HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 11, 2011 Informal Meeting Agenda PackageAGENDA
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
9:00 A.M.
INFORMAL MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER — COMMISSIONER CHRIS CRAFT, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
2. EROSION UPDATE — SOUTH HUTCHINSON ISLAND — JIM DAVID
3. DISCUSSION ON SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS REQUEST TO USE HAVERT L. FENN CENTER AS A
PERMANENT POLLING PLACE
4. DISCUSSION ON REQUEST TO NAME THE FOOTBALL FIELD AT LAWNWOOD STADIUM CALVIN R.
TRIPLETT FIELD
5. FEES & PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PACE — DAN MCINTYRE
6. PRESENTATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE REPORT — LINDA COX
BRAD CURRIE
7. ADJOURNMENT
BOCC Budget Workshops
• The Board of County Commissioners Budget Workshops are scheduled on the 4th Tuesday of each month
from 10:00 a.m. to Noon in Conference Room #3.
• The November Budget Workshop is combined with the Informal meeting on November 8th and will begin
after the Informal meeting.
• There will be no Budget Workshop in December.
CONFERENCE ROOM #3
ROGER POITRAS ADMINISTRATION ANNEX
2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA 34982
NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will
need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to
the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be swom in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the 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
Risk & Benefits Manager at (772) 462-1404 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting.
�IVi •i ' .. i 1t 1_;(.• ' �:,
.. fir.
S
fpssk,
L K•Jppt
.., R.. _ v'{ .. _ . — I :�. ,. N e . P!•7N1ld `�-. tr7l. -F'
Item No. 3
f [� V Y L� �����zLz a. F_ z
* * Supervisor of Elections
\4� yl °3l011 St. Lucie County
4132 Okeechobee Road • Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 • (772) 462-1500 Fax (772) 462-1439
August 30, 2011
Faye W. Outlaw, MPA
County Administrator
St. Lucie County S°
2300 Virginia Avenue �C,
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Dear Ms. Outlaw,
This letter is to request the Board of County Commissioners permission to use the Havert L. Fenn Center,
2000 Virginia Avenue, as a permanent polling place for voters.
We had 7 precincts at the Civic Center, 2300 Virginia Avenue for many, many years before it was torn
down. We had to relocate all of those precincts. We relocated 7 & 19 to the Trinity Lutheran Church.
The Trinity Lutheran Church has opened a child daycare center and can no longer accommodate voting.
It is becoming very difficult to find public buildings and other facilities that can be used for this purpose
and the Fenn Center is centrally located and would cause the least inconvenience to the voters.
We would require the use of the facility from 6:00 a.m. until approximately 8:00 p.m. on election days.
Election days are on Tuesdays and notices are usually sent out about a year in advance. The names and
the phone numbers of two people — as contacts — are required.
The voting equipment is delivered approximately one week prior and up to the Monday before Election
Day. Notices are sent to polling locations prior to these dates and if there is a conflict or a specific need
to be met, we try to accommodate the facility's needs in the delivery and pick up of the equipment.
The 2012 election schedule is as follows:
Presidential Preference Primary — January 31, 2012
Primary Election — August 14, 2012
General Election — November 6, 2012
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
r ru a�er, S
G W/sg
copy: Commissioner Dzadovsky, Commissioner Mowery, Commissioner Lewis, Commissioner
Hutchinson, Commissioner Craft
250 N,W. Country Club Drive • Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 • (772) 871-5410 • Fax (772) 871-5323
1664 S.E. Walton Road • Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 • (772) 337-5623 • Fax (772) 337-5626
www.slcelections.com • e-mail: elections@slcelections.com
.1
414
l Itl
,
• . tfv )•i
�;3 :�� I_, A- t.. �
n i '. .J9� 1, �r
x'4iy. �
�.... � ,.
'
rrs
._ad q`i WN
' a •:F,
I N, i - .;
�
��• .:�
art �:�..re�7ry Lq{� ,�r1 rt } . r•
..rr
�
.j�„
i
!s.
■
Item No. 4
STATE FARM
Providing Insurance and
Larry Lee Jr, Agent
n
Financial Services
4075 Virginia Avenue
N®RA�NCE
Ft Pierce, FL 34981-5557
Bus 772 4616622 Fax 772 4610443
1arry.lee.caov@statefarm.com
09/07/2011
SEf}
Faye W. Outlaw, MPA County Administrator.
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Dear Ms. Outlaw,
My name is Larry Lee, Jr. and I am a member of the 19714-A State Football Championship Team of
Fort Pierce Central High School. On behalf of my coaches and teammates we are requesting the Board of
County Commissioners name the football field at Lawnwood Stadium Calvin R. Triplett field in honor of
our late Coach Calvin R. Triplett.
Calvin R. Triplett was hired in 1969 to coach football. He took a 3-7 Dan McCarty team that had lost
to Vero 61-0 in 1968 to a 7-3 record.
Coach Triplett coached the first three Ft. Pierce Central teams. The first two were magical. No high
school in Florida has ever done what Central's football teams did those first two years, consider:
a record of 24-2, including 13-0 in 1971
. He won nine championships including three Suncoast Conference, two District, two Sectional, a State
Runner-up in 1970, AAAA State Championship in 1971
30 players received football scholarships in Coach Triplett's 4 years in Ft. Pierce
five made College All -American, seven made their College'sHall-of-Fames, four were drafted by the NFL,
four others signed as free agents
. four year overall record of 39-7, three year record at Central 32-4, Suncoast Conf. record 21-0
. Coach Triplett won two state football championships in Mississippi, one in 1958 at McComb and the
last in 1986 at Picayune High School. Calvin won numerous coaches of the year awards in both Florida
and Mississippi and was nominated for National Coach of the Year after the Central 1971 season.
We feel this honor is long overdue to a man that help so many young men find their way in life. I
personally would not have achieved the things in my life that I have if it were not for Coach Triplett.
0
Along with the naming of the Stadium we are requesting to be allowed to place a granite monument
inside the stadium as you enter the gate. This monument will have a picture of Coach Triplett and his
record while coaching in Fort Pierce. The monument will also pay tribute to the undefeated 1971 State
Championship Football Team. We would like to have this done at a pregame ceremony November 11. .
2011 My teammates and I will cover the cost of the sign and the monument. See attached sketch of the
monument. Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Larry Lee, Jr.
Team Representative
Cc: Debbie Brisson
LL/sls
CALVIN R, T
.?a'yFr
NKH
: f %G � � � ®
. - -� \ ».
� ~� �»
Item No. 5
Solar and Energy Loan Fund. of St. Lucie Co., Inc.
September 26, 2011
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Ave.
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
RE: Fees & Procedures for Implementation of PACE
Dear Commissioners:
The vision of the Board of County Commissioners to establish a local clean energy
financing program has become a reality with the creation of the new Solar and Energy
Loan Fund of St. Lucie County, Inc. (SELF). SELF has been operational since January
2011, and has become a model for many municipalities throughout the United States. In
an effort to broaden and expand the loan program, the SELF Board of Directors has
initiated discussions about the use of Property -Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) special
assessments to collect loan payments for commercial and applicable residential property
improvements
As you will recall, St. Lucie County applied for $5.0 million from the Department of
Energy's Energy Efficient Community Block Grant (EECBG) program. The County was
awarded $2.9 million to set up a revolving loan fund with the goal to create a Community
Development Financial Institution (CDFI). One of the elements to assist the program to
succeed was to establish an assessment district based on PACE. Unfortunately, the
Federal Housing and Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
and the Federal Home Loan Bank, objected to using PACE to collect assessments on
residential properties. The objection is related to the fact that taxes and assessments are
superior to their mortgage liens. Until the objection is fully resolved at the federal level,
SELF intends to focus on commercial and limited residential properties that are not
subject to FHFA regulations. There are currently a number of lawsuits that have been
filed in federal court and new legislation is pending in Congress (H.R. 2599).
Prior to these events, the County created a sustainability district by ordinance (10-025)
and revenue bonds were validated to implement PACE in St. Lucie County.
Office: 772-468-1818
FAX: 772-468-1811
/ e a 3'17P^,45;
SEP 2 6 2011
ADMIN. OFFICE
PACE can be utilized to support commercial property improvements since Freddie and
Fannie do not lend money for purchase of such properties. Select residential properties
may also fall outside of the purview of FEI A, such as homeowners that have no
mortgage. In either case, a voluntary assessment agreement between the property owner,
the County, and SELF must be developed in order to implement the program.
The County currently has a resolution that outlines the procedure and fees related to
creating, advertising and recommending approval of MSBU/MSTU special taxing district
assessments and levies. The resolution requires a four percent (4%) fee to support
County staff expenses and specific fees for advertising, public hearings, etc. Since the
property owner must voluntarily agree to the assessment, it appears that the need for
advertising, public hearings, or mailings may not be required.
State Law also eliminates the early payment discount on this assessment.
At this time, the SELF Board of Directors has agreed to pay for all legal fees to complete
the required documents, and is formally requesting that the County reduce its fee of four
per cent (4%) to one per cent (1%) with the understanding that SELF will provide the
assessment information in a form as required by county staff.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,'
Chris Dzadovsky, Pres' ent
CC: SELF Board of Directors
20
ST LUCIE AT
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
ST. LLICIE COUNTY
m IV
THANK YOU!
This document could not have been created without the
committment of efforts from the thefollowing:
Brad Currie, Chairman
Land Design South
Linda Cox, President
St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce
Johnathan Ferguson, Esq.
Law Office of Johnathan Ferguson
Peter Harrison, Vice President
Adams Ranch
Rod Kennedy, P.E., President
Engineering Design & Construction, Inc.
Rebecca Miller, President
Miller Permitting 6- Land Development, LLC
Craig Mundt
St. Lucie County Citizens Budget Committee
Larry Pelton, President
Economic Development Council of St. Lucie County
Robert S. Raynes, Jr., Esq.
Gunster, Yoakley & Steward, P.A.
H.M. Ridgley, III
Evans Properties, Inc.
Marty Sanders, P.E.
St. Lucie County School District
Mark Satterlee, AICP, Director
Planning & Development Services, St. Lucie County
Karen L. Smith, Director
St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Division.
ST LUCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
2
INTRODUCTION
In October, 2010, Larry Pelton, Economic Development Council, and Linda Cox,
Chamber of Commerce, met with Faye Outlaw to discuss creating a task force
which was to evaluate the permitting and development process for area businesses
and identify impediments to local business expansion and startup. The discussion
originated at the request of the County' Citizen Budget Committee.
In November, the Chamber' Divisional Vice President of Government Affairs, Ty-
son Waters, invited several Chamber members and business individuals that were
recognized as industry professionals and impacted businesses to assist in the process.
County staff was also invited to participate in the discussion.
At its organizational meeting in December, after significant discussion the business
leaders identified the goal of the Task Force as follows:
"Identifying and proposing regulations, policies and practices to minimize impedi-
ments in St. Lucie County codes in order to encourage and promote a positive
environment for the expansion of existing businesses, while maintaining minimum
standards for public health and safety. "
Since its initial meeting in December, the Task Force has met monthly and offers
this document as an initial report intended to offer immediate relief. The Task
Force will continue to meet to identify other areas of concern.
This report is in no way intended to be a comprehensive review of the development
and permitting process. Silence on issues not addressed in this initial report should
not be construed as acceptance or affirmation of the process. Additionally, the Task
Force review was limited to the current process and code; we did not review or
ti.1:11:A-1AR) Ol 11-11 1Vt?�
As previously stated, the Task Force began meeting in December and has had one
(I) meeting every month since that that time. The Task Force thought it would be
important to provide a brief summary of the meetings and what information was
obtained over that time frame. This section will provide a briefsummary of the
meetings.
