u o 1 cdco r_ lz J++}8 M � w - VA. M f cn Cal • i! Cf7 ': -- N,j I - - LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: September 18, 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Administration MEMORANDUM TO: Local Planning Agency FROM: Community Development Director DATE: August 31, 2003 SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement For Public School Facility Planning — St. Lucie County As part of the 2002 legislative session, the governors singed and passed into law Senate Bill 1906 which made several amendments to the general planning statutes found in Florida Law. One area which was added to the law required that all local School Districts and local governing bodies within a County enter into a specific Interlocal Agreement that would set out specifically how the various units of government would coordinate school planning and silting matters. These Interlocal Agreements are to be approved by all affected parties no later than December 31, 2003. In the case of St. Lucie County, rather than enter into individual agreements with each City and the County Commission, the School Board has asked, and the local governments agreed to, enter into one common agreement to be executed by all parties. School planning is about providing adequate facilities, support network and services to educate Florida's residents. With the passage of SB 1906, local governments and School Boards are required to enter into Interlocal Agreements that address school siting, enrollment forecasting, school capacity, infrastructure, collocation and joint use of civic and school facilities, sharing of development and school construction information, and dispute resolution and oversight, by adopting parallel requirements of both Chapter 163, Part II, and Chapter 1013, F.S. The Interlocal Agreements must be reviewed and approved by DCA with the assistance of the Department of Education. Failure to enter into an Interlocal Agreement subjects both the local governments and school boards to financial sanctions. The law further provides that the Department of Community affairs will review all executed Interlocal Agreements and determine whether they are consistent with the requirements of Section 163.31777(2), F.S. Once a consistency determination is* made, the DCA is to publish its findings in the Florida Administrative Weekly and to post a copy of the findings online. In sum, the attached Interlocal Agreement sets out& process whereby St. Lucie County and -the School District are to review -on -an annual -basis growth projects -and facility needs. Through -this -- agreement the County and the School Board will work jointly to determine where, and when, to locate new schools. The County will be responsible to make sure that school designs are done in such a manner as to minimize effects on the adjoining properties and area roadway network. The School Board would responsible to try and locate sites that minimize negative impacts onto the local community. In addition, to school sites, these same facility -planning requirements apply to the non -educational components of the School Boards physical plant. You are being asked to review this proposed Interlocal Agreement in your capacity as the Local Planning Agency for consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for St. Lucie County. Staff recommends that this Board forward to the Board of County Commissioners a finding that August 31, 2003 Page 2 Subject: Interlocal Agreement For Public School Facility Planning — St. Lucie County the presented Interlocal Agreement between the St Lucie County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners is consistent with Objective 1.1.17, and the its attendant Policies, and further recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this agreement as drafted. If you have any questions about this, please let us know. DJW Attachment SCHOOLBOARDINTErLOCALI A(H) cc watt: Dan Harrell, Esq. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY PLANNING - ST. LUCIE COUNTY This Agreement is entered into between St. Lucie County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County"), the City of Fort Pierce, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida ("Fort Pierce"), and the City of Port St. Lucie, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida ("Port St. Lucie,":and, collectively with the County and Fort Pierce, the "Local Governments"), and the School Board of St Lucie County, governing body of the School District of St. Lucie County ("School Board"). WHEREAS, the Local Governments, together with the Town of,St:Lucie State of Florida ("Village"), comprise the local general purpose governmi over the entirety of the lands in St.. Lucie County; and ' R WHEREAS, the Local Governments and the School Board for the education, nurture and general well-being of the chl WHEREAS, the Local Governments and School Boa students of their communities by more closely coordii planning programs: namely (1) better coordinato _ 1 greater efficiency for the School Board and loc love and planned roads, water, sewer, and parksJ 3) irr construction of new and expanded scho s ith the Governments; (4) better defined urba►j f m,by loc 1 points, (5) greater efficiency and con en ce by c k community.facilities to take advantageof joint us , o� to urban sprawl;,and support Of�ekjst g neighbo, ; and renovatina,existina schoc�is.:a�d a mui at have obligation and responsibility iunity; and ecogn ze the benefrtsethat Mll`flow to the citizens and J t %comprehensive (a use and school facilities sc in tt, a and place with land development, (2) ierit lac <"'Is to take advantage of existing yed Stu a t s and safety by coordinating the id and sid I construction programs of the Local and des! ping schools to serve as community focal ing schools with parks, ballfields, libraries, and other rtu rtfes, and (6) reduction of pressures contributing appropriately locating new schools and expanding WHEREAS; S otro �13 33, Fl9�nda'(�,t tes, requires that the location of public educational facilities must be consistent viiti�h omprehensive pta�i�d implementing land development regulations of the appropriate local governing bodily, WHEREAS, Sections "f 63 31117 7(ti) � )1 anti 2, Florida Statutes, require each local government to adopt an