The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApril 15, 1999St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting St. Lucie County Administration Building- Room 101 April 15, 1999 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance ~ B. Roll Call C. Announcements D. Disclosures AGENDA ITEM 1: MINUTES OF THE MARCH 18, 1999, MEETING Action Recommended: Approval Exhibit #1' Minutes of March 18, 1999, Meeting AGENDA ITEM 21 FILE NO. RZ-99-002, A DRON AND PAMEI~A CHAMBERS Petition of Adron and Pamela Chambers (Harold Melville, Agent), for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family- 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District. Staff comments by Hank Flores. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #2: Staff'Report and Site Location Maps AGENDA ITEM 3: ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN Consider the Airport Element, for general amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff cOmments by David Kelly. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission Exhibit #3' Staff'Report AGENDA ITEM 4: ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PI,AN Consider Transportation: Level of Service, and The Transportation and Land Use Study Committee Report, for general amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff comments by David Kelly. Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission OTHER BUSINESS: Ae Other business at Commission Members' discretion. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda April 15, 1999 Page 2 Be Ce Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency meeting will be held on May 20, 1999, in Room 101 of the St. Lucie County Administration Building. Next Local Planning Agency Comprehensive Plan public heating will be held on May 13, 1999, in Room 101 of the St. Lucie County Administration Building. ADJOURN NOTICE- All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person deCides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or heating, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a heating will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during a heating 'upon request. Any questions about this agenda may be referred to the St. Lucie County Planning Division at 561/462-1586. PLANNING & ZONING PACKET CONTENTS COLOR CODE CONDITIONAL USES - BLUE REZONINGS - PINK PLAN AMENDMENTS - GREEN MOBILE HOMES - YELLOW ORDINANCE - WHITE . Master Agenda (Get order of Agenda from Planner) Copy of Previous Month's Minutes Staff Comments Memorandum (per petition) A) Copy of Transparency (location map first- per petition) B) Detailed Agenda (per petition) C) List of Adjacent Property Owners (per petition) D) Legal Ad Affidavit EACH OF THE FOLLOWING RECEIVE A PACKET: EACH:of the nine P & Z Membem Planners (Hank and Cyndi) Linda Pendarvis Planning Manager ('David Kelly) Interim Community DeveloPment Director (JUlia~Shewchuk) Assistant Community Development Director (Dennis Murphy) Assistant County Attorney County Administrator (Mr I Freeland Conner Consultants (fax Agenda to Karen @ 465-9904 and put packet out front) Property Acquisition Manager (Don Cole) Right-of-way (Belinda Vose) Don"Coope'r'~ City Manager (City of Port St. Lucie) Mazella, Smr.,ith ,(City of Fort Pierce) PreSS/PUbliC Box Southern Real Estate Group Inc. (344-0166) (fax Agenda to Amanda @ 337-9774) Secretary Copy and mail staff comments to the Petitioner TOTAL OF 27 FULL PACKETS MAKE TOTAL OF 30 COPIES OF AGENDA Mail agenda only to: Terry Hess 1480 S.E. Portillo Road Port St. Lucie, FL 34952-4984 Charlie Scholnover SUNTRUST BANK/TREASURE COAST 111 Orange Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Dave Melnick 120 Estia Lane Port St. Lucie, FL 34983 (5) St, .Lucie County Commissioners Rev. 2/99 - h:\wp\wp\p&z\pz-docs\packet.pz HP Office Jet Fax History Report for Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner St. Lucie County Florida 4621581 Apr 09 1999 1:47pm ~st F,,,ax Apr 9 l:45pm Sent 94659904 1:33 2 OK Result: OK - black and white fax OK color - color fax HP OfficeJet Fax History Report for Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner St. Lucie County Florida 4621581 Apr 09 t999 l:50pm Last l~ax~ Da~ ~ ~ Idenfifica~or~ D~atiog Pag¢_~ Resu!~ Apr 9 l:49pm Scm 93379774 0:47 2 OK ~x-~.-~:.-:;::, :-_~ .....:. ..... :_.::; .... :.::..:: .... :_.¢...._.*...., :,..:.,:.... :.:..~:..,.,._,~ .,.:,.:' ..__ .:.: _;..~....::::,...,.: ....... :..............:-:., )::.., ,..-~.~.~.,. ~;.:..,.; ..: .... . ,: :'...._,._,_-:-. ::::..:..: ..:--..:.:_....:;:,.......,,~.-:,: -- '-..' .: ..7-_'":L -.. :.- -': 2....,2 .... :':. ' '. .... : .... .,..,_)iv ..... Remlt: OK - bl~k ~ whim f~ OK color - ~1~ f~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCiE COUNTY, FLORIDA MARCH 18, 1999 - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Stefan Matthes, Ed Lounds (arrived at 7:04 - excused), Ramon Trias, Carson McCurdy, Diana Wesloski, Albert Moore, Noreen Dreyer, Charles Grande BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT' Ed Merritt (excused) OTHERS PRESENT: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Hank Flores, Planner III; Beth Ryder, Human Services Manager; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1999 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Mr. McCurdy stated that on page 27, the second line should read "both positions should be presented to the Board". Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other corrections or changes. Chairman Wesloski asked for a motion. Mr. Moore made a motion for approval, and it was seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon roll call, the motion was approved 7-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the record should reflect Mr. Lounds arrived at 7'04 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING FATHER MICHAEL SAJDA FILE NO. RZ-99-004 Chairm~m Wesloski explained the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing procedures. Mr. Hank Flores presented staff comments. Mr. Flores stated that he was presenting the petition of Father Michael Sajda for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 3.67 acres of land located on the North side of Delaware Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of Hartman Road. Mr. Flores stated that the applicant is proposing ballfields for soccer and baseball for the John Carroll High School. Mr. Flores stated that the surrounding zoning to the subject property is RS-3 (Residential, Single- Family- 3 du/acre) to the north, south, east, and west. CG (Commercial, General) to the northeast. I (Institutional) to the east. Mr. Flores stated that staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you forward this petition to the BOard of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Flores. Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Board. Mr. Mike Driscoll, 1920 Wren Avenue, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Driscoll stated that he represents Father Michael Sajda and John Carroll High School. He stated that he is a member of the School Advisory Board and is involved in the long range planning process for the school. Mr. Driscoll stated that Lots 4 and 5 were purchased a few months ago, they are currently zoned residential and cannot be used for the school's intended purpose. He stated that as shown on the overhead, the Diocese of Palm Beach owns the parcel zoned Institutional and all the way back to South 33rd Street. He stated that the Institutional parcel is currently used as a football field and track. Mr. Driscoll stated that Lots 4 and 5 are intended to be used for softball and practice fields for soccer. He stated they recognize within the Institutional zoning any building structure placed on this property, in the future, would require a conditional use approval before this Board and also the County Commission. Mr. Driscoll stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 2 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Driscoll. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Driscoll if the school will be expanded in the future. Mr. Driscoll stated that John Carroll High School currently has approximately 500 students with a planned 10% increase at a slow progression for a total of 550 students. There is no interest in trying to expand John Carroll into a large major school. The property and the facilities at the present time, with a feW more classrooms, will facilitate their needs in the furore. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Driscoll if the Diocese plans to stay with this location for the foreseeable future. Mr. Driscoll stated that there have been no discussions or plans for any other schools at the secondary level. He stated that John Carroll is the high school for the Diocese, serving a four county area. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Driscoll if the fields will be lighted. Mr. Driscoll stated that this property is a very old citrus grove with a few oak trees. He stated they plan to clear the majority of the property, level it, grass it, and possibly install some fencing to separate it from the neighboring properties. He stated that because of the size and the layout of the lots the only thing that could be placed on these lots would be a practice soccer field and a softball field. He stated that it would not be economically feasible to install lighting for a very short softball season. A football field had also been discussed on these lots, physically and economically it just would not work. Mr. Driscoll stated that another limiting factor on the use of this property are the FP&L high powered, tension lines that mn along the east side of Lots 4 and 5 and between the currently owned and zoned Institutional property. The lines mn to the north and back to the east, down to the comer of 33~d Street and Delaware to the transmission substation. He stated that they need to stay clear of the concrete poles, the lines and the FP&L easements. Mr. Driscoll stated that when the school considered placing a football field on these lots he asked about lighting. He was told they would not be able to install lighting because FP&L already had poles on the north and east boundaries of the lots. Additional poles would not be allowed as they could possibly go down during a storm, affecting the FP&L high powered tension lines. Mr. Driscoll stated that they do not have any plans nor would it be feasible to have lighting. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Driscoll. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 3 Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of this petition. Chairman Weslosh asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this petition. Mr. Ten3, Cooper, 3912 Delaware Avenue, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Cooper stated that he owns Lots 1, 2, and 3. He stated that Lots 1 and 2 are vacant and his home is located on Lot 3 which' is adjacent to Lot 4. Mr. Cooper stated that he does not have anything in particular against the proposed use of Lot 5, Lot 4 leaves a little bit to be desired. He stated that Lot 4 runs the full length of his yard and his house would just be 30-40 feet away from the athletic' fields. Mr. Cooper referred the Board to item 4/8 in the staff report which reads "whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code". He stated that he does not know about the purpose and intent of the Code, but as far as public interest, he is probably the most affected public in the area, because he will be surrounded on three borders of his property by this. Mr. Cooper stated that he is not concerned about Lot 5. He is hesitant about Lot 4 being zoned Institutional due to the number of uses that could take place. It has been stated that Lot 4 will be used as a practice soccer field. This will create a lot of activity at the side of his house. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this petition. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Driscoll if he would like to address the concerns of Mr. Cooper. Mr. Driscoll stated that they purchased Lots 4 and 5 knowing if they ever wanted to develop Lot 5, they would need the Delaware Avenue frontage from Lot 4. If they only owned Lot 5 they would not have the required access of 60 feet. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Driscoll if the high powered tension lines run north and south along the eastern border of Lot 4. Mr. Driscoll stated that they run north and south along the eastern border of Lot 5. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll if they plan to have traffic flow onto Lots 4 and 5. Mr. Driscoll stated that they have not made any plans beyond the clearing and the placement of grass. He stated that there is a potential for some minor traffic if a game or practice were to be held. He stated that there is sufficient parking to the east side of the Institutional parcel with 50 spaces being added at the present time. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll without lights would he anticipate much activity after sundown. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Driscoll stated no. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Driscoll if practices would occur in the late afternoon. Mr. Driscoll stated that practices would occur after school. Mr. Driscoll stated that he spoke with Father Michael regarding the possibility of having Physical Education classes on these lots. Father Michael immediately said no. Mr. Driscoll stated that from the center of Lot 5 to the closest building is approximately 1,200 feet, which is almost a 1/4 mile. Mr. Driscoll stated that having access to practice fields are a problem in the after school hours. The current soccer and softball fields are shared with St. Anastasia School because this is when all the kids are available to practice. He stated that many of the seasons overlap now and this is the primary reason the school needs additional fields. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Driscoll. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Cooper if at the present time there is any noise intrusion from the school. Mr. Cooper stated that when they use the P.A. system or when the band practices. It is not a particular annoyance. He understands there are children present and they have activities, but to bring them even closer would be more of an intrusion. Mr. Cooper stated that he was involved in the planning of the subdivision. The County insisted that Lot 5 not be land-locked. It is by County roles that Lot 5 has a peculiar shape which would give adequate vehicular access to Lot 5 without having to use Lot 4. He stated Lot 5 was planned to be 15 feet wide from Delaware and then open up to 30 feet to handle the vehicular traffic needs of the future. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Cooper if he and his wife are employed. Mr. Cooper stated that he is a retired police officer. His wife is employed by the citrus industry in Fort Pierce. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this petition. Ms. Judy Dennison, 195 Hartman Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Dennison stated that they are relatively close to the proposed changes and are concerned about the flow of traffic and noise. Ms. Dennison stated that many times they can hear the kids practicing. It is not especially annoying, but if it were closer, perhaps it could be. She stated that she understands that if the school were to change the intended use of the property, to include a structure, the residents would have the Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 5 opportunity to raise questions. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this petition. Mr. Cooper asked Chairman Wesloski if he could voice one more concern. Chairman Wesloski stated that this would have to be the last time. Mr. Cooper stated that every so often the school has an activity and the parking is not contained on their property. He has noticed neighbors up and down Delaware Avenue place ribbons on their property to block people from parking in their driveways. He stated that he is concerned the school would use Lot 4 for parking. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Driscoll if he would like to address the concerns of Ms. Dennison and Mr. Cooper. Mr. Driscoll stated that the school experiences a problem every year in October during the Fall Festival. The Festival Committee places ribbons in yards and driveways to help the residents protect their yards and driveways from the public. Mr. Driscoll stated that the school would certainly like to cooperate with the residents to continue the placement of the ribbons. He stated that the school also provides security during the event to try to control the traffic as much as possible. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Flores if a buffer or vegetation is required between the residential and proposed Institutional area. Mr. Flores stated that a buffer zone would only be required if a circulation area were installed. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any :further questions for staff. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Flores if site plan approval would be required if ballfields were put on these lots. Mr. Flores stated no. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would like to hear a motion. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 6 Chairman Wesloski stated that she was passing the gavel to Mr. McCurdy. Chairman McCurdy asked if there was a motion. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff commems, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Ms. Wesloski moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Father Michael Sajda for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Chairman McCurdy passed the gavel back to Ms. Wesloski. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FILE NO. RZ-99-005 Mr. Hank Flores presented staff comments. Mr. Flores stated that he was presenting the petition of The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning DiStrict for 250.72 acres of land located on the Southwest comer of the intersection of Okeechobee Road and West Midway Road. Mr. Flores stated that the purpose of the rezoning is to relocate the St. Lucie County Fairgrounds to the subject property. The Fairgrounds are currently located on Indrio Road. Mr. Flores stated that the surrounding zoning to the subject property is AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) to the north, south, east, and west. Mr. Flores stated that staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms with the standards of review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Flores. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Mr. William Phares, 3658 Eleven Mile Road, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Phares stated that he is the President of the St. Lucie County Fair and with him tonight are the Vice-President and Trustees to show their support to the Board of County Commission requesting this rezoning. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Phares. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski cloSed the public portion of the hearing. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 8 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Flores when the fair is relocated how will water and wastewater be handled. Mr. Flores stated through a package plant. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions. Mr. McCurdy stated that the package plant would be for the wastewater and then use treated well water. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Flores if this property is located within the urban service boundary. Mr. Flores stated no. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. After considering the testimony presented during the public heating, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Ms. Dreyer.moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Mr. Grande seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Chairman Wesloski convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Kelly stated that in January the Board was provided with the Transportation Element and earlier this week Board members were provided with an amended Transportation Element as a result of a meeting held between staff and the "Study Group". He stated that very few changes were made and they are underlined. Shaded and underlined material has been added. Underlined and struck through has been deleted. Mr. Kelly briefly reviewed each of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Transportation Element. Mr. Kelly stated that the "Study Group" asked what section of the Comprehensive Plan covers the Airport. He stated that the Airport and the Port were in the same element and when the Port was transferred to the City of Fort Pierce, the Airport was inadvertently dropped. Mr. Kelly stated that the Airport information will be consistent with the prior element, which indicated the County should go through the DRI process, which has not been completed. Upon completion of the DRI staff will need to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that he would recommend that the Board make their recommendation on the Transportation Element without the Airport. He stated that he will create the Goals, Objectives, and Policies covering the Airport and bring it back to the Board. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if the phrase "landscaped with native vegetation" on page 3, Policy 4/5 would eXclude the opportunity to place flowering trees, or are we referencing the need for 100% native w~getation. Mr. Kelly stated that 100% native landscaping is consistent with current County policy. Mr. Lounds stated that if you develop Midway Road you would not get what you have on Virginia Avenue with palms and flowering trees. It would have to be cypress, pines, maples, myrtles, .and palmettos. Mr. Matthes stated that a lot of money is being spent placing sod on new roadways. The County does not have the budget to widen and build roadways in a timely fashion. Landscape plans that he has reviewed recently range from $25 - $150 a linear foot. :Water conservation, landscaping and having beautiful roads are very important. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Matthes stated that to require by the year 2000 that all roads built and designed, that County residents are paying for, to have these types of improvements with them are too expensive, the County cannot afford that right now. Mr. Trias stated that there is a need to have landscaping. It would be a mistake to limit it to only native vegetation. He would prefer to have roadways landscaped at least in urban areas. He would like to amend this Policy to read "By Year (designate the year), the County will require that transportation fight-of-ways will be landscaped. Native vegetation will be encourage in order to conserve water and minimize maintenance requirements". Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Trias if he wanted to amend the Policy to include "at least in urban areas". Mr. Trias stated yes because it deals with the issue of cost. He stated that when you design a roadway several miles long, it is very difficult to keep a high level of quality in terms of landscape. If you prioritize the design and locate in the correct place, you achieve a better investment. Ms. Dreyer stated that the Land Development Code is the place to put the specifics as to how much landscaping is required, not the Comprehensive Plan. She believes native vegetation should be used for landscaping when possible. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Lounds stated that he does not have a problem with total native. He believes it limits us to not use some landscapes that would provide color and uniqueness to a wide corridor. Port St. Lucie has done a good job with their roads using myrtles, pines and maples, they blend in well. The Reserve is nice. There are areas of Port. St. Lucie that have used flowering trees (tabebuias and crape myrtles) that have added a degree of color during the year that is very unique to this area. Mr. Lounds stated that he does not have a problem with the way this is written. He would like to limit the amount of non-native to a percentage as this discussion has brought forward it may be limiting to a factor. He stated that another concern would be maintaining the landscape which has not been addressed. If the County is not going to maintain it, don't put it out there. Mr. Kelly stated that "native or drought-tolerant" is sometimes used. If non-native items are not selected at least the drought-tolerant would not require a tremendous amount of water to maintain. If the Local' Planning Agency would like to consider adding "drought-tolerant" this may address the concerns stated and also add some flexibility. Mr. Lounds stated that we are limiting ourselves to unique color and variety in areas we are going to ask people to travel into and judge the County by their first sighting at various times of the year. Mr. Grande stated that he agrees with Mr. Lounds that if we leave the native vegetation comment in the Policy we are limiting ourselves too greatly. He stated that if we are going to keep this Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 11 paragraph we need to limit it to urban areas so that we do not have incredibly expensive restrictions on roadS that are way out west. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly where the hurricane evacuation route would be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that a good portion was addressed in the Coastal Element wherein protection of resources from storms was covered. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if it would be appropriate to address the re-routing of traffic during a hurricane. Mr. Kelly stated that the maps which will come before this Board will indicate the routes and may be placed in the Transportation Element. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if we should include a Policy that would make residents aware of possible changes in the evacuation routes. Mr. Kelly stated that it wouldn't hurt. Chairman Wesloski stated that if it is not necessary in this element and we address it in the Coastal Element that's fine, we don't need to be redundant. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Kelly to define what is a bicycle facilities as stated in Policy 2.3.3.2. Mr. Kelly stated that there are two types of bicycle facilities' bike path and bike lane. Mr. Trias stated that the only difference is the bike lane is on the roadway and is part of the asphalt, the bike path is separate from the vehicular roadway. Mr. Kelly stated that facility was used to indicate both types. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Kelly if the unnumbered Policy on page 8, that states "ensure, through Land Development Regulations, that bicycle trip destinations provide bicycle parking" means an open slab where someone can park their bike, a lockable facility, a lockable bicycle rack. Mr. Kelly stated that it would be a bicycle rack that a bicycle could be locked to. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Kelly what is not a bicycle trip destination. You can take a bicycle anywhere. If we tie ourselves to this, we are going to have bicycle racks everywhere. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 12 Ms. Dreyer stated that the word "all" is the offensive word in this policy. She suggested that we may want to state major bicycle destinations, i.e. malls and parks, places that would attract larger groups of people. She does not believes every little store should have a bicycle rack. Mr. Trias stated that the third unnumbered Policy on page 3 states "By Year 2000, the County will require that transportation enhancement facilities be considered as part of new construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roadways". Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly to explain transportation enhancement activities. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes we are speaking of items for which transportation enhancement funds are available. Mr. Trias stated that we may want to re-write the policy so that it is more obvious. Mr. Kelly stated that this policy only requires that they be considered. It does not require that enhancement be done. Mr. Trias stated that in some ways this gives an opportunity not to do projects, for the County not to fund projects that may be funded by someone else and therefore become less of a priority. He is not sure this is the way we want to go, it may be more effective if we say that "the County will actively loOk at funding those activities". Mr. Trias stated that the second Objective on page 9 reads "Actively support efforts to extend passenger rail service along Florida's east coast with stops in Ft. Pierce St. Lucie County". He believes it would very valuable to have the word "Ft. Pierce" instead of "St. Lucie County". An amazing amount of persuasion and salesmanship were necessary to convince Amtrak to consider Ft. Pierce. We will be more successful on this issue the clearer we make it. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Ms. Dreyer stated that the second Objective on page 9 should state "St. Lucie County". Amtrak is not the only transportation provider we are speaking of. Major Fielding believes Port St. Lucie would be the perfect location for an extension to Tri-Rail and there may be other opportunities. Mr. Trias proposed the language "Ft. Pierce and other places in St. Lucie County". He stated that he has had the opportunity to work in this County for a few years now and the use of the term "St. Lucie County" when we mean some other very specific place is sometimes detrimental down the road. He would not have a problem with including "other places". He feels it is very important to have "Ft. Pierce" as one of the specific locations. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Trias his thoughts on "St. Lucie County and it's municipalities". Chairman Wesloski suggested that we cover this when the Board makes it's motion. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 13 Ms. Dreyer stated that the unnumbered Policy under Policy 2.3.1.5 should read "Motorized and non- motorized transportation needs shall be assessed and met for each new development approved. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kelly if he had any comments regarding the correspondence received by the Board this evening frOm T. A. Wyner. Mr. Kelly stated that staff and the Board received a fax from T. A. Wyner on behalf of the Comprehensive Plan Study Group. Ms. Wyner indicated very recently a report was delivered to the Governor from the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee which was created to review statutes relating to the coordination of land use and transportation. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not know what is in the report. He would like to look at it. He stated that we have come upon some issues in the County through the Smart Growth initiatives that are going to force us as a community to look at transportation, land use, design, and how we develop. He stated that it may be appropriate to provide a Policy after reviewing the report. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Kelly if he could bring this back to the Board with the Airport provisions. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Matthes stated that at the top of page 2, third line, delete "will be". He suggested on page 2, fourth line change the wording to read "the County's annual Capital Improvements Program". Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Kelly if the wording in Policy 2.1.1.3 "Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas, which will allow for LOS standards lower than those listed in Policy 2.2.1.8" means if you are at a C you Would go to a D, meaning you are allowing a lesser amount of traffic. Mr. Kelly stated yes if the County were to establish a Concurrency Exception Area. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Kelly to clarify the fourth unnumbered Policy on page 3. The policy states "transportation engineering studies" will this include all traffic impact studies that are done for local developments, and should they be looking at life cycle costs for roadway improvements for roadways which need to be improved in.these studies. Mr. Kelly stated that certainly was not the intent when this was written, however it seems to include them. Mr. Matthes stated that he would prefer additional wording be placed in this policy to clarify this issue. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Kelly if staff has reviewed the level of service standards that have been set in Table 2-4 with regard to that allowed and/or accepted by FDOT in this area on certain roadways. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Kelly stated yes. Mr. Matthes stated that C is very unrealistic in some instances. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Matthes what would he suggest to replace C. Mr. Matthes stated D. Mr. Trias stated that he shares Mr. Matthes concern. He stated one of the biggest problems they have is trying to keep up with unrealistic levels of service. You end up with very expensive roadways. Mr. Matthes stated that you end up widening too many roads and placing too many lanes of pavement down. It really does not solve the problems, it really creates more of a problem down the road, we learned that at the Smart Growth Seminar. He stated that it creates more traffic congestion as opposed to solving the problem. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if he was checking to see if the Table had been updated. Mr. Kelly stated yes. The only change made was mathematical, going from one method of counting to another, rather than a fundamental change which would speak to the level of service we as a community are going to try to maintain. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not believe what Mr. Matthes and Mr. Trias are recommending has been done. Mr. Matthes stated that he would strongly consider that we review this. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Matthes if he is suggesting that the Board not make changes to Table 2-4. To send Table 2-4 back to staff and request they review it to be more realistic. Mr. Kelly stated that the question really becomes can we legitimately try to build our way out or do we have to look to other solutions. As a part of those solutions recognize that we are going to have congestion in places and is that really a bad thing. This would be a fundamental change and is a part of the Smart Growth issues we are looking at. Mr. Matthes stated that we have to realize the way a level of service is now defined does not relate the amount of vehicles you can get from one place to another, it's how long it takes them to get there. We are saying that the longer it takes to get there, the worst the situation is. In certain areas, especially in urban downtown, he thinks the exact opposite, why rash somebody through when you don't have mo. There are some fundamental differences in thinking fight now. He does not believe that the levels of service criteria apply at this time. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly how would you implement the congestion management system to solve Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 15 the problems were are talking about. Mr. Kelly stated that the process Mr. Trias is speaking about would allow alternatives for developments that are proposing to locate near an over capacity roadway. For example, if the roadway is over capacity rather than build a roadway to fix the problem, have the developer put in transit stops, so we have alternatives to more cars. Transit stops and pedestrian walkways to immediate:neighborhoods, bicycle facilities and other ways for people to move to the new project are acceptable alternatives rather than huge parking lots, more cars and more road lanes. He stated that he believes we will be looking at this over the next year to try to establish common ground on how to accomplish this. He stated that it doesn't work for subdivisions out west. The intent is to pull development in, in fill where we can, design projects that are attractive that allow residents to move in closer, use other :means of transportation and stop relying on automobiles. Mr. Trias stated that he would like to provide an example. Avenue D, which is a County road, was planned to be a four lane road, and would have cost x amount of money. Through planning and a further understanding of the real conditions, it was decided to build a two lane road with better sidewalks. In other words, pedestrian capacity was improved, vehicle capacity remained the same, it was less expensive to build than a four lane road, which saved money. Mr. Trias stated that the assumptions we are working on with the MPO and the 2020 Plan are more expensive. The assumption to create the four lane roadway may have a completely misleading understanding of what the needs of the County are in terms of the investment that needs to be made to have a good transportation system. The types of projects are predicated exclusively on this C level of service. By having this as your assumption you think of a huge, very expensive, extremely unpleasant, and probably unsuccessful at the end, transportation system instead of looking at the details. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes the overall planning for a number of years has been too driven by roadways and automobile capacity and he agrees with Mr. Trias. As stated when we reviewed the Future Land Use Element, we need to go through and re-establish our priorities. If the Board agrees with the comments that have been made, we would not be able to set new level of service standards tonight. He believes we need to send a message that we need to consider what our expectations for our roadways will be in the future. If we all expect free flow travel for every person in their car by themselves we probably can't build enough roads. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Matthes if he had any further comments. Mr. Matthes stated that on page 10 the Policy regarding the high speed rail has been deleted. He stated that a month ago he agreed with this during the Land Use Element discussion because it was decided that a better place to have this would be in the Transportation Element. He stated that it is his opinion that we will be short-sited if we remove all reference to high speed rail because technologies change swiftly. Five or ten years from now, something may come up that has a completely different ramification than the proposal the Governor vetoed. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 16 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing on the Transportation Element. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak on the Transportation Element. Ms. Betty Lou Wells, of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Study Group, addressed the Board. Ms. Wells stated that she was unable to locate the suggestion by the Study Group of bus entrance and exit for new developments in the Transportation Element. Mr. Kelly stated that he recalls the discussion to insert in an appropriate place a Policy that would require transit stops of appropriate new developments. He does not recall placing it in the Transportation Element. Ms. Wells asked Mr. Kelly if he meant to include it. Mr. Kelly stated yes, he did not deliberately ignore the request. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak on the Transportation Element. Mr. John Arena, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Arena provided the following comments: Page 1, the second Policy under Objective 2.1.1, the fourth line, the word use should be "used". Mr. Kelly stated that has been corrected. Page 2, the unnumbered Policy under Policy 2.1.1.3, change the second line to read "monitoring' and action program to preserve existing transportation facilities in the". Page 2, Policy 2.1.1.1, add the wording "and to make the necessary changes". Ms. Dreyer stated that this change is included in the previous line that reads "including proposed corrective measures and costs". Page 2, Policy 2.1.1.5, delete the word "system" between loop and signal. Mr. Matthes stated that the wording is correct in that it is a closed loop system. Page 4, Policy 2.1.2.4, add the word "County" between Lucie and has. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 17 Page 5, Objective 2.1.3, the third line should read "Element and the Future Land Use Elements of this plan". Page 6, Goal 2.2, the second line should read "which provides for transit, motorized and non-motorized". Page 9, the Objective regarding Amtrak, he believes it should read "Ft. Pierce and L i" Port St. uce. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on the Transportation Element. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the Transportation Element, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would like to provide a recap. Mr. Kelly would like the Board to review the Transportation Element and to include in the motion that the Transportation Element will be without the Airport which will be provided at a later date. Mr. Kelly stated that is correct and the motion should also include a similar reference to the fax received from T. A. Wyner. Page 3, landscape policy - suggestions included adding and/or drought-tolerant, percentages, keeping it within the urban areas and about maintenance. Page 8, unnumbered policy - bicycle parking - suggestions included that the wording be changed so that bicycle racks are not all over the County. Mr. McCurdy stated that the wording could be changed to publicly or county owned facilities, or we could impose this on businesses. Chairman Wesloski stated that at the least the mall. Mr. Grande stated that someone suggested inserting the term "major destination". Chairman Wesloski stated what do you define as major. Mr. Trias suggested maybe a weaker policy that state "bicycle parking will be encouraged". Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly for his input. Mr. Kelly stated okay, if that is the will of the Board. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 18 Page 3 - transportation enhancement- add the word "funding" to the first line of the third unnumbered policy. Mr. Trias stated that Mr. Kelly may even clean-up this policy a little more. Page 9- passenger rail service - keep Ft. Pierce. Page 4 - Table 2-4 - instead of trying to change the table tonight, this Board could include in the motion that a directive be sent to the County that this Board feels we should lower our expectations of these levels of services. We can remove it and review it again. Mr. Kelly stated that this Board certainly can do either one or you could direct staff to go through the Table again before we send it on to the County Commission. This would provide some evidence of your discussion, which would come through the minutes, which the County Commission reviews. They would understand your concerns and if you directed staff to take a look at it before it goes to them they would know where it came from and staff would be able to respond. Page 10 - high speed rail - it was suggested that we re-insert language regarding the high speed rail. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Matthes if we could state "any new possible transportation methods" to leave it open. Mr. Matthes stated that any chances of mass transit will be a rail system. He believes it is important for it to say rail. Mr. Trias stated that high speed rail is a specific project and may have some problems. Mr. Kelly stated that at the bottom of page 9, there is a Objective that states "actively supports efforts to extend passenger rail service along Florida's east coast". He suggested that we are really looking at "supports efforts throughout Florida". At the present time we do not know what the technology will be. Mr. Matthes stated that would alleviate some of his concern if we do not make it specific for the east coast. Mr. Trias suggested that we have an Objective that is general and several Policies that are more specific. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Trias if the intent would be to "support efforts to extend passenger rail service throughout Florida" with a Policy that references the east coast issues and other Policy to reference the rest of the State with imerging technologies. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 19 Mr. Matthes stated that as long as we link St. Lucie County to the rest of Florida through, a rail system. Ms. Wells question about the entrances and exits for transit stops. Page 2, adding the words "and action" between monitoring and program in the second line of the unnumbered Policy below Policy 2.1.1.3. Page 4, Policy 2.1.2.4 adding the word "County" between Lucie and has in the second line. Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board needs to discuss landscaping, keeping in Ft. Pierce, and Table 2-4. Mr. Grande stated that he would support deleting the requirement for native vegetation at this level to allow the planners to use the type of vegetation that makes sense and restrict it to urban areas. Mr. Trias suggested we amend the Policy to state "By Year 2000, the County will require that transportation fights-of-way in urban areas be landscaped. Native vegetation will be encouraged". Chairman Wesloski asked if we have time to do this. Mr. Matthes asked if this mandates that every County fight-of-way in urban areas better than a local roadway be landscaped by the Year 2000. Mr. Trias stated that maybe we could remove the "By Year 2000". Mr. Matthes suggested "By Year 2000, the County will commence with the requirement". He does not want to put a burden on the Public Works Department that should not unduly be put there. Mr. Trias stated that the message that he would like to send is that it is a good idea to landscape the right-of-ways in urban areas but not for it to be an impossible task because of the timing. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Trias if he would like to take the year out. Mr. Trias stated yes. Chairman Wesloski stated that if we do not have some type of a deadline the motivation to accomplish this will not be evident. Mr. McCurdy stated that as soon as we pass the plan it could be construed to take place at that point, rather than a year out. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 20 Mr. Trias stated that in many cases when Comp Plan Policies are reviewed the years are removed because the years pass by and nothing was done. He believes what is really valuable about the POlicies is that the language is there and the planners and the County Commissioners are able to reference it. Ms. Dreyer suggested that we require landscaping in urban areas on new major roadways and re- developed roadways. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes the direction is to say that "as corridors are re-developed, County transportation rights-of-way larger than local roads will be landscaped. Native vegetation will be encouraged in urban areas". Chairman Wesloski asked about drought-tolerant. Mr. Kelly stated that if we are only encouraging rather than requiring, he is not sure that drought- tolerant would be necessary. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with Ms. Dreyer on new major roadways and re-developed roadways. He would encourage the language "encourages the use of natives". He stated that he was not opposing the use of natives. He questioned the use of total native. Chairman Wesloski stated the Board needs to discuss the strike-through of Ft. Pierce on page 9. Mr. Moore stated that he appreciates Mr. Trias' passion for wanting to keep Ft. Pierce. He believes there is something this Board as well as the rest of the County entities should be cognizant of. He stated that we still have divisiveness between the cities, living in Port St. Lucie and working in Port St. Lucie. Mr. Moore stated that having experience on a governmental board in the city, there are a lot of people that are hyper-sensitive and feel that Port St. Lucie is the red headed step child in the County, especially when you are talking about something that is not particularly unique to the City of Ft. Pierce. Mr. Moore stated that as Ms. Dreyer pointed out there are certainly some preliminary plans to bring some type of railway system into the City of Port St. Lucie. He stated that he does not want to suggest that he is hyper-sensitive, but when you consider these issues as a County Board you really must be aware of this. Mr. Trias stated that he thought we resolved this by having the Objective state "St. Lucie County" with the Policies addressing the specifics i.e. "state-wide rail system" and "support a station in Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie". Mr. Kelly stated to make sure he is clear on the intent. We will have an Objective which states Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 21 "Actively support efforts to extend passenger rail service in St. Lucie County". It will have at least three Policies. One will reference the need to support the east coast rail service which may be Amtrak and/or the Tri-Rail extensiOn. Another will support new technologies li~ng us to the rest of the State. The final policy will support rail stations in both Ft. Pierce and Port St, Lucie. Chairman Wesloski stated the only item left is Table 2-4 on page 4. It was suggested to instruct Mr. Kelly to review the Table prior to taking it to the Board of County Commission. Mr. Matthes stated that he would suggest that the Table be brought back with the other two items. Mr. Kelly stated that would be fine. Mr. Matthes stated that he would like to see what staff comes up with before it goes to the County Commission. He would suggest that staff look at the standards that are used in AADT versus the peak season, etc. Mr. Kelly stated that peak season was in the prior plan and we went to AADT because we felt it was more consistent. Mr. Matthes stated that he knows from experience that an AADT of C is much harder to obtain than a peak season D. Mr. Kelly stated that AADT means Average Annual Daily Traffic. Mr. Matthes stated that AADT is measured over 365 days as opposed to taking the peak. It is easier to obtain a D in peak season than it is a C in AADT because we are starting to have AADT wrap around the peak season into the summer months. Mr. Kelly stated that the issue is how you measure and what are the units of measurement along with the level of service. Chairman Wesloski stated that the motion should be the changes that we have just reviewed and that staff will bring back to the Board the Airport, the Transportation and Land Use Study, and Table 2-4. Ms. Dreyer stated that she does not understand what we are bringing back on the Table. Are we asking staff to bring back a recommendation to change all of the levels of service. Mr. Kelly stated yes. Ms. Dreyer stated that if staff is going to review this, she believes it might be appropriate to look at recommendations based on the urbanized areas versus rural areas because she is not certain that D is an appropriate level of service for the rural areas for instance. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 22 Ms. Dreyer stated that on page 2, Policy 2,1.1.3 provides we will look at the transportation network and identify Concurrency Exception Areas and areas that will allow lower level of service standards for infill and redevelopment which she believes is appropriate. Ms. Dreyer stated that there might be urbanized areas that the Smart Growth goal might be achieved by having a lower level of service standards rather than just wholesale changing everything to D throughout the whole County. Mr. Trias stated that Ms. Dreyer is correct. He believes the problem is when roads enter the Cities they are analyzed the same way by traffic engineers as if they were outside the City, is a real fundamental problem. He believes a great deal of discussion is necessary. He believes this is in the Comp Plan because of the requirements of the State. As Mr. Matthes stated there is no real context regarding the method used and the consequences. The consequences are so significant he believes it deserves a better explanation. Mr. Matthes stated that Ms. Dreyer and Mr. Trias' have raised some very good points. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would entertain a motion. Mr. Matthes made a motion to approve the Transportation Element with the changes enumerated and discussed in whole and bring back the three items discussed (Airport, the Transportation and Land Use Study, and Table 2-4). Mr. Trias seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 23 PUBLIC HEARING ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board will continue with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Mr. Kelly stated that he also met with the Study Group on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. He did not provide an amended element for just one change. He would like to read the change into the record. On page 1, Objective 10.1.1 add the words "and interested citizen groups who have notified the County of their interest". Mr. Kelly stated that the Objective would then read "St. Lucie County shall establish specific means of coordination with adjacent municipalities; with local, state, and federal agencies who have permitting and regulatory authority; with quasi-public entities which provide services but lack regulatory authority in St. Lucie County; and interested citizen groups who have notified the County of their interest". Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Kelly. Chairman Wesloski stated that Policy 10.1.3.2 states "continue to request liaisons regarding proposed plan or rezoning amendments from the St. Lucie County School Board". Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the County has a specific liaison in the County that works with the School Board County and vice versa. Mr. Kelly stated that he would like to see closer cooperation with the School Board. He was the School Board Planner for approximately five years and during that time there was a pretty good informal relationship. Presently there is no one in a position at the School Board that really looks at overall land use issues and that may be part of the problem. The School Board for some time sent a representative to the MPO meetings, he does not believe that is occurring at the moment. Chairman Wesloski stated we talk a lot about traffic and Smart Growth. If you have a family and children, most likely they will not go to a neighborhood school, so that causes traffic, you have Little League, Girl Scouts and dance lessons that you have to drive to. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly where in this element can we encourage better coordination of schools. Mr. Kelly stated that we have made specific requests to the School Board for liaisons and have not received a response. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 24 Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly if there is a Policy that states County projects within other municipalities will follow the development approvals of that municipality, for example, the Library. This is presently being done informally and very well. Mr. Kelly stated that he does not believe this Element contains a Policy of this nature. Mr. Trias stated that he believes this would be a useful Policy. Mr. Kelly stated that the Policy would be written to go both ways. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Trias if he is requesting a formal Policy. Mr. Trias stated yes. Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kelly. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public heating on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Mr. John Arena, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Arena provided the following comments: Policy 10.1.2.2 - add "by 2000" between Forum and to in the first line. Policy 10.1.3.3 - add "other public groups". Policy 10.1.3.4 - add "a bi-monthly basis or quarterly" between on and the in the first line. Mr. Arena stated that local environmental issues should be brought to the attention of the School Board and posters that illustrate pollution and protecting and destroying essential fish habitat should be made available to the School Board. Policy 10.1.5.1 - add "other public groups". Chairman WesloSki asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 25 Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chairman Wesloski provided a recap of the changes: Mr. Kelly' s change to Objective 10.1.1 Mr. Trias' suggestion for a Policy that states the County will adhere to the Cities development policies and the Cities will follow the County development policies. Policy 10.1.2.2 add "the year 2000". Policy 10.1.3.3 add the words "other public groups". Policy 10.1.3.4 add a time on coordinating with the School Board. Mr. Kelly stated that a comment on coordinating quarterly, annually or any other time with the School Board on future locations of schools. The School Board puts together a plan that contains furore school construction which the County reviews. They do not quarterly discuss future locations, it's done on an as needed basis. Policy 10.1.5.1 add "other public groups". Ms. Dreyer stated that she knows the County and the School Board are cooperating with Joint Use Agreement for example in St. Lucie West. Ms. Dreyer asked if it would be appropriate to add an Objective in this Element that states "continue to enter into Joint Use Agreements with the School Board and possibly other municipalities." Chairman Wesloski stated that she would entertain a motion. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve the Intergovernmental Coordination Element with the proposed changes. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-0. Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 26 OTHEI Chairm~ Mr. Kel heard. Chairm~ BUSINESS: .n Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the Board would be meeting on April 8, 1999. [y stated yes. He stated that the Economic Development and Housing Elements will be tn Wesloski asked if there was any other business. There b~fing no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8'56 p.m. Planning & Z~)ning Commission/ Local Planning Agency March 18, 1999 Page 27 PL~NN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 04/15/99 _. File Number ~-99-002 MEMORANDU, M DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Manager ~ April 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Application:ofAdrOn and Pamela.Chambers, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residemial, Single,Family - 3 du/ac) Zoning District to the. CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning:District. LOCATION: South side of Easy Street, approximately 200 feet east of South U.S. Highway No. 1. EXISTING ZONING: RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family- 3'du/ac) ROPOSED ZONING. CO (Commercial, Office) FUTURE LAND USE: PARCEL SIZE: ~ (Residemial, Medium) 0.41 acre Driveway Access and Drainage Retention for a Fence Contracting Business SURROU~ING ZONING: RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family- 3 du/acre) to the north and east. CG (Commercial, General)to the west. IL (Industrial, Light) to the sOuth. SU~OUNDING L~D 'USrES.' The general existing use surrounding the property is residential and some limited commercial uses. The Future Land Use Classification of the ~ediate surrounding area is RM (Residential Medium) to the north, east, and south and COM (Commercial) to the west. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #6, (350 East Midway Road) is located approximately 3 miles to the north. April 15, 1.999 Page 2 Petition: Adron and Pamela Chaml~'e~s File No: RZ-99-002 -~' -. UTILITY SERVICE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY The subject property would be served by a well and septic system. The existing.right-of-Way width for South U.S. Highway No. 1 is 120 feet. The existing right-of-way width for Easy Street is 80 feet ~ SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONCU~NCY U.S. Highway No. 1 is scheduled for widening in FY 20003/4' Concurrency Deferral Affidavit. ST~DARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE h:~ reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall-cOnsider and m~e the :following determinations: Whether the proposed~rezoning is~in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The applicants have stated that they intend to use .the property for access and drainage retention ~for.thek proposed fence contracting business to be located on-the adjacent property to the west, which has frontage on South U.S. Highway No. 1. According to Section 3.01.00(P)(1).ofthe St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the pu~ose of the CO zoning district is, "to provide and protect an environment suitable for selected office and commercial uses, together with :such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with commercial office surroundings." Provision of access and drainage for a more intense co~ercial use is not anticipated by the cOde. On Tuesday April 6, 1999, the Board of COunty COmmissioners amended the Land Development Code to prohibit access to commercial zoning over residentially zoned streets. Since Easy Street in the area is "zoned" residential, ~veway access from this site to Easy Street is prohibited. April 15, 1999 Page 3 Petition: Adron and Pamela Chambers File No: RZ-99-002 1 1 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Sto LUcie County Comprehensive'Plan; The. Future Land' Use Classification allows CO Zoning in the RM (Residential Medium) only if such zoning meets the location criteria of Policy 1.1.8'.4. The folloWing policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan conflict'with the requested change in zoning: Future Land Policy 1. 1.8.4(1): "The intent of the co~ercial use is to provide easily accessible, convenience-type uses ,to i~ediately surrounding residents." The proposed use of the subject property ~ access and drainage retention for a fence contracting business does not meet this criteria. The proposed fence contracting business is, currently in exiStence and is a county-wide OPeration. Future Land Use Policy 1.1.8.4(2): "The property for which the commercial designation is sought is located on an r ~ ~efial or Majo Collector Easy.Street is defined by the Federal Highway Adm~stration and the Metropolitan Planning Org~zation(MPO) as an Urban Collector. The Federal Highway Administration no longer classifies streets as major or minor collectors. If such cl~sification had been maintained, Easy Street would have been a Minor Collector. Future.Land Policy 1.1.8.4(4): "The use is compatible With surrounding land uses." The requested Change in zoning conflicts with this policy, because the use of the general surro~ding neighbOrhood is residential. A change in zoning to the CO Zoning DiStrict.would alloW an encroac~ent of this surrounding residential area with an 'incompatible use. Whether an:d the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed zoning.is not consistent with existing and proposed land uses in the area. The general use of the immediate surrounding area to the east of the subject April ~t~', 1999 Page 4 -' ~- Petition: Adron and Pamela Chambers File No: RZ-99-002 5~ e property is residential and to the west is commercial. A convenience store is located adjacent to the subject property to the west. If this rezoning is approved, the apPliCants, have stated that they would combine the subject property with an adjacent d~ (C°mmercial, General)z(~ned prOperty ~°nting SOuth U.~. I~ighway No'. 1 for a fence contracting busNess. Such .a ':use is incompatible with existing uses in the neighborhood. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Conditions have not changed so as to require an amendment, Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed mendmentwould exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not f · · · limited to transportation facilities, sewage acfl~tles, water supply, parks~ drainage, sc'hOols, Solid Waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; The intended use for this ~rezoning may create significant additional demands on public facilities in this. area. If approved the intended Use will cause an increase in the amount of track traffic on Easy Street. . Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in lgmficant adverse impacts on ~the natural environment; The proposed amendment is~not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural enviroment. The applicm.~t will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local enVironmeatal re~lations'when building the single-family residence and home barn. e Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orde.rly~and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative An orderly and logical development pattern will not occur with this change in zoning. :The surrounding parcels of property are mainly designated for residential uses, The rezo~ng of the Subject property to the CO Zoning District will allow for an increase in the amount of traffic on a residential street. Petition: A~d~on and Pamela Chambers · -' ~ile No: RZ-99-002 April 15, 1999 Page 5 ge Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code; The proposed amen~ent would be in conflict with the public interest and is not in harmony with the p~ose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. COMMENTS The petitioners, Adron and Pamela Chambers, have requested this change in zoning from the to .be loeaed to the west of the subj.ect propertY outh U.S. Highway No. 1. This adjacent (Commercial, The subject property is. located at the edge of a re Street. A convenience store is located on the southeast of South No. 12 and :Easy Street. In order for a change in zoning to be granted for the subject property, it must meet ALL of the criteria of Policy. 