/ T10NAt NIEET1NG_
• Task Force mission and timetable.
• Scope of businesses affected:
> new vs. existing business, businesses that will add jobs
> bringing existing business & structures into compliance
> comparison to other counties, similar efforts to reduce regula-
tions.
• Scope of affected County Regulations and County Policy
> Land Development Code
> Economic Incentives or policy
> Impact Fees
• Scope of affected SLC Departments
> Planning — Growth Mgt. (Development Services)
> ERD
> Public Works
• Scope of what SLC controls versus Regulations not in this jurisdiction:
> State & Federal, Fla. Dept. of Health, ADA, Water Mgt. District
• Attendance:
> Chamber: Tyson Waters (Chairperson), Linda Cox
> EDC: Larry Pelton, Rebecca Miller
> St. Lucie Staff: Mark Satterlee, Kara Wood, Michael Brillhart
> Other Committee: Rod Kennedy, Peter Harrison, Brad Currie,
Bob Raynes, Craig Mundt
>
comment on any of the pending Land Development Code Changes. ! ; ? ? `,,1 i, ] R ,, 7 O1O Mark Satterlee, SLC Staff _
prepared and emailed out Cost Analysis Associated with
Development (1:xhibit 1 on Pa�Te COUNTY
13)
C
CHAMBER OF ,
N, '�, COMMERCE
JA\t IARl 511-1. 2011
• Scope of typical code problems that cause delay, confusion, angst and "I
give up and am moving my business to another county!"
> Drainage, landscape. ROW, sidewalk / multi use path, signage
> Review timelines in place vs. expedited review
> What is "by right" vs. "discretionary", what are site plan "trigger
points"
• Discussion of type of businesses:
> large, multi county — state wide companies that understand the
process and routinely use professional consultants
> small, local businesses that don't know the process and do not use
consultants
• Possible scope of task force final outcomes;
Moratoriums, Suspension or Deferral of LDC or State of Business Emergency
Strong staff powers for discretion, deferral or suspension of code & policy
Time period of all the above (1 year or longer)
• Attendance:
> Chamber: Chairperson, Tyson Waters, Linda Cox
> EDC: Larry Pelton, Rebecca Miller
> SLC Staff. Mark Satterlee, Kara Wood, Karen Smith, Amy Griffin
> SLC Commission: Todd Mowery
> Other Committee: Rod Kennedy, Peter Harrison, Brad Currie,
Bob Raynes, Craig Mundt, Marry Sanders
JANUARY 25, 2011: Mark Satterlee& SLC Staffprepare detailed matrix
analysis of LDC Chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and analysis of Impact Fees
(1;thibii 2 on page 14)
JTP>Rt 1;ARY 2\13. 201!
• drill down to LDC Code Chapters most affecting business
• identification of actual projects that are stereotypical of today's problems
• moratorium vs. deferral vs. exemptions vs. "fast
track"Attendance:
ST LUCIEJ > Chamber: Tyson Waters, Chairperson, Linda Cox
COUNTYUNTY a
CHAMBER OF,,
COMMERCE
> EDC: Larry Pelton
> SLC Staff. Mark Satterlee, Karen Smith, Mike Powley,
> SLC Commission: Todd Mowery
> Other Committee: Rod Kennedy, Peter Harrison, Brad Currie,
Bob Raynes, Craig Mundt, Marty Sanders
FEBRUARY 28, 20i1: Mark Satterlee& SLC Staff update detailed matrix
analysis of LDC Chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and analysis of Impact Fees, added Chap-
ter 6 and color coded red, yellow and green to indicate sensitivity
(Exhibit.3 on pale 22)
MARCH 2, 2011
• Election of new Chairperson, Brad Currie, (Tyson Waters resigned).
• Review of Palm Beach County ongoing efforts to reduce / reform LDC
regulation.
• Discussion of amending existing code vs. moratorium, suspension or
deferral.
• Committee hears of actual experiences of existing business that needed to
expand in the past and will soon expand again
• First review of color code matrix, produced by SLC staff (red, yellow,
green).
• Focus on final document, due in 3 months
• Attendance:
> Chamber: New Chairperson, Brad Currie, Linda Cox, Tyson
Waters
> EDC: Larry Pelton
> SLC Staff: Mark Satterlee, Karen Smith, Mike Powley,
> SLC Commission: Todd Mowery
> Other Committee: Rod Kennedy, Peter Harrison, Bob Raynes,
Craig Mundt, Johnathan Ferguson, Marry Sanders
APRII 6, 2011
• review of recent Indian River County code changes, to expedite
development
• review of headaches, associated with
> ROW dedication requirement
> Landscape requirements
> Vehicle Use Areas
> Storm water treatment
• extensive discussion of ERD Issues, Chapter 6 & 7 of LDC:
> endangered species, habitat, wetlands, water quality, mitigation,
avoidance
> State Requirement vs. County LDC Requirements vs. Comp.
Plan
> County liability for failure to adhere to Federal Law
• refine outline of final letter report:
> Define Targeted Projects:
* Business types, business structures, square footage triggers
> Process Oriented Changes:
> Code Changes:
* ROW Dedication
* Sidewalk — Multi Use Paths
* Landscaping
* Vehicle Use Areas
* Wetlands, Coastal Areas, Listed Species & Habitat
* Walls, Fences, Hedges
• Attendance:
> Chamber: New Chairperson, Brad Currie, Linda Cox, Preston
Tyson
> EDC: Amy Griffin, Karen Smith
> SLC Staff. Mark Satterlee, Kara Wood
> SLC Commission: Todd Mowery
> Other Committee: Rod Kennedy, Peter Harrison, Bob Raynes,
Craig Mundt, Johnathan Ferguson, Marty Sanders
NIA)" +- 2011
• Drafting of Final Letter Report:
> Write-up assignments to task force members
• determine who will implement the recommendations (if approved by
BOCC)
• unfinished, to be completed, long term goals of Task Force
• Attendance:
> Chamber: Chairperson, Brad Currie, Linda Cox
> EDC: Larry Pelton
> SLC Staff: (none)
> Other Committee: Rod Kennedy, Peter Harrison, Bob Raynes,
Craig Mundt, Johnathan Ferguson
HNDINGT�
We chose to start with the site plan approval portion of the process. We determined
there are three (3) areas that we needed to concentrate on. These three (3) areas
are: Defining the project, Changes to the Processes, and Proposed Changes to the
Code. This document will review what was discussed by the Task Force in rela-
tion to each of these areas and then provide specific recommendations that can be
implemented.
[ 1)EFINI- _11-fF T,,\1ZGF"1 FU PROIECTS'
The St. Lucie County Land Development Code (LDC) identifies several
different procedures for review of site plans. These procedures identify what
process a project goes through in order to obtain approval. They range from
requiring a building permit only to requiring the Board of County Commis-
sioners approval. The process by which a project goes through is based on the
size of the project. The discussion of the Task Force centered on nonresiden-
tial projects. Therefore, this document concentrates on nonresidential uses.
The general breakdown is the following:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPROVAL PROCESS
Any nonresidential use, including
Building Permit Process (Staff Ap-
additions to existing structures of
proval)
less than 5,999 feet
Any nonresidential use, including
Minor Site Plan (Staff Approval)
additions to existing structures of
6,000 to 24,999 square feet.
25,000 square feet or more of
Major Site Plan (BCC Approval)
nonresidential floor space
The consensus of the Task Force is that the Code is especially daunting for the
smaller projects. Even though the approval process may be different, most of
the requirements are the same for all projects, no matter what the size. This
appears to be one of the problems smaller projects are facing. Some of the
requirements laid out in the last part of this document may be easy for larger
projects to comply with, while it may be a deal killer for smaller projects.
The Task Force would like the changes proposed in this document to be ap-
plied to Existing Businesses that would like to expand and new businesses
that wish to occupy an existing building. The Task Force recommends that
the changes in this document apply to all projects adding less than 6, 000
square feet of building structure and apply to all projects adding less than
five (5) acres of improved, outside open areas (such as areas used for stor-
age, container storage, parking equipment or vehicle repair, containers,
delivery, drive thru, material transfer, and all vehicle use areas).
PROCFSS ()RIENTH) C7;r
The Task Force discussed on many occasions that if you are not in the "busi-
ness" the process can be very confusing and full of surprises. While having a
consultant on the applicant's team greatly reduces these surprises, it was the
desire of the Task Force to attempt to make the process as clear as possible
for the average person. Many of the members of the
ST LUCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
Task Force were able to identify some of the common
misunderstandings in the process. We also heard from
several property owners that have attempted to negotiate the process on their
own. Staff understands they often deal with property owners and business
owners that have little or no experience in obtaining approvals from local
governments. While the Task Force agreed that it is not the County Staffs
responsibility to become the owner's agent, there are some steps staff could
take to make the process more business friendly.
Staff mentioned several times that there was a proposed new position at St.
Lucie County. Staff referenced the title of this position as the "Business Navi-
gator." The intent of this position would be for someone to aid the property
owners/business owners through the development review and building permit
process. Much like the Economic Development Council would do for large
projects, the Business Navigator would help guide smaller projects through the
system. The Task Force recommends the creation of a Business Navigator
position that is focused on smaller existing businesses that want to expand.
As previously discussed, there are several different processes a project can go
through based on its size. These thresholds are set by the Land Develop-
ment Code. Each municipality has different requirements. St. Lucie County
requirements are some of the strictest on the Treasure Coast. In this mean-
ing, strict refers to the length of the approval process for smaller projects. For
example, in St. Lucie County a project would have to receive approval by
the Board of County Commissioners if it is larger than 25,000 square feet.
Martin County's threshold is 50,000 square feet and the City of Vero Beach
is 100,000 square feet. Any project smaller then these thresholds would only
require staff approval. The Task Force recommends the threshold for staff
review only for proposed projects 50,000 square feet or less.
When a property owner or business owner wants to expand often times their
first stop is at the building department. The building department typically
sends them over to the planning department where they meet with the On
Call Planner. This is typically where the property owner/business owner
begins to understand the process they will undergo to obtain the required
approvals. Typically staff gives them applications that will be required along
with a fairly confusing flow chart.
The Task Force believes there are three (3) things staff can do to make this
process less intimidating and easier to understand. First, they can create a
more detailed narrative, or booklet, that describes the processes. This is a
document that the applicant can take home and review and then ask more
questions at a later date if needed. It needs to be specific, but easy to read.
The need to contact Regional, State, and Federal Agencies should be clear
within this document. The Task Force discussed many times that the County
staff did not notify applicants that there are additional processes and approv-
als required for agencies outside of St. Lucie County. Outside agency review
needs to be a predominate portion of the proposed narrative.
The second item that would make the process more clear is to update the
process flow charts. These charts need to be made easier to understand for
the typically business owner.
Lastly and most importantly, the Task Force recommends that Pre -Appli-
cation meetings be made mandatory for all new applications. This will
provide an opportunity for all of the County Departments to give notice to
an applicant of what will be required of them. The Task Force discussed a
similar process for individuals seeking building permit approval. While not
all building permit applications may require a pre -application meeting, it was
discussed that providing an opportunity for an applicant to ask questions and
better understand the requirements, is a good idea.