intergovernf ental coordin' t n ele0 t as part of their comprehensive plan that states principles and guidelines to be used in the accomplis menof coordination of the adopted comprehensive plan with the plans of the schoolboards, and describes the processes for collaborative planning and decision making on population rc ections and public schoo siting; and WHEREAS, Sections 6331777 and 1013.33, Florida Statutes, further require each county and the non-exempt municipalities within t t countyto enter into an interlocal agreement with the district school board to establish lointly5fe`srftciirays in which the plans and processes of the district school board and the local govetirnents a to be coordinated; and WHEREAS, as provided in Sections 163.31777(6) and 1013.33(7), Florida Statutes, the Village is exempt from the requirement to enter an interlocal agreement with the School Board because: (1) there is no public school School interlocal Agreement Page 1 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 located within the boundaries of the Village, (2) the School Board's 5-year facilities work program and long-term 10-year and 20-year work programs demonstrate that no new school facility is needed in the Village, and (3) the School Board has verified that no new school facility will be needed in the Village within the 5-year and 10- year time frames as set forth in the Resolution of the School Board adopted May 27, 2003, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the School Board and the Local Governments enter into this Agreement in fulfillment of that statutory requirement and in recognition of the benefits accruing to their citizens and students described above. NOW, THEREFORE, be it mutually agreed among the Local Governments and the School Board that the following procedures will be followed in coordinating land use and public school fities„planning: Section 1. Definitions For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms 1.1 "Ancillary facilities" and "ancillary improvements necessary to provide such maintenance, or administrative buildings educational program of the School Board. 1.2 "Applicable LDRs" shall me jurisdiction to the extent that (a) t e"+ is not specifically addressed b ap Code for Public Educational ;^ ilitie: Florida Statutes, including State regulations are specifieiri t is Agrej of the School Board.-AlF . I 1.3 not the buildings, sites, and site e maintenance, warehouses, ✓ide support services to an LDRs adopted,by the'Local Government with of in conflict with or the subject regulated �'{p Flortd tatutes, or the State Uniform Building truction a, opted as provided in Section 1013.37, rements:fdducational Facilities, and (b) such as applicable to ancillary or educational facilities spaces located at educational plants of the t occupant stations. C h i !V11g e t4 ties" shall mean the County Administrator of the County, the City of Fort`'�e��dthe City Manager of Port St. Lucie. rehen6iiMdance an" shall mean the comprehensive land use plan adopted by a Local der in with the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Lan8Use fitelopment Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. 1.6 "CO616W(P;ency Management System" shall mean the requirements relating to the availability"` f public facilities and services to serve new development adopted by a Local Governme�it in the manner provided in Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes. 1 7 l _ "Development regulatory action" shall mean action by -a -Local Government upon any - - pposal, application, or request to enact, adopt, approve, amend, or rescind a comprehensive plan, land use classification, zoning ordinance, zoning classification, land development rule or regulation, conditional use, special exception, site plan, mining permit, condemnation, or other development order, permit, or approval, but not including action upon an application for a building permit. School Interlocal Agreement Page 2 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 1.8 "DRC" shall mean the staff development review committee, site plan technical review committee, or equivalent body, for a Local Government. 1.9 "EAR" shall mean the evaluation and appraisal report on a Comprehensive Plan prepared by the LPA for a Local Government in accordance with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes. 1.10 "Educational facilities" shall mean the buildings and equipment,,structures, and special educational use areas that are built, installed, or established to;serve primarily the educational purposes and secondarily the social and park and reoreatioral purposes of the community and that may lawfully be used as authorized by the Flori, ,'. -20 Education Code (Chapters 1000-1013, Florida Statutes) and approyei 6y the ScoQ 1.11 "Educational plant" shall mean the necessary to accommodate students, fact educational program of each educational r 1.12 "LDRs" shall mean the land developn with jurisdiction, including but not limited to Development Code, (b) for Fort Pierce, the d6 (c) for Port St. Lucie, the Port St. Lucie Zoii 1.13 "Long-range planning" information and needs, caret , objectives of the School Boq# , staff, Board. the ted bythe Local Government the St. Lucie County Land the City of Fort Pierce, and nethod based on educational ities to meet the goals and 1.14 "LPA" shall rneaf -the local planning gency, planning and zoning commission, zoning board, or equ valentbody,designated_(a�rto prepare the Comprehensive Plan for a Local Government i .. "cordanc the Flo d Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Dev sip o t RegulaI of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and/or (b) to review and o ; d approdIapproval of applications to rezone property within the 1tridictiort<o a'; t mend the ids=bf; a Local Government. "New constptior!' shall mean any construction of a building or unit of a building in +gntire work iew, fan entirely new addition connected to an existing building. 1 i'6IW'" 'o'-ot1; Planning Council" shall mean the Treasure Coast Regional Planning COuncil, ,r egtd : planning council created as provided in Section 186.504, Florida Statutes. 1.17 "SM otffacilities" shall mean and include any or all ancillary, auxiliary, and educationd facilities of the School Board. 