The last item in this section addresses the process in between site plan ap-
proval and the building permit submittal. This process is typically called the
detail plan approval and includes not only the detailed site/civil plans but
also receiving all the applicable site construction permits and approvals. This
process deals with the horizontal construction plan approval (paving, drain -
some of the required permits/approvals are as follows:
1. Local utility approval. Either St. Lucie County (SLC) Utilities Depart-
ment, Port St. Lucie Utilities Department, or the Ft. Pierce Utilities
Authority (FPUA).
2. State utility approval. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP).
3. St. Lucie County Health Department for septic/drainfield and well per-
mits.
4. South Florida Water Management District for water withdrawal permit.
5. St. Lucie County Fire Department Approval.
6. Any work within an adjacent right-of-way requires either St. Lucie
County approval or Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
7. Utility work within a right-of-way requires a FDOT Utility Permit.
8. A proposed driveway connection requires a St. Lucie County driveway
permit or a FDOT Driveway Connection permit.
9. Land Clearing requires a SLC Environmental Resource Department
(ERD) Permit.
10. Wetland impact requires a SLC ERD, SFWMD, FF&W and ACOE ap-
proval.
11. Stormwater treatment requires approval from SLC Engineering Depart-
ment and the SFWMD Permit.
12. Projected site impact of more than 1-acre requires a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) issued by FDEP.
These permits and approvals, and possibly others, are required in some com-
bination or another for each project that is being proposed for construction
improvement. After siteplan approval many potential small business own-
ers may think the approval process is over and they can start building con-
struction. But in fact, some of the hardest work is yet to be started. This is
when the Task Force has learned that many applicants begin to get extremely
age, water, and sewer). This is typically where the Regional, State, and Federal frustrated with just starting to understand the time and
agencies require approvals. Currently, the Task Force determined that there is money that may be required to finish their project,when
ST
no formal approval process for this portion of the approval. Examples of Just the are midwaythrough the project. COUNTY
� W,
CHAMBER OE ,,�,,
COMMERCE
The Task Force recommends implementing a process for Detail Plan Ap-
proval. The City of Port St. Lucie completes this process much like the De-
velopment Review Process in the County. An applicant submits the detailed
plans, to include final landscape plans, approvals and all final permits, and
then the application is heard at a public staff meeting where the applicant has
the ability to ask questions. Each department is represented at this meet-
ing to explain their concerns and provide a comment letter so the applicant
clearly understands staffs requirements. The benefit is that the applicant
understands a time specific date that he can expect an answer to his detailed
plan submittal package. As an example, the City of Port St. Lucie schedules
an applicant within 3-weeks of his detailed plan submittal. The process is
typically run thru the Growth Management or Planning Departments of
various municipalities since this department usually handles the distribution
of siteplans and is best structure to handle the tracking of applications and
status thru-out other various departments. The public staff meeting is also at-
tended by representatives of the school board, fire department, outside utility
departments, police department, a representative of the planning board, ADA
representative, mass transit, and any other department or agency that should
or is willing to participate. This process would keep applications from being
"lost" in the system, provide a timely response to new applicants, and gives
every appropriate agency a chance to comment.
Ill. COOL CHANGES
The Task Force spent the most time discussing the different code requirements
and how these requirements impact the new or existing small business. The
overall goal of the Task Force is to identity items that are impeding the expan-
sion/new small businesses during the economic slowdown. The Task Force
was asked to look at the Code requirements and determine what requirements
could be "put on hold" during this time. In looking at the requirements the
Task Force and County staff had to determine which requirements could be
"put on hold" and which ones could not due to public health, safety, and
If Th T k F ds h
ing this time to not be required to comply with certain sections of the Land
Development Code. The Task Force believes this will benefit the targeted sec-
tor of expanding or new small businesses. At the end of the two (2) year time
frame, the program will be evaluated to determine if it did indeed help the in-
tended group. It will then be determined if the program should be extended.
A_ RlE_ =C1-\i' i-[�1� DR)IC�ATION� — The St. Lucie Land Develop-
ment Code requires any applicant seeking a Development Order, for a project
abutting a roadway designated on the Thoroughfare Network Right -of -Way
Protection Plan, to dedicate sufficient land to account for the applicant's pro-
portionate share of the right-of-way deficiency. Once the extent of the dedica-
tion has been determined by the County Engineer, the applicant is required to
convey the dedicated right-of-way to St. Lucie County, free and clear of any
liens or encumbrances, within ninety (90) days of the site plan approval or
prior to the issuance of the building permit.
The Task Force understands the need for the County to acquire right-of-way
dedications and believes that applicants are generally willing to provide the
required right-of-way to the County. The problem, however, lies not with
the dedication of the right-of-way itself, but the significant costs that can be
incurred in meeting the County's policies and requirements for accepting the
applicant's dedication.
These costs include the applicant providing a sketch and legal description,
prepared by a Florida licensed surveyor, of the area to be donated, a Phase I
Environment Site Assessment of the donated right-of-way and a title com-
mitment and Owners Policy, insuring the donated area in an amount equal
to 120% of the assessed value of the donated area from the year prior to the
granting of the Development Order being sought by the applicant.
we are. a as orce recommen t e requirements
outlined in this report be suspended for a period of
ST LUCItwo (2) years. This will allow projects submitted dur-
COUNTY COUNTY r�
CHAMBER OF:
COMMERCE
While the cost associated with meeting these requirements will vary depending
on the extent of the dedications they can still be significant to small business
owners when added to the other development costs incurred by the applicant
in seeking development approvals for starting or expanding their existing busi-
ness. Therefore, the Task Force recommends the following four options.
1. Eliminate the requirement for dedication of right-of-way for targeted
projects.
2. Defer the dedication of the required right-of-way until the County is
prepared to build the required improvements. This would allow the
applicant to also defer the costs associated with providing the required
documentation for the right-of-way dedication.
3. Eliminate the requirement that the applicant provide the necessary
documentation and let the County determine if such documentation is
necessary on a case by case basis. If for example, the County has some
reason to believe that there may be environmental concerns with the
subjectproperty then the County can, at its expense, have a Phase IAu-
dit done. Requiring the applicant to dedicate the proposed right-of-way
and then burdening them with the costs ofproviding the documentation
required by the County is akin to looking the proverbial gift horse in
the mouth. The applicant is already providing value to the County by
donating the right-of-way.
4. Let the County assume the costs of the title policy, the Phase IAudit and
the sketch and legal.
Currently all new development proposed within the
County's Urban Service Boundary must construct a sidewalk within the right
of way of all roads that abut the development or pay a fee in lieu of construct-
ing the sidewalk. In many cases, especially for non-residential development,
constructing a sidewalk serves little to no public purpose and paying a fee
in lieu of construction does not benefit the development because there is no
uarantee that the on will be used to construct sidewalks to serve the
business and in turn discourages small businesses from relocating to a new site
or expanding an existing business.
In an effort to reduce the cost and regulatory barriers for small businesses
which wish to relocate or expand in the County, the Task Force recommends
the following changes to the sidewalk requirements be implemented.
1. Existing non-residential development that submits an application to
expand is exempt from the sidewalk requirements;
2. Proposed new industrial development is exempt from the sidewalk
requirements;
3. Proposed new non-residential development (not industrial) up to a
specified size is exempt from the sidewalk requirements;
4. If sidewalks are still required for new non-residential development and
the fee in lieu of construction option is chosen, then the money must be
earmarked for sidewalk construction to specifically benefit the develop-
ment. If the money is not used for a sidewalk to benefit the development
within five (5) years, then the money is refunded to the development.
The above recommendations represent the first steps in addressing sidewalk
requirements that impose a disproportionate cost on individual businesses
with little corresponding benefit to the public. The county's sidewalk program
needs to be overhauled to address these inequities, however, such an overhaul is
beyond the scope of this initial effort to reduce the costs and barriers to small
businesses. But the interim steps outlined above will help in the short term.
C. LANDSCAPING — The projects this Task Force focused on are
typically located in existing non-residential buildings. Some of these build-
ings were constructed prior to today's complex Landscaping Code. When a
business owner decides to expand their business, they are often times required
to bring the site into compliance with today's code in regards to landscaping.
g y This represents an increase in cost for the small expand -
development. This is the type of one size fits all regulation that unnecessarily ing business. They are required to hire a consultant to
LUCIE
adds costs to development with no discernible benefit to the public or to the complete the design and then install the plant mates- ST COUUNTYNTY I "T
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
als. ?he Task Force recommends that all targeted projects not be required to
meet the current landscape requirements.
1) \ - H l ICI E= f ISF AR F \S — The Task Force recommends the following:
1. Define the meaning of a "vehicle use area".
Example. Vehicular Use Areas: All outside, surface area used for
the parking, loading or unloading of passengers or merchandise,
maneuvering servicing, storage or circulation for licensed vehicles,
including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, buses. Specifically in-
cluded are service stations, vehicle washing establishments, and uses
with drive -up facilities such as, but not limited to banks, restau-
rants, office buildings and convenience stores.
2. Allow the right, in the LDR for specific uses to avoid complete hard
surface application. Examples may be storage areas used strictly by
forklifts or other off -road vehicles. Other examples of uses that would
not require complete hard surface application may be storage areas,
container storage areas, temporary land debris storage, salvage yards,
recycling plants, etc.
3. Allow the right for alternate surface application proposed by the appli-
cants using the established variance process. It would be convenient to
include definitions on hard surface applications (i.e. concrete, asphalt,
paver brick) and alternate semi previous surfaces (i.e. grass parking,
block -mat, she14 grave4 etc)
4. Allow either the County Engineer, Growth Development Director or the
Planning Board the ability to approve the requested surface application
variance.
S. Allow the right for alternate surface application to special conditions
that specifically apply within private operation ofan industrial opera-
tion, are not typically used by licensed vehicles, include no pedestrian
movements and have no re uired -hosted eed limit
1'. A I IT ; �: ��_,A� ()1 \,%'T T 1 V ',_Y� Allow mitigation of wetlands
as allowed by the St. Lucie Code, the South Florida Water Management
District, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Specifically, allow agencies
with State and Federal jurisdiction to determine the necessity and magnitude
of mitigation as a part of the Joint ERP process. By applying the arbitrary
wetland classification system that currently exists in the Comprehensive Plan,
the County is imposing an additional layer of regulatory encumbrance to an
already lengthy process. Additionally, by asserting jurisdiction over these areas,
the County is potentially stepping outside of their specific area of expertise and
allowing for what State regulatory staff has referred to as "emotional' wetlands
to be claimed as jurisdictional. The specific recommendation of this Task
Force is to eliminate the County's wetland classification system, as stated in
the Comprehensive Plan, and allow for the State and Federal permitting
process to be sufficient for the purposes of development review.
I ISTf Il l' ( 41 � .'.Si [R.\ T)X — Revisit the need for every project to
complete a listed species survey with the County Attorney. Other municipali-
ties do not require the same thing that St. Lucie County does. We had several
debates on this issue during the Task Force meetings. The Task Force cannot
determine why St. Lucie County treats this topic different then other County
and City offices. It is understood that County staff have been advised by the
County Attorney to err on the side of caution when it comes to potential
impacts to listed species on proposed projects that are under review. However,
a better explanation of the justification for listed species coordination and the
electronic publication of resources that staff utilizes to make these requests
would allow for better project planning to anticipate coordination delays with
State and Federal agencies. Additionally, if the property owner and/or project
principal are willing to sign an affidavit stating that they are aware of the li-
ability associated with proceeding through development activities and will not
hold staff liable for any subsequent potential impacts to listed species or their
habitat that may fall under the jurisdiction of State or Federal agencies, then
q sp it may be worth investigating if this provides some legal buffer for staff If the
and/or Federal traffic signage. responsible party has retained an environmental professional to evaluate
ST
LUCIE
COUUNTYNTY listed species issues, then it is the opinion of the Task Force that the County
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE,-
should allow the burden of professional liability to be shouldered by these
individuals. Furthermore, in order to allow for a reasonable review time -
frame, the Task Force respectfully requests that County staff allowfor the
normal jurisdictional process to trigger review of listed species without the
additional layers of review from staff that may have limited expertise in
these areas and simply recycle the standard comments on all staff reviews.
(:T. WALLS, FENCES. i-IEDCTES — Currently the Code requires the con-
struction of walls, fences or hedges for properties that are considered to not be
consistent or comparable to adjacent uses. Many existing businesses that want
to expand are located in older commercial buildings and shopping centers.
The Task Force recommends that targeted projects shall not be required to
be in compliance with today's Code requirements.
1 I \LLO\ ED USES —The County has specific uses that are allowed in
each of the zoning districts. The County uses the Standard Industrial Clas-
sification (SIC) to define proposed uses. This is a very specific way to identify
allowed uses in each of the zoning districts. It is common for uses that would
appear to make sense in certain areas to not be allowed. An example is a Gym/
Workout facility in the Industrial zoning district. This is currently not allowed
even though it would appear to be sound planning to allow such a use in that
district. The City of Fort Pierce is in the process of amending their land
development code. The City is proposing the permitting of uses to allow more
flexibility with classification, and they are also providing a provision for ad-
ministrative approval of uses that are not specifically defined. This would help
tremendously with allowing a use to locate in areas where staff believes they
are fully compatible but are simply not included on the list. The Task Force
recommends immediate Code amendments that would allow more flexibil-
ity in allowing uses in zoning districts that make for sound planning.
CONCI t ISION
This report is in noway intended to be a comprehensive review of the development
and permitting process. Silence on issues not addressed in this report should not be
construed as acceptance or affirmation of the process. The Task Force was limited
to reviewing the current process and the approved Land Development Code. There
was no review completed of any of the proposed changes to the Land Development
Code.
While this report represents the findings to date of the group, this topic does deserve
additional follow up and continued review. The follow up will comprise of imple-
mentation of the recommendations described in this report. The implementation
can be done by the Task Force, or the CBC could direct staff to develop implemen-
tation strategies.
The group also requests the County continue to be represented at bi-monthly
meetings of the Task Force. These meetings will be held to continue to review the
processes at the County and to allow a place for business/property owners to commu-
nicate their frustrations with issues encountered while moving through the approval
process at the County. The Task Force would then complete a report similar to what
is being provided now. This will ensure that the processes are continually reviewed
to make sure they are as efficient as possible.
ST LUCIE COUNTY
DEVELOPMEN REVI�EW
ST LUCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF
_. -. �i�.: .-`� _,"-_ ._.,.. -v" � ._�--.r�.._�----., --•1 �-�_..-. r.✓-�✓ .�^+..-„„,,.-�_ _-`..^�rv.,v'^.._�,.—..� ^._�..�_.�-..,r�.r-..:^ram i^w^....
COMMERCE -�_-_. -�, � -� �, r._.-,�..-�-�.��,-`..�-..,�.,-.✓ . ,._ _ _., -
12
EXHIBIT I
[DRAFT] St Lucie County - Costs Associated with Development - Small Business
And suggestions for reducing costs and improving service)
Land development requirements that impose costs on small business and projects or expansions.
a. Costs that
typically affect an older development "coming towards compliance" with new
or updated
regulations and requirements.
i. Permit application fees from multiple County departments
1.
Planning
2.
Public Works and Engineering
3.
Fire District
4.
Health Department
5.
Environmental Resource Department
6.
Utilities
ii. Permit applications and fees to multiple agencies outside the County
1.
Water management districts
1. South Florida
2. Fort Pierce Farms or North St. Lucie
2.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
3.
Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA)
4.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FOEP)
5.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
6.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)
iii. Additional
permit related fees that may be incurred on plan submittals
1.
Plat documents and attorneys fees
2.
Survey work
3.
Traffic analysis
4.
Environmental Impact Report
5.
Signed/sealed engineered plans and/or architectural drawings
6.
Building permit fees as a percentage of project cost
7.
Building inspection fees for follow-up inspections
iv. Site development
or site improvement for properties not originally equipped with these
improvements
that include such things as:
1.
Installation of landscaping and automatic irrigation
2.
Sidewalks or multiuse paths,
3.
Additional paved parking,
4.
Paved access,
5.
On -site drainage and stormwater retention
6.
Compliance with building design requirements
7.
Dumpster enclosures
8.
Off -site improvements
1. Turnlanes
2. Bus stop
3. Utility upgrades
v. Impact fees and proportionate fair share costs
13
2. Suggestions for Cost Reduction and Process Improvement
a. Cost Reductions in processing applications, development related fees and improvement
implementation
i. Plan submittal requirement deferrals
ii. Two-year deferral for implementing certain improvements
iii. Discretionary waivers or eliminating need for Board level approvals
1. For example - Environmental report waiver must go to the BOCC for approval
iv. Incentives
1. Similar to current economic development incentives that are geared towards
larger projects
1. Tax abatement
2. Job Growth incentives
3. Impact fee reductions/refunds
2. Reimbursement of development review fees
3. Expedited review and reduced document submittal
4. Increase thresholds for administrative or staff approval for site plans
5. Eliminate Planning Board approval for certain projects
b. Process Improvement Suggestions
i. Public Workshops outlining process or small business expo with various agencies/
Chamber of Commerce
1. So you want to open or expand your business in St Lucie County - here's
how...
2. How do I...? Where do I....? Who regulates....? How much is this going to cost
altogether?
ii. Customer Service and Staff Training - Improving customer service and how we do
business
1. Train staff in customer service and "exceeding the customer's expectations".
Training to teach staff the fundamentals of customer service as it applies to
the functions they perform
2. Place customer service expectations (i.e. customer -oriented service, return calls
within 24 hours, go the extra mile, etc.) on performance evaluations;
3. Extend expedited permitting process to all commercial projects (set tighter
review times for staff);
4. Staff attending DRC need training by Directors to expedite and prioritize com-
ments;
5. Develop a guide "How to Get A Permit in St. Lucie County" that is user friendly
and geared towards the general public;
iii. Create a plan review process ombudsmen between business owner and various agencies
- not unlike that being envisioned for Economic Development projects
iv. Develop a "one -stop' permitting process or develop review via multi -agency review group
SMALL BUSINESS TASK FORCE
SMALL PROJECT COMPARISON CHART
The following chart compares applications submitted for projects that maybe new developments or, modifications to pre-existing uses that propose an addition to an existing building or structure,
expansion of the developable area or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the
time of development.
Project Name
X-TREME FUNCTION HALL
TROPICAL MARTINI
13th St. CHURCH OF GOD
WILSON DAY CARE
CELL TOWER
APPLICATION TYPE
Minor Site Plan application request
Conditional Use application request
Minor Adjustment to a Minor Site
Major Adjustment to an existing
Conditional Use application
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
for new construction of a 9,311
for a Consume on Premises license
Plan application request for a
Conditional use to allow for the
request for a 130 foot tall cell
square foot facility for social events
for alcoholic beverages in an
2,760 square foot expansion to a
expansion of an existing 2,416
tower located on an 8, 000 square
and meetings.
existing 4,000 square foot leased
9,415 square foot Church.
square foot day care.
foot leased parcel.
space within an in -line shopping
center
DATE SUBMITTED
71112007
41612009
41612009
111612009
713112008
DATE CERTIFIED BY
11812009
511512009
101612009
61612009
711412009
DATE APPROVED BY
512612009
Recommendation was made to
101612009 GM Order 09-016
811012009
Recommendation to move
PDS DIRECTOR
PDS 09-001
move the project forward.
forward.
DATE APPROVED BY
Not required for a Minor Site Plan.
0112112010
Not required for a Minor
Not Required for a Major Adjustment
812012009
PLANNING & ZONING
Adjustment to a minor site plan.
to a Conditional Use, goes straight
BD
to BOCC.
DATE APPROVED BY
Not required for a Minor Site Plan.
2116112010
Not required for a Minor
210212010
11512010 applicant requested to
BOARD OF CO COMM
Res.No: 10-005
Adjustment to a minor site plan.
Res.No: 10-029
substitute a different parcel which
was later approved on
1110912010 under Resolution
FEES: PDS
$400
$1,500
$400
$1,200
6,100
FEES:ERD
$100
$100
$95
$100
$150
FEES: CONCURRENCY
$200
$0
$50
$50
FEES: FIRE DISTRICT
$218
$0
$218
FEES: TOTAL
$918
$1,600
$495
$1,568
$6,300
MAJOR ISSUES
Conditions of Approval included
Conditions of Approval included
The day care shares a joint site with
Strict application of the LDC
hours of operation and lighting
hours of operation and compliance
the Virginia Medical office building.
requires the applicant to pave a
restrictions. In addition, soundproof
with the County Noise Ordinance.
Staff required both applications to
very long stretch of road and pay
insulation was required and all
In addition, sound proof insulation
be reviewed at the same time.
a Proportionate Fair Share of off
doors facing east are to be marked
was required. Biggest issue
site improvements. Therefore the
"Emergency only".
centered on noise problems with the
applicant requested a Paving
mobile home park to the west. This
Waiver. This resulted in 3 Public
was a very old bar that was there
Hearing Agenda Items. The
prior to any requirements for a wall
applicant switched parcels and
or landscaping behind the bar. This
was granted approvals 11
was a space leased by a tenant.
months later as SL Beth Song.
Strict LDC regulations require
unreasonable landscaping
around a cell tower in the middle
of a cattle pasture.
Conditions of Approval
13 Conditions Of Approval
3 Conditions Of Approval
7 Conditions Of Approval
3 Conditions Of Approval
8 Conditions Of Approval
EXHIBIT 2
ST. LUCIE'`�'
COUNTY !
CHAMBER OF �s,� ,�, =��., =� ter. v:" �,
COMMERCE ^^^^' ---� --==_ " _ - �� -14
Chapter 7 Development Design and Improvement Standards
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable
area or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Dimensional
Compliance with the dimensional
Expansions must be in compliance
Not applicable, if the existing
Relief from the dimensional
PUD zoning allows the
Requirements - Area,
requirements of the zoning district is
with the dimensional requirements
structure was built in compliance
requirements may be granted
BOCC to approve
Yard, Height, and Open
required, unless a variance is
of the zoning district, unless a
with the code or complies with LDC
through the variance provisions of
alterative dimensional
Space Requirements
granted. If the site has a
variance is granted.
Section 10.
Section 10.00.00. Non -conforming
requirements. There
LDC Section 7.04.00
nonconforming use, building or lot
uses, buildings and lots are subject
are no "use" variances.
see LDC Section 10.00.00.
to the provisions of Section
Right of Way (ROW)
The dedication of additional ROW
The dedication of additional ROW
if a permit is sought, ROW along
LDC Section 7.05.09 prohibits
Decision may be
Dedication
along the project's road frontage will
along the project's road frontage will
the projects road frontage may be
dedication of ROW resulting in
appealed to the County
LDC Section 7.05.03 (I)
be required, if needed to meet
be required, if needed to meet
required, if needed to meet
deprivation of reasonable use of
Administrator.
minimum County standards.
minimum County standards.
minimum County standards.
property.