1.18 "Site" shall mean a space of ground occupied or to be -occupied by an ancillary or edy,calional facility or program.- - 1`19 "Site development" shall mean work that must be performed on an unimproved site in order to make it usable for the desired purpose; or, work incidental to new construction or to make an addition usable. School Interlocal Agreement Page 3 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 Section 2. Section 3. 1.20 "Site improvement" shall mean work that must be performed on an existing site to improve its utilization, correct health and safety deficiencies, meet special program needs, or provide additional service areas. 1.21 "Superintendent" shall mean the Superintendent of Schools for St. Lucie County, Florida. Joint Meetings 2.1 Staff Working Group: A staff working Board will meet on a semiannual basis to disc regarding coordination of land use and school population and student projections, developme. use opportunities, and ancillary infrastructure IT ensure safe student access. Representatives fr invited to attend. The Superintendent shall ba;, and providing notification of meetings.; 2.2 Joint Workshop Sessions: One or m and the School Board will meet annually in jb Regional Planning Council will also be it y t b opportunities forthe Local Governmett d� set direction, and reach understancfin c coordination of land use and school facj 'tfE growth, development trends, scFiool needs off The Superintendent shall Pbe'responsible for notification of meetings," of the Local Governments and School ,sues antl formulate recommendations es planning, j iblt�dirtg such issues as ds. school,needs,cb=location and ioirht the for making be repireser fife' - s of the Local Governments NOrkshP . ions. A representative of the attend. sessions will be hool Boailear reports, discuss policy, t issuesof mutual concern regarding %a n ",'I uding population and student t:.- apt ovements, and joint use opportunities. tk rl meeting arrangements and providing mstWInft�ul ltm ,ht of their respective planning duties, the Local 3oar`d,agreeto coordinate and base their plans upon consistent type, and distribution population growth and student enrollment. ation projections developed by the County and five-year student Iped by the School Board shall be revised annually and provided Op' meeting described at subsection 2.1. 3.2 Bosi§T6f Proiections: The School Board shall utilize student population projections based on d1h produced by the demographic, revenue, and education estimating conference :suant to Section 216.136, Florida Statutes, where available, as modified by the Schoo bard based on development data and agreement with the local governments and the Officef Educational Facilities and SMART Schools Clearinghouse. The School Board may request adjustment to the estimating conferences' projections to reflect actual enrollment an Development trends: In formulating such a request the School Board will coordinate with Itfe Local Governments regarding development trends and future population projections. 3.3 Allocation of Enrollment: The School Board, working with the Local Governments, will use the information described in Section 4.3 to allocate projected student enrollment into sub -count planning sectors so that the District -wide projections are not exceeded. The School Interlocal Agreement Page 4 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 planning sectors will be established by mutual consent of the School Board and Local Government staff. The allocation of projected student enrollment will be determined at the first joint staff working group meeting described in subsection 2.1. 3.4 Provision of Reports: The Local Governments shall provide the School Board a copy of each population report, count, or projection; residential building permit report, count, or projection; and demographic study or analysis prepared or received by any of them within thirty (30) days of preparation or receipt. The School Board shall- provide the Local Governments a copy of each student enrollment report, count, or, projectiorrand demographic study or analysis prepared or received by the School Boartl:Vvithin,thirty 30 gays of preparation or receipt. Alternatively, the parties tna)r comply with a requirements of this subsection by making each such report available"at3the next semtannualfstaff working group- meeting that follows preparation or receipt of the,report.; Section 4. Coordinating and Sharing of Information 4.1 Tentative District Educational Facilitif Board shall submit to the Local Governments prior to adoption by the Board. The plan will t 1013.35, Florida Statutes, and include .r geographically, an inventory of existing schoc information on relocatables, general locationsti periods, and options to reduce tlneed foYrr i will also include a financially fee(&011e District Local Governments shall rev t M the plan and c the consistency of the plan wrtl the local°Comer amendment will be ne ssttry for any propos Government supports npcessaryfFG inprehen does not support a 0- *rehensrve Ian arsAS to Section 11 of-Ahis`Aareement_._ an On August 1 of each year, the School teCttative District educational facilities plan in�ter'tyvwth_the requirements of Section ictelKsiudent populations apportioned ilities,pp dctions�of facility space needs, w schools fo(iithe 5-, 10-, and 20-year time inal permanent student stations. The plan le S rogram for a 5-year period. The iel1,. the School Board within 30 days on an, whether a Comprehensive Plan ducational facility, and whether the Local Plan amendment. If the Local Government ;nt, the matter shall be resolved pursuant 42 EducationakPlant Surve ._ ,"tleast one year prior to preparation of the Educational �?la Survey's I te, t.h,, taff working group established in subsection 2.1 will assist the SeI,BOard in dvPp apacity in the preparation of the update. The Educational Plant Su shall be consis ter, the requirements of Section 1013.31, Florida Statutes, and me e a east an invent of existing educational facilities, recommendations for new and exists g a i t- , and the general location of each in coordination with the land use plan. The staff worki 'i"M� ill evaluate and make recommendations regarding the location and need for new, ortsignrfleantrenovation and expansion of existing educational facilities with the Local Government Ceprehensive Plan, and relevant issues listed at subsections 6.3, 9.6, 9.7, and 10.1 of this" Agreement. 4.3 /, Growth and Development Trends: On November 15 of each year, the Local Gov raments-will provide. the. School -Board- with, a report on- g rowth anddevelopmenttrends- - wat 'in their respective jurisdictions. This report will be in tabular, graphic, and textual formats in electronic form using the respective Local Government's geographic information system data base) and will include the following: (a) The type; number, and location of residential units which have received zoning School Interlocal Agreement Print Date: 8/31/03 Page 5 of 19 Section 5. approval or site plan approval; (b) Information regarding future land use map amendments which may have an impact on school facilities; (c) Building permits issued for the preceding fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) and their location; (d) Information regarding the conversion or redevelopment-of.=housing or other structures into residential units which are likely to generate. new students; and (e) ' The identification of any requirement for the provision of a sc Consistency Determinations 5.1 Sites and Facilities Consistent with with notice to and in cooperation with the Sch its respective Comprehensive Plan to assure be consistent with the land use categories Local Government with jurisdiction: (a) All ancillary and effective date of this Aci (b) All educat' _ heal facil date of this Agree nt. 'ment orders - cudd :. which contain,,., as a condition"of development approval. Each Local Government, and amend as necessary and/or facilities are or will mprehensive Plan for the construction as of the School Board as of the effective (c) All,8��e educa i al facilitidbi- ites designated by the Local Governments as cones 'tions of any fu e�elopnt regulatory action. va y, " Perm�ft �tture Lan fa"ssifications for New Sites and Facilities: Each Local rnrn f ',na te, and in cooperation with the School Board, shall. review and amend ssary its "esp ` comprehensive Plan to specify the future land use classifications eh„drool Boa►_ ties shall be permitted, recognizing the following guidelines: School Interlocal Agreement yFacilities: Ancillary facilities generally should be permitted in any classification in which the principal or predominant use of the facility Educational Facilities: (1) Traditional educational facilities serving students in grades K-12, regardless of grade level configuration, generally should be permitted in -any - - institutional, residential, or mixed use future land use classification. (2) Academies (educational facilities that house particular academic, alternative, research, or vocational programs delivered in a nontraditional setting, including but not limited to school -in -the -workplace programs) Page 6 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 Section 6. generally should be permitted in any future land use classification in which the principal or predominant use or activity within the academy would be permitted. 5.3 Cooperation in Subsequent Proceedings: In the event of an administrative, judicial, or other challenge, or the initiation of formal or informal proceedings, with respect to any amendment undertaken by a Local Government as provided in subsection 5.1 or 5.2 of this Agreement, the School Board shall assist and cooperate with the Local.=;Government in defending or otherwise responding to such challenge or proceedings 6.1 Public Schools Advisory Committee: Schools Advisory Committee for the purpose o proposals for significant renovation and pots Board and each Local Government shall appoir Based on information gathered during the revie to the Superintendent. The Public Schools Adi and will meet on an as needed basis. In adc include appropriate members of School Board' of the Local Governments. '1401 6.2 Committee Review of for a new school is identified Advisory Committee will devek sites for new schools and t `t for significant renovatio_ p jurisdiction for an inf alas comprehensive plan cludinc pedestrian access, ailabilib compatibility,ddonsi encv with the School ,BC a of existing schools 7heSchool ember to serve oneCoinmittee. ittee will submit recommendations ittee will be a standing committee Sri.members , the Committee will cast one staff member from each rod6se&SONORe :ovations ,and Closures: When the need tf a Dist I hal facilities plan, the Public Schools a list of iatentia i e ti3 area of need. The list of potential t of sc'is !dent' t 'e District educational facilities plan tentia�� losure willsa submitted to the Local Government with as �:brit regar 'i consistency with the Local Government pplicabl environmental suitability, transportation and trast f re and services, safety concerns, land use urltljr ision, and other relevant issues. In addition, the 6. �of=ihis Agreement will be considered by both the Local s Advisory Committee as each site or school is evaluated. :red during this review, for new schools the Committee will Superintendent of one or more sites in order of preference. I potential closures, the Committee will make appropriate 6.3 Factors Considered: The following factors will be considered by the Public Schools Advisory comm1&_ ee, the School Board, and the Local Governments when evaluating new school siteand significant renovations and potential closure of existing schools: (A) The location of schools proximate to urban residential development and contiguous to existing -'school sites, and which- provide logical focal points for community activities and serve as the cornerstone for innovative urban design, including opportunities for shared use and collocation with other community facilities; (b) The location of elementary schools proximate to and within walking distance of the residential neighborhoods served; School Interlocal Agreement Page 7 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 (c) The location of high schools on the periphery of residential neighborhoods, with access to major roads; (d) Conformity of the school site location with continued implementation of the School Board's student assignment plan and transportation network; (i) Existing or planned support the school; (j) Environmental the development