Sidewalks
All new non-residential development
All non-residential development in
All non-residential uses seeking
LDC Section 7.05.04(A)(c) allows
LDC Section 705.04
is required to provide sidewalks or a
the unincorporated county and
development permits will be
DRC to exempt site plan projects
(A)
multiuse path along the parcel
residential development in the urban
required to provide sidewalks or a
based upon specified findings.
frontage or pay a fee in lieu of
service boundary is required to
multiuse path along the parcel
Section 705.04(A)(4)(h) provides for
construction.
provide sidewalks or multiuse path
frontage or pay a fee in lieu of
total or partial relief and payment of
along the parcel frontage or pay a
construction.
a fee -in lieu of construction upon
fee in lieu of construction.
BOCC approval.
Bikeways & Bicycle
Bike Lanes: Required if the project
Bike Lanes: If the project requires
Bike Lanes: If the project requires
If demonstrated that bicycle traffic
The PDS Director may
Racks
requires a new or reconstructed
a new or reconstructed County
a new or reconstructed County
would not have access to the
also request additional
LDC Section 7.05.04
County maintained road.
maintained road bike lanes are
maintained roads bike lanes are
development, the bike parking
bike parking spaces, if
(B) & (C)
Bike Racks: All new non-
required.
required.
requirement maybe waived. The
needed. Bike racks
residential development to provide
Bike Racks: All new non-
Bike Racks: All new non-
PDS Director may reduce the
may also be requested
bicycle racks, except industrial and
residential development to provide
residential development to provide
number of required auto spaces by 1
for PUD recreational
agricultural.
bicycle racks, except industrial and
bicycle racks, except industrial
for each 6 bicycle parking spaces
facilities or bus stops.
agricultural.
and agricultural.
provided.
Provision for Access to
Paving of unpaved roads not
Paving of unpaved access roads or
Paving of an unpaved access road
Allows for a waiver by the BOCC
New Development
required, but a fair share payment
fee in lieu of paving would be
not required, but a fair share
upon meeting the specified criteria.
LDC Section 7.05.07
may be required.
required.
payment may be required.
Off-street Parking &
An increase in area or capacity of a
Approved site plans will require
Requires all parking and loading
Relief., May be granted by the PDS
When repairs and
Loading Requirements
structure existing prior to 711184,
compliance with the off-street
areas to be brought up to code.
Director or BOCC as provided in
alterations are to be
LDC Section 7.06.01
except for the addition of an entry or
parking and loading facilities for the
Shopping centers or similar multi-
Section 706.01(B) & (F).
made in a building
increased storage up to 10% of the
increase in floor area, capacity or
user building is not subject to this
Alternatives: Combined, shared
occupied by a
existing structure; or a parking area
impervious surface area only, unless
provision provided no additional
and reserved parking areas (RPA) or
nonconforming use, all
existing on or before 8/1/90 that is
a change in use is proposed, the
parking is required for the
context sensitive parking provisions
off-street parking
expanded in area or capacity
parking lot existed as of 81111990
proposed change in use.
in LDC 7.06.02 (B)(2, 3, 4 & 6). For
requirements contained
requires compliance with all off-
and is enlarged in area or capacity,
RPA areas also see LDC Section
in this Code shall be
street parking and loading facility
in which case the entire parking lot
7.09.04(C)(7). All parking spaces,
met if the cost of
requirements for old and new
shall comply with the code.
access aisles, vehicular use areas
repairs or alterations
facilities. Also all parking and
are to be all weather surface unless
exceed 50 % of the
vehicular use areas existing as of
alterative material is approved by the
assess value of the
311/99 that are altered shall be
County Engineer LDC Section
building and structures,
constructed with all weather
7.06.01(D).
LDC Section 706.01(E)
I=XI-iIBIT 2
continued
ii
ST LUCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
Chapter 7 Development Design and Improvement Standards
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable
area or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Stormwater
Compliance required if impervious
Compliance required for any activity
Compliance required if the use is
Exemptions for construction of
Management,
area is expanded to 4, 000 SF or an
that requires a new or amended site
changed from residential to non-
residential 1, 2, and 3 unit residential
Applicability to Existing
existing 4,000 SF impervious area is
plan and involves 10% or more of
residential.
buildings, specified maintenance
Development
expanded.
the land area of the parcel.
work, and bona fide agricultural
LDC Section 7.07.09
operations and activities LDC
Utilities - Electric, cable,
New utilities installed in conjunction
New utilities installed in conjunction
New utilities installed in
telephone, wire
with the expansion are to be placed
with the expansion are to be placed
conjunction with the expansion is
services.
underground, unless otherwise
underground, unless otherwise
to be placed underground, unless
LDC Section 7.08.00(F)
addressed through the development
addressed through the development
otherwise addressed through the
review process.
review process.
development review process.
Utilities - Water and
May require connection to available
Requires connection to available
May require connection to
Wastewater
central water and sewer systems.
central water and sewer. Health
available central water and sewer
LDC Section 7.08.00
Changes to an existing on -site water
Department approval required for
systems. Changes to an existing
or wastewater system will require
the expansion of wastewater
on -site water or wastewater
Health Department approval,
treatment systems and potable
system and a change from
water uses.
residential to non-residential will
require Health Department
approval.
Landscaping and
Requires a landscape plan for all
Compliance with all current
Requires compliance with all
Provisions of LDC Section
Existing native
Screening
new or expanded structures, LDC
standards will be required for the
landscaping requirements, except
7.09.04(E) may be waived or varied
vegetation may satisfy
LDC Section 7.09.00
Section 7.09.03(A). When an off-
new development areas and off-
for shopping centers or multi-user
by the BOCC for Planned
all or part of the
street parking area existed as of
street parking areas existing as of
buildings, provided no additional
Developments. LDC Section
landscape
811190 and such off-street parking lot
811190 that are enlarged in area or
parking is required.
7.09.04(0) addresses administrative
requirements upon
is enlarged in area or capacity, the
capacity.
relief and alternative landscape
approval by ERD
entire parking lot, both old and new
plans.
Director.
shall comply with the code, LDC
Section 7.09.04(G).
Community
Applies to new and substantial
Applies to new and substantial
Not applicable.
A change in signage in
Architectural Standards
expansion of an existing building or
expansion of an existing building or
the applicable zoning
LDC Section 7.10.24
structures in CN, CO, CG, 1, RF and
structures in CN, CO, CG, 1, RF and
districts may require
PUD (commercial only), PNRD, and
PUD (commercial only), PNRD, and
compliance with the
PMUD Zoning Districts.
PMUD Zoning Districts.
signage standards.
Notes:
BOCC: Board of County Commissioners
If there is a change in use of the structure or property two categories may apply.
January 10, 2011
EXHI1J 3 G
continued
ST. LUCIE "
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF „
COMMERCE ,�- ,,tip. ti .-. ....`.�,- .� 1 l6
Chapter 8 Accessory Uses and Structures
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable area
or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Fences, Walls, and
Non-residential project abutting a
Non-residential project abutting a
Non-residential project abutting a
All accessory uses shall
Hedges - Section
residential development will be
residential development will be
residential development will be
meet the requirements for
8.00.04
required to have a eight (8) foot high
required to have a eight (8) foot high
required to have a eight (8) foot
the zoning district in which
wall or fence separating the two
wall or fence separating the two
high wall or fence separating the
located.
uses with landscaping on both
uses with landscaping on both
two uses with landscaping on both
sides.
sides.
sides.
Deed or Property
Thos lands with recorded property or
Thos lands with recorded property
Thos lands with recorded property
Enforcement of the
Restrictions
deed restrictions that impose stricter
or deed restrictions that impose
or deed restrictions that impose
provisions is the duty of the
8.00.03(F)(8)
standards, the stricter standards
stricter standards, the stricter
stricter standards, the stricter
homeowners or property
apply.
standards apply.
standards apply.
owners association.
Swimming Pools
Unless the pool is entirely screen,
Unless the pool is entirely screen,
Unless the pool is entirely screen,
The BOCC may grant a waiver from
Section 8.00.05
shall be completely enclosed with a
shall be completely enclosed with a
shall be completely enclosed with
the fencing requirement upon
fence or wall at least four (4) feet
fence or wall at, least four (4) feet
a fence or wall at least four (4) feet
making the findings specified in
high.
high.
high.
Section 8.05.00(B)
Notes:
BOCC: Board of County Commissioners
If there is a change in use of the structure or property two categories may apply.
Date: O112512011
FAF11BIT 2
c o n t i n u e d
Chapter 9 Permitted Permanent and Authorized Temporary Signs
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Section
Expansion of a
Non Site Plan Project
Expansion of a
Site Plan Project
New Uses in
Existing Buildings
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Permitting and
The erection, physical alteration,
The erection, physical alteration,
The erection, physical alteration,
No permit is required for the sole
Substantial expansions to
Exemptions - Section
reconstruction or physical
reconstruction or physical
reconstruction or physical
purpose of changing content or
existing buildings or
9.04.01(A)
conversion of any sign must obtain a
conversion of any sign must obtain
conversion of any sign must obtain
graphics on an existing sign that
structures (such as a sign)
sign permit.
a sign permit. The sign must be
a sign permit
otherwise complies with the Code.
may require compliance
shown on the site plan to obtain a
with the sign provisions in
sign permit.
Section 710.24(C)
Community Architectural
Standards.
Permitting and
No sign permit shall be issued for
No sign permit shall be issued for
No sign permit shall be issued for
Exceptions to the sign permit
Substantial expansions to
Exemptions - Section
development without the concurrent
development without the concurrent
development without the
requirements are identified in
existing buildings or
9.04.01(A)
issuance of a Certificate of Zoning
issuance of a Certificate of Zoning
concurrent issuance of a
Section 9.04.02.
structures (such as a sign)
Compliance.
Compliance.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
may require compliance
with the sign provisions in
Section 710.24(C)
Community Architectural
Standards.
Permitting and
The application for sign permit must
The proposed sign and
The application for sign permit
Denial of a sign permit may be
Exemptions - Section
include depiction of the proposed
specifications (height, sign area,
must include depiction of the
appealed to the Board of Adjustment
9.04.01(B)
sign and specifications (height, sign
dimensions, supports, illumination)
proposed sign and specifications
within 30 days of denial, Section
area, dimensions, supports,
and the location on the site and
(height, sign area, dimensions,
9.04.01(E).
illumination) and the location on the
relation to other structures and right-
supports, illumination) and the
site and relation to other structures
of -way.
location on the site and relation to
and right-of-way.
other structures and right-of-way.
Nonconforming Signs
Nonconforming signs shall not be
Nonconforming signs shall not be
Nonconforming signs shall not be
Nonconforming signs that were
Nonconforming signs
Section 9.05.00
structurally altered or enlarged
structurally altered or enlarged
structurally altered or enlarged
properly permitted in compliance
which are more than 50%
unless they conform to the Code,
unless they conform to the Code,
unless they conform to the Code,
with code at the time the sign was
destroyed by wind,
except for substitution or
except for substitution or
except for substitution or
erected, may continue. All other
deterioration or other
interchange of copy.
interchange of copy.
interchange of copy.
nonconforming signs shall be
damage shall be made to
removed unless erected prior to
conform with all
911161.
requirements of the Code,
or be completely removed.
DCC Board of County Commissioners
there is a change in use of the structure or property two categories may apply.
Date:02/25/2011
ST. LUCIE
COUNTY 1
CHAMBER OF t
EXHIBIT 2
continued
COMMERCE IT
18
Chapter 11 Administration and Enforcement
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable
or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Development Order
Development Order Amendments: it
It is unlawful to change, modify,
It is unlawful to change, modify,
Existing Conditions of Approval are
Fees vary depending
Amendments Section
is unlawful to change, modify, alter,
alter, or otherwise deviate from the
alter, or otherwise deviate from the
open to re -negotiation. The
on the application type.
11.01.04
or otherwise deviate from the terms
terms or conditions of the permit
terms or conditions of the permit
modification is approved in the same
Most DOA's are subject
or conditions of the permit without
without first obtaining a modification
without first obtaining a
manner as the original approval.
to the DRC Review
first obtaining a modification of the
of the Preliminary or Final
modification of the Preliminary or
process. This includes
Preliminary or Final Development
Development Order. A modification
Final Development Order. A
extension requests
Order. A modification maybe
may be applied for in the same
modification may be applied for in
which are processed in
applied for in the same manner as
manner as the original Preliminary
the same manner as the original
the same manner as
the original Preliminary or Final
or Final Development Order.
Preliminary or Final Development
the original approval.
Development Order.
Order.
Rezonings Section
Rezonings: Amendments to the text
Re -zoning approvals "run with the
Each of the Standard Zoning
Conditions of Approval cannot be
Fees are charged and
11.06.00
of this Code may be proposed by
land" and have different site plan
Districts identify a list of Permitted
imposed on a Standard Re -zoning
applications are subject
the Board of County
requirements for Planned
Uses, Conditional Uses and
and can only be imposed on
to the public hearing
Commissioners, the Planning and
Developments than for Standard
accessory uses. Any change in
Planned Developments. The
process in Section
Zoning Commission, or any other
Zoning Districts.
use or modification to the uses
Variance process is only process for
11.00.04 with noticing
interested party.
permitted in the approved Zoning
relief from dimensional requirements
requirements in Section
B. Amendments to the Official
District may require a Re -zoning.
stipulated in Chapter 7 through the
11.00.03. Most Re -
Zoning Atlas may be proposed by
Planned Developments are
BOA,
zonings are subject to
the Board of County
required to identify any Conditional
the DRC Review
Commissioners, the Planning and
Uses at the time of the re -zoning. A
process.
Zoning Commission, or over fifty
change may constitute a change in
(50) percent of the owners of the
the original approval and requires
real property to be directly affected
an adjustment pursuant to Section
by the proposed amendment.
11.02.05 of LDC.
Conditional Uses
Conditional Uses The purpose of
Most Conditional Uses do not trigger
Each of the Standard Zoning
Existing Conditions of Approval are
Fees are charged
Section l l.07.00
this section is to provide for uses
the Site Plan review process unless
Districts identify a list of Permitted
open to re -negotiation. The
pursuant to Section
that are generally compatible with
they are located within a Planned
Uses, Conditional Uses and
modification is approved pursuant to
11.00.03 and
the use characteristics of a zoning
Development.
accessory uses. Approval of a
Section 11.07.05 E of the LDC.
applications are subject
district, but which require individual
Conditional Use is specific to that
Minor Adjustments are granted by
to the public hearing
review of their location, design,
owner at that location and it does
the PDS Director. A Major
process in Section
intensity, configuration, and public
not "run with the land". Any
Adjustment is subject to the
11.00.04. Most
facility impact in order to determine
changes, including a change in
Substantial Conformity test and goes
Conditional Uses are
the appropriateness of the use on
name requires an adjustment.
back to the BOCC for approval.
subject to the DRC
any particular site in the district and
Review process.
their compatibility with adjacent
uses. Conditional uses may require
the imposition of additional
conditions to make the uses
compatible in their specific contexts.
EX I- -I I B FF 2
continued
ST LUCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF ',
19 COMMERCE
Chapter 11 Administration and Enforcement
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable
area or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Developer Agreements
Developer Agreements can apply to
not applicable
Depending on the determination of
Existing Conditions of Approval are
Fees vary depending
Section 11.08.00
any Zoning District, and any size
concurrency of infra -structure,
open to re -negotiation. The
on the application type.
project whether it is a minor site
DVA's are one way to allow for
modification is approved pursuant to
Most Developer
plan, major site plan, planned
expansions, however allow SLC to
Section 11.08.00 of the LDC.
Agreements are
development or not. They typically
update COA's with new impact
subject to the DRC
apply to a certain issue such as a
fees.
Review process, and
Proportionate Fair Share
Public Hearing process.
Minor Site Plans
not applicable.
Minor Site Plan, Minor Adjustment
For Minor Adjustments, it has been
The Variance process is only
Fees vary depending
Section 11.02.03
and Major Adjustment
the past policy and practice to limit
process for relief from dimensional
on the application type.
reviews to the 'Affected Area" and
requirements stipulated in Chapter 7
Applications are
not require the entire site to be
through the BOA.
approved
subject to review and conditions of
administratively by the
approval.
PDS Director or
designee. Most are
subject to the DRC
Major Site Plans
not applicable.
Major Site Plan, Minor Adjustment
For Minor Adjustments, it has been
The Variance process is only
Fees vary depending
Section 11.02.04
and Major Adjustment
the past policy and practice to limit
process for relief from dimensional
on the application type.
reviews to the 'Affected Area" and
requirements stipulated in Chapter 7
These applications may
not require the entire site to be
through the BOA.
go before the BOCC at
subject to review and conditions of
a regular public
approval.
meeting. Most are
subject to the DRC
Review process.
Planned Unit
not applicable.
Planned Unit Development
Planned Developments are
Through the proposed site plan, the
Fees are charged and
Development
Planned Non Residential
required to identify any Conditional
applicant can vary dimensional
applications are subject
Planned Non
Planned mixed use
Uses at the time of the re -zoning.
requirements in exchange for more
to the public hearing
Residential Planned
Any modification may constitute a
open space, some public benefit to
process in Section
Mixed Use Section
change in the original approval and
be provided or other negotiated
11.00.04 with noticing
11.02.05
requires an adjustment pursuant to
conditions of approval. Existing
requirements in Section
Section 11.02.05 of LDC.
Conditions of Approval are open to
11.00.03. Re -zonings
re -negotiation. The modification is
are subject to the DRC
approved pursuant to Section
Review process.
11.02.05E and F of the LDC. Minor
Adjustments are granted by the PDS
Director, A Major Adjustment is
subject to the Substantial Conformity
test and goes back to the BOCC for
approval.
ST LUCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF
EXHIBIT 2
o n t i n u e d
COMMERCE v ��-_ v��� „� _� ram^ �' v r : ^t 20
SMALL BUSINESS TASK FORCE
SMALL PROJECT COMPARISON CHART
The following chart compares applications submitted for projects that may be new developments or, modifications to pre-existing uses that propose an addition to an existing building or structure,
expansion of the developable area or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the
time of development.
Project Name
X-TREME FUNCTION HALL
TROPICAL MARTINI
13th St. CHURCH OF GOD
WILSON DAY CARE
CELL TOWER
APPLICATION TYPE
Minor Site Plan application request
Conditional Use application request
Minor Adjustment to a Minor Site
Major Adjustment to an existing
Conditional Use application
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
for new construction of a 9,311
for a Consume on Premises license
Plan application request for a
Conditional use to allow for the
request for a 130 foot tall cell
square foot facility for social events
for alcoholic beverages in an
2,760 square foot expansion to a
expansion of an existing 2,416
tower located on an 8,000 square
and meetings.
existing 4,000 square foot leased
9,415 square foot Church.
square foot day care.
foot leased parcel.
space within an in -line shopping
center,
DATE SUBMITTED
71112007
41612009
41612009
111612009
713112008
DATE CERTIFIED BY
1/812009
511512009
101612009
61612009
711412009
DATE APPROVED BY
512612009
Recommendation was made to
101612009 GM Order 09-016
811012009
Recommendation to move
PDS DIRECTOR
PDS 09-001
move the project forward.
forward.
DATE APPROVED BY
Not required for a Minor Site Plan.
0112112010
Not required for a Minor
Not Required for a Major Adjustment
812012009
PLANNING & ZONING
Adjustment to a minor site plan.
to a Conditional Use, goes straight
BD
to BOCC.
DATE APPROVED BY
Not required for a Minor Site Plan.
2116112010
Not required for a Minor
210212010
11512010 applicant requested to
BOARD OF CO COMM
Res.No: 10-005
Adjustment to a minor site plan.
Res.No: 10-029
substitute a different parcel which
was later approved on
1110912010 under Resolution
FEES: PDS
$400
$1,500
$400
$1,200
6,100
FEES:ERD
$100
$100
$95
$100
$150
FEES:CONCURRENCY
$200
$0
$50
$50
FEES: FIRE DISTRICT
$218
$0
$216
FEES: TOTAL
$918
$1,600
$495
$1,568
$6,300
MAJOR ISSUES
Conditions of Approval included
Conditions of Approval included
The day care shares a joint site with
Strict application of the LDC
hours of operation and lighting
hours of operation and compliance
the Virginia Medical office building.
requires the applicant to pave a
restrictions. In addition, soundproof
with the County Noise Ordinance.
Staff required both applications to
very long stretch of road and pay
insulation was required and all
In addition, soundproof insulation
be reviewed at the same time.
a Proportionate Fair Share of off
doors facing east are to be marked
was required. Biggest issue
site improvements. Therefore the
"Emergency only".
centered on noise problems with the
applicant requested a Paving
mobile home park to the west. This
Waiver. This resulted in 3 Public
was a very old bar that was there
Hearing Agenda Items. The
prior to any requirements for a wall
applicant switched parcels and
or landscaping behind the bar. This
was granted approvals 11
was a space leased by a tenant.
months later as SL Beth Song.
Strict LDC regulations require
unreasonable landscaping
around a cell tower in the middle
of a cattle pasture.
Conditions of Approval
13 Conditions Of Approval
3 Conditions Of Approval
7 Conditions Of Approval
3 Conditions Of Approval
8 Conditions Of Approval
%1
FA I - _I I BFF 2
continued
Chapter 6 Development Design and Improvement Standards
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable area or a
change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Compliance required with the
Compliance required with the
Not applicable
Exemptions from the permitting
Existing native vegetation
avoidance, minimization, and
avoidance, minimization, and
process for activities outlined in
preserved may satisfy all or
mitigation criteria and the Vegetation
mitigation criteria and the Vegetation
Section 6.00.03. Exemptions for
part of the mitigation
Removal/Exemption process.
Removal/Exemption process.
mitigation requirements for activities
requirements.
outlined in Section 6.00.04.
Administrative relief provision for
single family residential mitigation
requirements per Section
6.00.04.D.3. Flexibility in alternative
mitigation methods outlined in
6.00.05.D.3.b
grgve,Protec�- Compliance with state regulations
Compliance with state regulations
Not applicable
Florida Department of Environmental
Local delegation of
required.
required.
Protection provides exemption criteria.
mangrove protection has
not yet been established.
Provides criteria for development on
Provides criteria for development on
Not applicable
Allows for development which meets
environmentally sensitve coastal
environmentally sensitve coastal
code criteria, including
lands. Requires protection of dunes,
lands. Requires protection of dunes,
avoidance/minimization of impacts.
listed species, and ground/surface
listed species, and ground/surface
water.
water.