or sig (k) Adverse impicfs`on Register of Historic P des or significant historic; rchaec (1) They adaptable f. facilities and services to eitherprec(ifdeor render cost infeasible a publics wool on the site; sites listed in the National local government as a locally well d ined and tesoils are suitable for development or are Mop, t and oi- door educational.. purposes with drainage sedioeation is not in conflict with the local government i, stormwater management plans, or watershed management d location is not within a velocity flood zone or flood way, as icable comprehensive plan; Wproposed site can accommodate the required parking, circulation and vehicles; e proposed location lies outside the area regulated by Section 333.03, ding the construction of public educational facilities in the vicinity of an tether a site plan and structural design can be developed consistent with _...._ctural guidelines overlaying the entire jurisdiction of the applicable Local Government, subject to any available variance procedure when appropriate; and School Interlocal Agreement Page 8 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 (r) Whether the site can be served by adequate public facilities concurrent with the opening and operation of the school. 6.4 Notice of Proposed Educational Facility Site Acquisition: At least 60 days prior to acquiring or leasing property that may be used for a new public educational facility, the School Board shall provide written notice to the Local Government with jurisdiction over the use of the land. The Local Government, upon receipt of this notice, shall notify the School Board within 45 days if the proposed new school site is consistent with the land use: categories and policies of the Local Government's comprehensive plan. This preliminarynotice does not constitute the Local Government's determination of consistency pursuant to Section 1013.33(12), Florida Statutes. fl 6.5 Proposed Ancillary Facility Site Acq is identified in a District facilities work progre procedures set forth in Sections 6.2 and i considered based upon the principal or pred( days prior to acquiring or leasing property t School Board shall provide written notice to use of the land. The Local Government, ul Board within 45 days if the proposed new ar categories and policies of the Local Gover notice does not constitute the Local Gover Section 1013.33(12), Florida Statutes When the )sed for the facility At least 60 for a new ancillary facility, the iment with jurisdiction over the notice, shall notify the School is consistent with the land use ensiye;plan. This preliminary ion of consistency pursuant to 6.6 Conforming Future Land Use Chanddlbf, zoniha: Upon request of the Local Government with 'urisdicti rt the School Board �,' i I operate in undertaking any Local Government -requested h ige to the future Ian use classification or zoning of property acquired or leased fo �f ar ciliary � educatio Facility if the Local Government determines that such a change is� ppropriate tip conform'A _ `future land use classification or zoning of the property to its ctur intended a b. t Q chool Board, provided, however, that no such !OgjChang shall e e facility iiacon�r t nt�with the Local Government's Comprehensive Plan, hconsistenf itht aApplicable I DRs;-or otherwise nonconforming, and provided, further, that 'naa�Nlicatiorletifee shall apply. 6`7 SUpportindli fhk6t fibre Agreement: In conjunction with the preliminary consistency deterntihAp, i escnb MiCibsection 6.4 or 6.5 of this Agreement, the School Board and affectet04 ogl overnments will jointly determine the need for and timing of on -site and off -site improvernep s mecessary to support each new school or ancillary facility or the proposed m� significantrenova ion of an existing school, and will enter into a written agreement as to the timing, loc --. £ and the party or parties responsible for constructing, operating, and maintainingthe required improvements. Section 7. Ancillary,,, Facilities Site Development 7 1: Ancillary Facilities Deemed Consistent with Applicable LDRs: All ancillary facilities f �� =existing or under construction as of the effective date of this Agreement are deemed to be consistent with the Applicable LDRs. 7.2 Notice of Proposed Facility and Request for Consistency Review: At least 120 days School Interlocal Agreement Print Date: 8/31/03 Page 9 of 19 prior to commencing construction of a new ancillary facility proposed for construction, the School Board shall notify and request the Local Government with jurisdiction to review the proposed facility for consistency with the Local Government's Comprehensive Plan and the Applicable LDRs. The notice and request for consistency review shall include a site plan and related submittal materials that comply with those site plan submission requirements of the Local Government with jurisdiction that are applicable to the type of ancillary facilities proposed. The site plan and related submittal materials, in turn, shall include, at a minimum, the following: (c) Proposed staff population so that traffic.impacts may be.evaluated 7.3 Consistency Determination: (a) Scope of Review: The Loc need to conserve public funds, the that such facilities constitute p v required to support existingg proposed for constructi0 f a bey of the Local Gov emme with duris facilities proposed. � -hy requi Al proposed for cons r tion, incltnl undertaken asg of the rbV ews and 7.3(b) of t1�Agreemet: (b) j Prb , dure for W a ne►pn lary facility ' 'Si prosedu�reshallapply: .