Coastal Area Protection Compliance with 25°/> habitat set
Compliance with 25 % habitat set
Not applicable
Vegetation and aside and native or drought tolerant
aside and native or drought tolerant
Landscaping Section landscaping landward of the frontal
landscaping landward of the frontal
6.02.O1.D dune.
dune.
Compliance with buffer zones
Compliance with buffer zones
Not applicable
Exemptions for lots of record as of
required for properties located on the
required for properties located on the
August 1, 1989, public infrastructure,
St Lucie River and Indian River
St Lucie River and Indian River
and properties with an approved
Lagoon.
Lagoon.
variance. Administrative variance for
buffer to be reduced to 40 feet.
Variance process per Section
10.01.11.
;etl;inhs Pro Compliance required for development
Compliance required for
Not applicable
Comprehensive Plan Policies set
proposed within wetlands or wetland
development proposed within
forth criteria for the BOCC to grant
buffer areas.
wetlands or wetland buffer areas.
waivers.
ten Protecv '
Compliance required for development
Compliance required for
Not applicable
Section 6.02.03.G lists activities
The County has not been
ermRs, gatio"
proposed within wetlands or wetland
development proposed within
which are exempt from local
implementing this section of
£xomptions is
buffer areas. Outlines local
wetlands or wetland buffer areas.
permitting requirements.
code, and has contracted a
lion 6.Q2.03.D♦
government requirements for
Outlines local government
Wetlands Study, to
permitting, mitigation, and
requirements for permitting,
determine appropriate code
exemptions.
mitigation, and exemptions.
revisions.
Native Upland Habitat
Compliance with criteria for alteration
Compliance with criteria for alteration
Not applicable
Exemptions for residential lots of
Protection Section
or development per Section
or development per Section
records as of August 1, 1990 which
6.04.01
6.04.0l.0 required.
6.04.01.0 required.
are less than one half acre and areas
in which the environmentally sensitive
area has been altered and/or
degraded lawfully prior the adoption
of this code.
EXHIBIT 3
ST LUCIE AV
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE_--�.;-:�,-w-:-. ..�-� .�--...-._.-..,-,�-�.1-._--. �..r-�.....,-�..�.., -.._, ��..�
Chapter 7 Development Design and Improvement Standards
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable area or
a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
ImprovemenULDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Dimensional
Compliance with the dimensional
Expansions must be in compliance
Not applicable, if the existing
Relief from the dimensional
PUD zoning allows the
Requirements - Area,
requirements of the zoning district is
with the dimensional requirements of
structure was built in compliance
requirements may be granted through
BOCC to approve alterative
Yard, Height, and Open
required, unless a variance is
the zoning district, unless a variance
with the code or complies with LDC
the variance provisions of Section
dimensional requirements.
Space Requirements
granted. If the site has a
is granted.
Section 10.
10.00.00. Non -conforming uses,
There are no "use"
LDC Section 7.04.00
nonconforming use, building or lot
buildings and lots are subject to the
variances.
see LDC Section 10.00.00.
provisions of Section 10.00.00.
Right of Way (ROW)
The dedication of additional ROW
The dedication of additional ROW
If a permit is sought, ROW along
LDC Section 7.05.09 prohibits
Decision may be appealed
Dedication
along the project's road frontage will
along the project's road frontage will
the project's road frontage may be
dedication of ROW resulting in
to the County Administrator.
LDC Section 7.05.03 (1)
be required, if needed to meet
be required, if needed to meet
required, if needed to meet
deprivation of reasonable use of
minimum County standards.
minimum County standards.
minimum County standards.
property.
Sidewalks LDC
All new non-residential development
All non-residential development in the
All non-residential uses seeking
LDC Section 7.05.04(A)(c) allows
Section 7.05.04 (A)
is required to provide sidewalks or a
unincorporated county and residential
development permits will be
DRC to exempt site plan projects
multiuse path along the parcel
development in the urban service
required to provide sidewalks or a
based upon specified findings.
frontage or pay a fee in lieu of
boundary is required to provide
multiuse path along the parcel
Section 7.05.04(A)(4)(h) provides for
construction.
sidewalks or multiuse path along the
frontage or pay a fee in lieu of
total or partial relief and payment of a
parcel frontage or pay a fee in lieu of
construction.
fee -in lieu of construction upon
construction.
BOCC approval.
Bike Lanes: Required if the project
Bike Lanes: If the project requires a
Bike Lanes: If the project requires a
requires a new or reconstructed
new or reconstructed County
new or reconstructed County
County maintained road.
maintained road bike lanes are
maintained roads bike lanes are
Bike Racks: All new non-residential
required.
required.
development to provide bicycle racks,
Bike Racks: All new non-residential
Bike Racks: All new non -
except industrial and agricultural.
development to provide bicycle
residential development to provide
racks, except industrial and
bicycle racks , except industrial and
agricultural.
agricultural.
Paving of unpaved roads not
Paving of unpaved access roads or
Paving of an unpaved access road
Allows for a waiver by the BOCC
required, but a fair share payment
fee in lieu of paving would be
not required, but a fair share
upon meeting the specified criteria,
may be required.
required.
payment may be required.
Off-street Parking &
An increase in area or capacity of a
Approved site plans will,require
Requires all parking and loading
Relief: May be granted by the PDS
When repairs and
Loading Requirements
structure existing prior to 7/1/84,
compliance with the off-street parking
areas to be brought up to code.
Director or BOCC as provided in
alterations are to be made
LDC Section 7.06.01
except for the addition of an entry or
and loading facilities for the increase
Shopping centers or similar multi-
Section 7.06.01(B) & (F).
in a building occupied by a
increased storage up to 10% of the
in floor area, capacity or impervious
user building is not subject to this
Alternatives: Combined, shared and
nonconforming use, all off -
existing structure; or a parking area
surface area only, unless a change in
provision provided no additional
reserved parking areas (RPA) or
street parking requirements
existing on or before 8/1/90 that is
use is proposed, the parking lot
parking is required for the proposed
context sensitive parking provisions in
contained in this Code shall
expanded in area or capacity requires
existed as of 8/1 /1990 and is
change in use.
LDC 7.06.02 (B)(2, 3, 4 & 6). For RPA
be met if the cost of repairs
compliance with all off-street parking
enlarged in area or capacity, in which
areas also see LDC Section
or alterations exceed 50%
and loading facility requirements for
case the entire parking lot shall
7.09.04(C)(7). All parking spaces,
of the assess value of the
old and new facilities. Also all parking
comply with the code.
access aisles, vehicular use areas
building and structures,
and vehicular use areas existing as of
are to be all weather surface unless
LDC Section 7.06.01(E)
3/1/99 that are altered shall be
alterative material is approved by the
constructed with all weather
County Engineer LDC Section
surfacing.
7.06.01(D).
Sto
Compliance required if impervious
Compliance required for any activity
Compliance required if the use is
Exemptions for construction of
Management.
area is expanded to 4,000 SF or an
that requires a new or amended site
changed from residential to non-
residential 1, 2, and 3 unit residential
Applicability to Exi
existing 4,000 SF impervious area is
plan and involves 10 % or more of the
residential.
buildings, specified maintenance
Development
expanded.
land area of the parcel.
work, and bona fide agricultural
LDC Section 7.07.0
operations and activities LDC Section
EXHIBIT 3
Continued
Chapter 7 Development Design and Improvement Standards
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable area or
a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
ImprovemenVLDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Utilities - Electric, cable,
New utilities installed in conjunction
New utilities installed in conjunction
New utilities installed in conjunction
telephone, wire services.
with the expansion are to be placed
with the expansion are to be placed
with the expansion is to be placed
LDC Section 7.08.00(F)
underground, unless otherwise
underground, unless otherwise
underground, unless otherwise
addressed through the development
addressed through the development
addressed through the development
review process.
review process.
review process.
le
May require connectio7on-site
central water and sew
Changes to an existingteror
wastewater system
0
Health Department approval.
Compliance with all current standards
Requires compliance with all
Landscaping and
Requires a landscape plan for all
Provisions of LDC Section 7.09.04(E)
Existing native vegetation
Screening
new or expanded structures, LDC
will be required for the new
landscaping requirements, except
may be waived or varied by the
may satisfy all or part of the
LDC Section 7.09.00
Section 7.09.03(A). When an off-
development areas and off-street
for shopping centers or multi-user
BOCC for Planned Developments.
landscape requirements
street parking area existed as of
parking areas existing as of 8/1/90
buildings, provided no additional
LDC Section 7.09.04(0) addresses
upon approval by ERD
8/1/90 and such off-street parking lot
that are enlarged in area or capacity.
parking is required.
administrative relief and alternative
Director.
is enlarged in area or capacity, the
landscape plans.
entire parking lot, both old and new
shall comply with the code, LDC
Section 7.09.04(G).
Applies to new and substantial
Applies to new and substantial
Not applicable.
A change in signage in the
expansion of an existing building or
expansion of an existing building or
applicable zoning districts
structures in CN, CO, CG, I, RI and
structures in CN, CO, CG, I, RF and
may require compliance
PUD (commercial only), PNRD, and
PUD (commercial only), PNRD, and
with the signage standards.
PMUD Zoning Districts.
PMUD Zoning Districts.
Notes:
BOCC: Board of County Commissioners
If there is a change in use of the structure or property two categories may apply.
January 10, 2011
ST t_UCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF .
COMMERCE
EXHIBIT 3
c o n t i n u e d
Chapter 8 Accessory Uses and Structures
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable area
or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time
of development.
ImprovementILDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Fences, Walls, and
Non-residential project abutting a
Non-residential project abutting a
Non-residential project abutting a
All accessory uses shall
Hedges - Section
residential development will be
residential development will be
residential development will be
meet the requirements for
8.00.04
required to have a eight (8) foot high
required to have a eight (8) foot high
required to have a eight (8) foot
the zoning district in which
wall or fence separating the two
wall or fence separating the two
high wall or fence separating the
located.
uses with landscaping on both sides.
uses with landscaping on both sides.
two uses with landscaping on both
sides.
Thos lands with recorded property or
Thos lands with recorded property or
Thos lands with recorded property
Enforcement of the
deed restrictions that impose stricter
deed restrictions that impose stricter
or deed restrictions that impose
provisions is the duty of the
standards, the stricter standards
standards, the stricter standards
stricter standards, the stricter
homeowners or property
apply.
apply.
standards apply.
owners association.
Unless the pool is entirely screen, Unless the pool is entirely screen, Unless the pool is entirely screen, The BOCC may grant a waiver from
shall be completely enclosed with a shall be completely enclosed with a shall be completely enclosed with a the fencing requirement upon
fence or wall at least four (4) feet fence or wall at least four (4) feet fence or wall at least four (4) feet making the findings specified in
high. high. high. Section 8.05.00(B)
Notes:
BOCC: Board of County Commissioners
If there is a change in use of the structure or property two categories may apply.
Date: 01 /25/2011
EXI--JIBIT 3
C o n t i n u e d
A
sT L.UCIE
COUNTY
25CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
Chapter 9 Permitted Permanent and Authorized Temporary Signs
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Notes
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Permitting and
The erection, physical alteration,
The erection, physical alteration,
The erection, physical alteration,
No permit is required for the sole
Substantial expansions to
Exemptions - Section
reconstruction or physical conversion
reconstruction or physical
reconstruction or physical
purpose of changing content or
existing buildings or
9.04.01(A)
of any sign must obtain a sign
conversion of any sign must obtain a
conversion of any sign must obtain
graphics on an existing sign that
structures (such as a sign)
permit.
sign permit. The sign must be
a sign permit.
otherwise complies with the Code.
may require compliance
shown on the site plan to obtain a
with the sign provisions in
sign permit.