__ School Interlocal Agreement m"$ 4'gknowledge and recognize the atflrbfanci�lary facilities and the fact nent o ttte taI public infrastructure elopmertt F.A11 new ancillary facilities the sitelan submission requirements are a�pplicabI to the type of ancillary icy =review of a new ancillary facility ropriate capacity reservation, shall be in Sections 6.2, 6.3(i) and (r), 6.5, 6.7, i the School Board proposes the construction of consistency determination and site plan review thin 45 days of receiving from the School Board all of the site plan ferials applicable to the type of ancillary facility proposed, the f D for the Local Government with jurisdiction shall (i) conduct a cien review of the submission and a substantive analysis of the site (ii) schedule a review with and provide comments to School Board staff, (iii) approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the site plan for the ity. x (2) Any disapproval or approval with conditions shall be set forth in writing specifying the basis for the -determination, including the determined inconsistency with the Applicable LDRs. (3) In the event the DRC approves the site plan, or approves the site plan with conditions acceptable to the School Board, the action of the DRC shall be final, and the School Board may proceed with development consistent with and in accordance with the procedures set forth in the State Uniform Page 10 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 Section 8. Building Code for Public Education Facilities Construction adopted as provided in Section 1013.37, Florida Statutes. (4) In the event the DRC disapproves the site plan, or approves the site plan with conditions unacceptable to the School Board, the School Board may submit an amended site plan for review as provided in this subsection 7.2(b) or may appeal the determination to the governing body of the Local Government with jurisdiction. (5) Except as provided in this Agree► sistency determination or development ap from a Local Government with re;#ii t to a ,p construction within its respective lbrisdictic (6) Following receipt of site plan for a new ancillary the Local Government with jL regulatoryjurisdiction over 6 has obtained all local gover Local Government. (7) No site planvrvte ,11fershall reimburse the Leal cover eta�th j required publication or othe notifiaattor or additional con - required by, of, or tcility proposed for determination and approval of a on request of the0School Board, confirm to any agency exercising uch facility that the School Board i` ppt approvals required by the "the School Board shall for the actual cost of any 8.1 Educational Facilities Deer`hed Consistent with Applicable LDRs: All educational facilities existing or �`ndar constrMiOn as of tli , ffective date of this Agreement are deemed to be consistent wit,,,e Applicab 5 812. NoticProposed Facilityand"Request for Consistency Review: At least 120 days pno o comma%!1q,g cruction of a new educational facility proposed for construction, the Sc� � JBoard lhonstotlfjr� nd request the Local Government with jurisdiction to review the propo ed facility fo'. J isf )Rcy with the Local Government's Comprehensive Plan and the Appl� ble S. The rioticeand request for consistency review shall include a site plan and related sub ft materials that comply with those site plan submission requirements of the Local Gover�trrte�rtwith jurisdiction that are applicable to the type of educational facilities proposed. Thesfe,p(an and related submittal materials, in turn, shall include, at a minimum, the following, Site boundary; (b) Generalsite development information, to scale and with dimensions, including building layout, vehicle access and parking facilities, and activity fields; and (c) Proposed student, faculty, and support staff populations so that traffic impacts may be evaluated. School Interlocal Agreement Page 11 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 8.3 Consistency Determination: (a) Scope of Review: The Local Governments acknowledge and recognize the need to conserve public funds, the special nature of educational facilities, the fact that such facilities constitute a vital component of the total public infrastructure required to support existing and future development, and the fact that the School Board's site plans for such facilities will undergo scrutiny by several state and regional agencies. The Local Governments therefore agree that their review:of:'each such site plan, and each determination of consistency with the appropriate Local Governments' Comprehensive Plan and the Applicable LDRs, shall focpsupon but not be limited to the following: School Interlocal Agreement (1) Whether the ingress and`egress to to vehicle and pedestrian safety, convey including traffic flow and contro[,,on the sui access, are consistent with the_Applicable (2) Whether the water to be constructed on site a (3) Whether the available to the sit development of #heNsil (4) with site ;and and for LDRs; available to the site or ad educational facility; management facilities or in conjunction with !d educational facility; terior lighting for the proposed and traffic safety, are consistent as proposed or with reasonable conditions, ronmental concerns and effects on adjacent the site is located within a designated historic preservation, n nt, or other overlay zone, whether the site plan and design of the Yeconsistent with the architectural guidelines and other LDRs such overlay zone. concurrency review of a new educational facility proposed for including any appropriate capacity reservation, shall be undertaken as ;views provided in Sections 6.2, 6.3(i) and (r), 6.4, 6.7, and 8.3(b) of this ?dure for Review: When the School Board proposes the construction of tional-facility,- the following -consistency- determination and -site plan - lure shall apply: Within 45 days of receiving the submittals specified in subsection 82 of this Agreement, the staff DRC for the Local Government with jurisdiction shall (i) conduct a sufficiency review of the submission and a Page 12 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 School Interlocal Agreement substantive analysis of the site plan, (ii) schedule a review with and provide comments to School Board staff, and (iii) approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the site plan for the facility. (2) Any DRC disapproval or approval with conditions shall be set forth in writing specifying the basis for the determination, including the determined inconsistency with the Applicable LDRs. (3) In the event the DRC approves the site plan, or approves the site plan with conditions acceptable to the School Board, the action of the DRC shall be final, and the School Board may,proceed with development consistent with and in accordance with the procedures ",'; f, Win ahe State Uniform Building Code for Public Education Facilities Construction adopted 'as provided in Section 1013.37, ( rida Statutes. (4) In the event the DRC plan with conditions unaccef may submit an amended site 8.3(b), or may appeal the de Government with iurisdictio' (5) Except consistency det or from a Lott proposed for cc the site plan, orgapproves the site School Board, the School Board ew as provided in this subsection > fhq governing body of the Local rr'%' no other or additional p oval shall be required by, of, to a new educational facility jurisdiction. (6) :Following r eeipt of a cdosistency determination and approval of a site p1hhJor a newaa ucational facility, and upon request of the School Board, the gOal Gover..a t with)r'sdicttn shall confirm to any agen cy exercising-c atoryluris�dt ott ve tevelopment of such facility that the School Board 's obtained 11 o�cal�avernment development approvals required b the �, �,9P PP q � Y {) ;Now ite plan review fee shall apply but the School Board shall reirn ursethLocal Government with jurisdiction for the actual cost of any required publication or other notification expense. ons: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, as tion 1013.33(15), Florida Statutes, no consistency determination or shall be required for: (1) The placement of temporary or portable classroom facilities; or (2) Proposed renovation or -construction on existing -school _sites, with the exception of construction that changes the primary use of a facility, includes stadiums, or results in a greater than 5 percent increase in student capacity. Page 13 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 Section 9. Local Planning Agency Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings, and Development Approvals 9.1 School Board Representation on LPAs: The Local Governments will include a nonvoting representative appointed by the School Board on the their respective LPAs to attend those meetings at which the agencies consider Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings that would, if approved, increase residential density on the property that is the subject of the application. The appointment of a nonvoting representative forthe School Board shall not affect the quorum or voting requirements of any LPA, nor:entitle such representative to compensation or expense reimbursement otherwise applicable;to 14.Voting members of any LPA. 9.2 School Board Representation on DRCs: The School Board ,,<will appoint=; a representative to serve on the staff DRC for5ech of the Board representative will be provided agendas for review% meeting of the DRC when development and`%redevelops could have a significant impact on student enrollment or s 9.3 Local Government Notice of De% to give the School Board notification of pending before them that may affect sti facilities. '. (a) Notice to the S Local Government Staff c application or developn enrollment proie, ptihs, or (b) Notic Ro the such materials to the d invited to; pad1Q' pa e n each proposals are proposed which of facilities. Local Governments agree d development proposals ant projections, or school of the meeting agenda and all invents related to any pending affecting student enrollment, provided. simultaneously with provision of ,ning body of the Local Government with (c) requirement applies to any amendment to the comprehensive plan future lanuIFap, rezoning, development of regional impact, or major residential ormixed use de elbpment project that proposes (1) to increase the density of land by, ore than 50 on -age -restricted residential dwelling units, or (2) to construct or deVelopCnore than 50 non -age -restricted dwelling units or lots. 9.4 SchoolBoard Comments on Development Proposals: Within 15 days after notification by the Locnment, the School Board will advise the local government of the school enrollmentRimpacts anticipated to result from the proposed land use application or developmnt proposal, and whether sufficient school capacity exists or is planned to - accommodate the impacts. Sehool capacity will be reported consistent- with State Requirements for- Educational Facilities. 5 School Capacity Shortfalls: If sufficient school capacity is not available or planned to serve the development at the time of impact, the School Board will specify how it proposes to meet the anticipated student enrollment demand; alternatively, the School Board, the Local Government with jurisdiction, and the developer will collaborate to find means to ensure School Interlocal Agreement Print Date: 8/31/03 Page 14 of 19 sufficient capacity will exist to accommodate the development, such as, developer contributions, project phasing, or developer provided facility improvements. 9.6 Factors Considered in Reviewing Development Proposals: In reviewing and approving comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, and development proposals, the Local Governments will consider the following factors: (a) School Board comments; (b) Available school capacity or capacity; (c) The provision of school sites (d) Compatibility of land uses ad sites; (e) The collocation of parks, rec sites; sr� (f) The linkage of schoolsipp bikeways, trails, and sidewalk r MW (g) Traffic circulaf on plans neighborhood; (h) The sidewalks to I ements to increase school public facilities with and the surrounding of off ite signalizdtion, signage, access improvements,' and oo19, �nd 9. j shoo 0,81ops and turnarounds. o iaia ing Community Development Plans: In formulating and programs, the Local Governments will consider the capital improvements that are coordinated with and meet the :d in the School Board District educational facilities plan; Ading incentives to the private sector to identify and implement creative developing adequate school facilities in residential developments; (c)Y Targeting community development improvements in older and distressed neighborhoods near schools; and - - (d) Working to address and resolve multijurisdictional public school issues. Evaluation and Appraisal of Comprehensive Plans: (a) In accordance with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the LPA for each School Interlocal Agreement Page 15 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 Section 10. Local Government must prepare an EAR on the Comprehensive Plan for its area of jurisdiction at least once every 7 years, or as otherwise scheduled by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. (b) Whenever a meeting of or hearing before the LPA for a Local Government includes consideration