Section 7.10.24(C)
Community Architectural
Standards.
Permitting and
No sign permit shall be issued for
No sign permit shall be issued for
No sign permit shall be issued for
Exceptions to the sign permit
Substantial expansions to
Exemptions - Section
development without the concurrent
development without the concurrent
development without the
requirements are identified in
existing buildings or
9.04.01(A)
issuance of a Certificate of Zoning
issuance of a Certificate of Zoning
concurrent issuance of a Certificate
Section 9.04.02.
structures (such as a sign)
Compliance.
Compliance.
of Zoning Compliance.
may require compliance
with the sign provisions in
Section 7.10.24(C)
Community Architectural
Standards.
Permitting and
The application for sign permit must
The proposed sign and
The application for sign permit
Exemptions - Section
include depiction of the proposed
specifications (height, sign area,
must include depiction of the
9,04.01(B)
sign and specifications (height, sign
dimensions, supports, illumination)
proposed sign and specifications
area, dimensions, supports,
and the location on the site and
(height, sign area, dimensions,
illumination) and the location on the
relation to other structures and right-
supports, illumination) and the
site and relation to other structures
of -way.
location on the site and relation to
and right-of-way.
other structures and right-of-way.
Nonconforming signs that were
Nonconforming Signs
Nonconforming signs shall not be
Nonconforming signs shall not be
Nonconforming signs shall not be
Nonconforming signs
Section 9.05.00
structurally altered or enlarged
structurally altered or enlarged
structurally altered or enlarged
properly permitted in compliance
which are more than 50
unless they conform to the Code,
unless they conform to the Code,
unless they conform to the Code,
with code at the time the sign was
destroyed by wind,
except for substitution or interchange
except for substitution or
except for substitution or
erected, may continue. All other
deterioration or other
of copy.
interchange of copy.
interchange of copy.
nonconforming signs shall be
damage shall be made to
removed unless erected prior to
conform with all
9/l/61.
requirements of the Code,
or be completely removed.
Notes:
BOCC: Board of County Commissioners
If there is a change in use of the structure or property two categories may apply.
Date:02/25/2011
EXHIBIT 3
con tinuerl
a
ST. I_UCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF 26
COMMERCE
Chapter 11 Administration and Enforcement
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable
area or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Note
Development Order
Development Order Amendments: it
It is unlawful to change, modify,
It is unlawful to change, modify,
Existing Conditions of Approval are
Fees vary depending on
Amendments Section
is unlawful to change, modify, alter,
alter, or otherwise deviate from the
alter, or otherwise deviate from the
open to re -negotiation. The
the application type.
11.01.04
or otherwise deviate from the terms
terms or conditions of the permit
terms or conditions of the permit
modification is approved in the same
Most DOA's are subject
or conditions of the permit without
without first obtaining a modification
without first obtaining a
manner as the original approval.
to the DRC Review
first obtaining a modification of the
of the Preliminary or Final
modification of the Preliminary or
process. This includes
Preliminary or Final Development
Development Order. A modification
Final Development Order. A
extension requests
Order. A modification may be
may be applied for in the same
modification may be applied for in
which are processed in
applied for in the same manner as
manner as the original Preliminary or
the same manner as the original
the same manner as
the original Preliminary or Final
Final Development Order.
Preliminary or Final Development
the original approval.
Development Order.
Order.
Rezonings: Amendments to the text
Re -zoning approvals "run with the
Each of the Standard Zoning
Conditions of Approval cannot be
Fees are charged and
of this Code may be proposed by the
land" and have different site plan
Districts identify a list of Permitted
imposed on a Standard Re -zoning
applications are subject
Board of County Commissioners, the
requirements for Planned
Uses, Conditional Uses and
and can only be imposed on Planned
to the public hearing
Planning and Zoning Commission, or
Developments than for Standard
accessory uses. Any change in use
Developments. The Variance
process in Section
any other interested party.
Zoning Districts.
or modification to the uses
process is only process for relief
11.00.04 with noticing
B. Amendments to the Official
permitted in the approved Zoning
from dimensional requirements
requirements in Section
Zoning Atlas may be proposed by
District may require a Re -zoning.
stipulated in Chapter 7 through the
11.00.03. Most Re -
the Board.of County Commissioners,
Planned Developments are
BOA.
zonings are subject to
the Planning and Zoning
required to identify any Conditional
the DRC Review
Commission, or over fifty (50)
Uses at the time of the re -zoning. A
process.
percent of the owners of the real
change may constitute a change in
property to be directly affected by the
the original approval and requires
proposed amendment.
an adjustment pursuant to Section
11.02.05 of LDC.
Conditional Uses Conditional Uses The purpose of
Most Conditional Uses do not trigger
Each of the Standard Zoning
Existing Conditions of Approval are
Fees are charged
Section11.07.00 this section is to provide for uses
the Site Plan review process unless
Districts identify a list of Permitted
open to re -negotiation. The
pursuant to Section
that are generally compatible with
they are located within a Planned
Uses, Conditional Uses and
modification is approved pursuant to
11.00.03 and
the use characteristics of a zoning
Development.
accessory uses. Approval of a
Section 11.07.05 E of the LDC.
applications are subject
district, but which require individual
Conditional Use is specific to that
Minor Adjustments are granted by
to the public hearing
review of their location, design,
owner at that location and it does
the PDS Director. A Major
process in Section
intensity, configuration, and public
not "run with the land". Any
Adjustment is subject to the
11.00.04. Most
facility impact in order to determine
changes, including a change in
Substantial Conformity test and goes
Conditional Uses are
the appropriateness of the use on
name requires an adjustment.
back to the BOCC for approval.
subject to the DRC
any particular site in the district and
Review process.
their compatibility with adjacent
uses. Conditional uses may require
the imposition of additional
conditions to make the uses
compatible in their specific contexts.
IA"IIIBI'T' 3
continued
ST LUCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
Chapter 11 Administration and Enforcement
Changes to Pre -Existing Uses and Developments Compliance Requirements
The following list identifies requirements that apply to pre-existing uses and developments that propose an addition to an existing building or structure, expansion of the developable
area or a change in the use of a property. All new development is subject to compliance with the County's Land Development Code (LDC) standards in effect the time of development.
Improvement/LDC
Expansion of a
Expansion of a
New Uses in
Relief or Alternative Provisions
Miscellaneous/Note
Section
Non Site Plan Project
Site Plan Project
Existing Buildings
Developer Agreements can apply to
not applicable
Depending on the determination of
Existing Conditions of Approval are
Fees vary depending on
any Zoning District, and any size
concurrency of infra -structure,
open to re -negotiation. The
the application type.
project whether it is a minor site
DVA's are one way to allow for
modification is approved pursuant to
Most Developer
plan, major site plan, planned
expansions, however allow SLC to
Section 11.08.00 of the LDC.
Agreements are
development or not. They typically
update COA's with new impact
subject to the DRC
apply to a certain issue such as a
fees.
Review process, and
Proportionate Fair Share Agreement.
Public Hearing process.
not applicable.
Minor Site Plan, Minor Adjustment
For Minor Adjustments, it has been
The Variance process is only
Fees vary depending on
and Major Adjustment
the past policy and practice to limit
process for relief from dimensional
the application type.
reviews to the "Affected Area" and
requirements stipulated in Chapter 7
Applications are
not require the entire site to be
through the BOA.
approved
subject to review and conditions of
administratively by the
approval.
PDS Director or
designee. Most are
subject to the DRC
Major Site Plans
not applicable.
Major Site Plan, Minor Adjustment
For Minor Adjustments, it has been
The Variance process is only
Fees vary depending on
Section11.02.04
and Major Adjustment
the past policy and practice to limit
process for relief from dimensional
the application type.
reviews to the "Affected Area" and
requirements stipulated in Chapter 7
These applications may
not require the entire site to be
through the BOA.
go before the BOCC at
subject to review and conditions of
a regular public
approval.
meeting. Most are
subject to the DRC
Review process.
Planned Unit
not applicable.
Planned Unit Development
Planned Developments are
Through the proposed site plan, the
Fees are charged and
Development
Planned Non Residential
required to identify any Conditional
applicant can vary dimensional
applications are subject
Planned Non
Planned mixed use
Uses at the time of the re -zoning.
requirements in exchange for more
to the public hearing
Residential Planne`
Any modification may constitute a
open space, some public benefit to
process in Section
Mixed Use Section
change in the original approval and
be provided or other negotiated
11.00.04 with noticing
11-02.05
requires an adjustment pursuant to
conditions of approval. Existing
requirements in Section
Section 11.02.05 of LDC.
Conditions of Approval are open to
11.00.03. Re -zonings
re -negotiation. The modification is
are subject to the DRC
approved pursuant to Section
Review process.
11.02.05 E and F of the LDC. Minor
Adjustments are granted by the PDS
Director. A Major Adjustment is
subject to the Substantial Conformity
test and goes back to the BOCC for
approval
ST. LUCIE
COUNTY
CHAMBER OF �All
COMMERCE
,-�� - _�-� : - - \ . ,�` -' .,'� `."mot..✓,.^....-u%lri,-�^aw-�`i-.1r` i �i� i-�..-vw,,,,� .^.,;��`...�--••...+--.i O
Board of County Commissioners 2012 Budget Workshops
4th Tuesday of the Month (October — May)
10:00 am —12 noon
October 25, 2011
Public Safety & Communications
-Discussion: Formation of IT Board of Governors
Public Safety Director
-Discussion: Grants Allocation Report
HR Director
OMB Director
November 8. 2011: IBudaet workshop will follow the informal meetin
Health Insurance
-Discussion: Reconstitution of Health Insurance Advisory Committee
County Attorney
Tax Collector
-Discussion: OPEB Acturial Study
GRS Consultant
OMB Director
December 2011
No Meeting Due to Holidays
January 24, 2012
Space Planning & Office Relocations
-Discussion: Constitutional Officers Relocations & Renovations
BOCC Renovation Projects
-Discussion: 2012 1"Quarter Spending Update
County Administrator
Budget Manager
February 28, 2012
Budget Preview:
-Discussion: Updated Fund Balance Projections
County Administrator
OMB Director
-Discussion: 2012 Strategic Planning: No Session Contemplated
2013 Proposed Budgets: Flat Budgets Contemplated
No Proposed Millage Increase Contemplated
2013 Budget Reviews: Mid -July Dates to be determined (Final Values -July 1 s)
County Administrator
Budget Manager
March 27, 2012:
Revenue Initiatives Updates
-Discussion: Proposed Building Permit Fee Schedule
New Development Fees
Small Quantity Generators
Cell Towers -Billboards Sites Leasing
Parks & Recreation Facilities:Aquarium, Fenn Center & Fairgrounds
Cooperative Extension Program Fees
Boat Registration Fees
April 24, 2012:
-2"d Quarter Spending Update
County Administrator
Budget Manager
May 22, 2012:
2011 CAFR Presentation
-Discussion: Finalized 2011 Fund Balance Numbers
External Auditor
Constitutional Officers
June 26, 2012:
No Meeting Due to Staff Preparation for Board July Budget Reviews
July 2012.
Board 2013 Budget Reviews: Mid -July Schedule to be Determined
August 2012:
No Meeting Due to Staff Preparation for September Budget Adoption Hearings
September 2012:
No Meeting Due to Staff Preparation for Adoption of 2013 Budget