of an EAR, the Local Government shall provide to the School Board, prior to the meeting or hearing, copies of (1) the meeting or hearing agenda, (2) any draft of the EAR under consideration, and (3) any staff -analysis, report, or recommendation prepared with respect to the EAR underconsideration. (c) The Local Government with jurisdiction shall.providOM School Board a copy of each EAR prepared by the respective{ I:PA within 30days:ofsubmission to the governing body of the Local Government t (d) Whenever a meeting of or hearing t Government includes consideration ofian�EAF Government's Comprehensive Plan to im, am provide to the School Board prior to the meet or hearing agenda, (2) any draft of'the 'EI amendments under consideration; and recommendation prepared with respect to the amendments under considerat onM"., , )posed amendments?to`the Local EAR, the Local Government shall paring, copies of (1) the meeting proposed Comprehensive Plan ny staff analysis, report, or "!pIIVped Comprehensive Plan (e) The School Board may submit}}vnttencomrents to the Local Government with jurisdiction abothe possible affect uj ngtFie School Board of any EAR or proposed amens O is to the Local Governments Comprehensive Plan that are necessary to implement anEAR, and the Local Government shall give due and appropriate con sideratiortgta=such comer ants. (f) ,.Th_e Local Gorhent jt ftrisdiction may request that the School Board provide clinical assiMs"I" tc respect to any EAR or proposed amendments to theLoca� overnment'omprehensive Plan to implement an EAR and the possible affect tip the SchooI Board, and the School Board shall endeavor to provide such assistant as ttrneand resources permit. :. 10.1 ,06 ildhMes Considered: Collocation and shared use of facilities are important to both the 'Shod bard and the Local Governments. The School Board will look for opportunities to,eo� ocate and share use of school facilities and civic facilities when preparing the District,Educational Facilities Plan. Likewise, collocation and shared use opportunities will be considered by the Local Governments when preparing the annual update to the Comprehensive Plan's schedule of capital improvements and when planning -and designing - ne' -ar renovating existing, community. facilities. For example, opportunities for collocation an' hared use with public schools will be considered for libraries, parks, recreation facilities, community centers, auditoriums, learning centers, museums, performing arts centers, and stadiums. In addition, collocation and shared use of school and governmental facilities for health care and social services will be considered. School Interlocal Agreement Page 16 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 Section 11. Section 12. Section 13. 10.2 Separate Agreement: A separate agreement will be developed for each instance of collocation and shared use which addresses legal liability, operating and maintenance costs, scheduling of use, and facility supervision or any other issues that may arise from collocation and shared use. Resolution of Disputes If the parties to this Agreement are unable to resolve any issue in which -,they may be in disagreement covered in this Agreement, such dispute will be resolved ;in°accordance with governmental conflict resolution procedures specified in Chapter 164 or.166. Florida Statutes. Oversight Process The Public School Advisory Committee establi as an oversight committee to monitor impl members shall be invited to attend all meetini copies of all reports and documents produce, shall appoint a chairperson, meet at least Governments, the School Board, and the gen Agreement is being implemented. Termination This Agreement shall remain in full force andF Sections 163.31777 and 1013 33, Florida: Stati such requirement,. this Agreement may,_be term prior written notice to all other parties:° Section 14. Notices School Interlocal Agreement as this Agreement Corrimittee in Section 2 2' Ah sh receive this Agreement. The committee d report to participating Local tl e,effectiveness with which this 's required in accordance with ssor provisions. Upon repeal of party by giving at least 180 days related tot ggtddment shall be in writing and hand delivered or sent :d mail, pos,a b prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to: County Administrator Sticie County ._ �23.00 Virginia Avenue l=ort Pierce, Florida 34982 City Manager City of Fort Pierce P.O. Box 1480 Fort Pierce, Florida 34954-1480 Aanager City of Port St. Lucie 121 S.W. Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 Page 17 of 19 Print Date: 8/31/03 School Board: Superintendent of Schools School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 Section 15. Amendment No amendment, modification, or waiver of this Agreement shall be valid or effective unless in writing and signed by all of the parties. Section 16. Complete Understandincl This Agreement contains the complete understanding of the parties 460arding the subject hereof, notwithstanding any previous written =or=='oral understanding` on such matter That certain Interlocal Agreement dated March 12,1991, `between the School Boar&and Pdt St. Lucie, as amended by that certain Interlocal A jree eni dated June 22, 2000£i6hereby further amended by deleting therefrom paragraphs 1(a)} x{), 2(a), and 2(b); except -as otherwise amended, such Irterlocal Agreement shall remai ll force and effect. Section 17. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective upo .film fully executeijcspy�ith the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida F_„_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Interlocal the day of Attest: Deputy Clerk Attest -' on behalf of the parties as of y LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, by its Board of untv Commissioners By: CLIFF BARNES Chairman CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, by its City Commission By: EDWARD G. ENNS Mayor School Interlocal Agreement Print Date: 8/31/03 Page 18 of 19 r Attest: SANDRA K. JOHNSON Deputy Clerk Attest: WILLIAM H. VOGEL, Superintendent and Officio Secretary School Interlocal Agreement CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA, by its City Council By: ROBERT E. MINSKY Mayor Page 19 of 19 OF ST:IUC.IE COUNTY, Print Date: 8/31/03