1.1.8.4 of the St, LUcie County COmprehensive Plan. This. policy states the folloWing: ential uses will be allowed within areas classified for residential use, provided that these-activities are compatible with the adjacent land uses and meet the following standards: The intent:of the-commercial use is to provide easily accessible, 'convenience-type uses to immediately surrounding residents; The Subject property is imended to be combined with a CG (Commercial, General) zoned- property to .the west, which has front:age on South U.S. Highway No. 1. If the change in zoning is approved, the subject property will be.used aS access from Easy Street to the proposed deVelopment: and as drainage retention for a fence contracting business. Such a use is intended to provide Service to an area larger than the immediately surrounding residents. The property for which the commercial designation is sought is located on an Arterial or Major Collector; EaSy Street is defined by the.~ederal Highway Administration and the Metropolitan Planning OrganiZation0VIPO) as an Urban Collector. The Federal Highway Administration no longer classifies streets as major Or minor collectors.. If such classification had been maintained, Easy Street would have been a Minor Collector. April 15, 1999 Page 6 Petition: Admn and Pamela Chambers .. _ -File No: RZ-99-002 Conversion of the petitioned property wouM not promote any strip commercial use of lan& the "s~p" develOpment of EasY Street east ofU. S. Highway No. 1. 7he use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is provided with adequate screening and.buffering of any adjacent residential property; This criteria is not met. The proposed use, a contractor's yard, is not compatible with the residential character of the surrounding area. The site does not have direct driveway access onto any local Or Minor Collector street; Easy Street is defined by the Federal Highway Administration and the Metropolitan Planning Orgmzation(MPO) as an Urbma Collector. The Federal' Highway A~inistration no longer classifies, streets as major or minor.collectors. If such classification had been maintained, Easy Street would have been a Minor Collector. . Theproperty for which the commercial designation is. sought'does not exceed 10 acres. This criteria is met. The subject Property is 0.41 acre in size. On Tuesday April 6, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners amended the Land Development Code to pro,bit access to commercial zoning over residentially zoned streets: 'Since Easy Street inthe area's" " ' ' . ~ "zoned residential,, driveway access .from ~thi's site. to Easy Street is pm~bited. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform With the standards of review aS set fOrth in Section 11,.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is a recommendation of denial. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment hf cc: Daniel Mclntyre, County Attorney Adron and Pamela Chambers Harold G. MelVille, Esq. File SuggeSted motion to. recommend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning. _. MOTION'TO.APPROVE: AFTER CONS~ERING THE. TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE P~LIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06,03' ST. LUCIE coUNTy LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING ~.ZON1NG COMMISSION ~COMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BO~ OF COL~TY COMMISSIO~RS GRANT APPROV~ TO THE ~PLICATION.OF ADRON AND PAMELA CH~BERS FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE RS-3 0~SiDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 3 DU/ACRE) ZONING DIST~CT TO THE CO (COMMERCIAL, OFFICE) ZONING DISTP~CT. BECAUSE ..... [CITE REASON WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONS~ G THE TEST~ONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, ~ THE STAND~S OF'~VIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06,03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HE.BY MOVE THAT TI~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BO~ OF COUNTY CO~SSIONERS DENY THE ~PLICATION OF ADRON ~D PAMELA CHAMBERS FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM .THE RS-3 (~S~ENTI~, S~GLE-F~ILY - 3 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CO (CO~ERCI~, OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT. BECAUSE ...... [CITE REASON ~Y - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]. ~ (D 0 oC) cr S ~£ I s ~£ I s 9£ .L M.NIgO0 3380HO33NO Adron Zoning R7 9_9-00.2 Pamela C hambers ,34 Alexondrio ! ! i i $ I 4 ! Easy Conal No. 23 Street nal R/W IX 6 5 U . Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map revised December 3, 1998 · .~ha~ .bee..,ad. m ~ ~ m~x~.~,d .~ Land Us.e Adron & Pamela Chambers Seager Avenue Z '" ..... an Canal R/W ' ' ...... '~ ...... · C al No. 23 , RZ Community Development Geographic Information Systems Map revised December 3,1998 TO' Planning & Zoning Commission SUBJECT: RZ-99-002 Application Of Adron & Pamel_a Chambers for a Change in Zoning from RS-3 zoning to CN zoning. · Gentlemen - I am a property, owner in Indian River. Est. ates. I am opposed to this change in ~/~ for the lot on Easy. ' Street requested by Adron and. Pamela Chambers, owners of Adron Fence Company. Adron Fence will ~be developing the property they own on U S One just south of the convenience store. The Easy Street lot that is the subject of this zoning change request is located directly behind'the convenience store. Adron will be opening a fence company business on their U S One property but .that business will have no reasonable access to southbound U .S One...not Unless their Easy Street lot is re-zoned Commercial. If this Easy Street lot is re-zoned Commercial then Adron could install a driveway onto Easy Street, a backdoor, so to speak, from their property on U S One. This driveway would then give their company trucks and delivery, tractor trailers the use of the traffic light at Easy Street to access southbound U S One. Easy 'Street is not built to accommodate or support any heavy truck traffic. Furthermore, heavy ~commercial truck traffic wOuld increase the congestion at the intersection of U S.One and Easy Street. I don't want Adron's lot on Easy Street re-zoned to Commercial. Re-zoning will open a door to future re-zoning and result in the commercialization of Easy Street. Changing the zcn~g of any lot from residential to commercial viOlates the property restrictions set forth in the Indian RiVer Estates. Declaration~of Restrictions (see attached copy). I urge you to NOT grant this change in zoning. Thank you. ~ (Mrs')Paula Levine ~~ 5606 Bi~rch Drive Fort Pierce., FL 34982 -t ! OENERAL DEVELOPMENT COR?., a' Florida corporation. · 'TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. . · DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS Deed Book 219, page 439 DateR' September 21st, 1956 · Filecl'~ October ~th,, 19~6 St. Lu¢ie County. records WHEREAS, O~NERA~ DEVELOPMEN~ ~CORP ; a Flori~la corporation, is the o~.~ner of 'the fOllowing ~leSaribed ~'opert.y, s' ' ' being in St. Lucie County, Fl-oriYia, t°-wit.~ltuate,'!ylntg and INDIAN.RIVER ESTaTE.~..UNIT THRP~ a subdivision in St. ~ucie County, Flor' ~' ' ' ~' 1Re, according to the plat the.roof recorder in Plat Book %0, at pag~ 4?, of t'he Public. RecorRs.o'f St. LUcie~ County, FloriRa;. o an~. 'UHEREAS, the property above ~lesaribecl is not subject ~o any restrictions ancl limitations of recorcl; and WHEREAS, it is'now clesirecl-by Genersl DeveloPment Corp., to place restrictions anal limitations-~.of reco.r~L-as to each and every of the lots loca'te~l in INDIAN RIVER ESTATES, UNIT THREE, and' to limit the use for which each and ' 'INDIAN RIVER ESTATES, UNIT THRE',I every .of the lots locatea~ in ..... , is intended; ' NOW, ~, GENERAL DEVELO'PMENT CORP., a Florida corporation does ~ctare that each. and every °~__the lots, located in the fol ~describecl.-ploperty, situate, lying and being in St. Lucie County, Florida, to-wit.- INDIAN RIVER ESTATES, UNIT THREE, a subdivision in St. Lucie County ' FlOricla, accorcling' to th~ plat thereof, recorder in Plat Book 1~, at' page 4? of the Public Records of St Lu¢ie County, · Florid:a; · · are'hereby restricted as follows, and all of ~;hiah restrictions . and 'limitations ara intendecl to be and shall tSe taken as a. aon- sicleration for any agreement for ~teecl or any Ree~ of conveyance thereof hereafter m~cle, and on~ of the express conditions the're, of, ancl that saiR restrictions argot limitations are intenRecl to be, anR ~shall. be taken as. covenants to run with the land and Shall be as follow, s, to-wit.-. ' 1. Each and every of the lot~s, situated in the said I~IDiAN RIVEH ESTATES, UNIT 3, shall be known and described as- residence lots except all property contained in'Tract A .of Block 17, and Tract B of BloCk 16, :.~hich are business.lots and are excepted from all res~trictions contained herein, and no structure shall' be con- structed orJerected on any resid, ence~'buil~ling lot o~her than one detached Single family d%~elli.ng not-"~o .exceed t%~o stories in height, and a. one or two' car garage. A minimum frontage of se. venty.(?O,) feet on lot line at street shall be required ~for each residence building. 2. No building shall be erected on any of said lots nearer than ~0 feet to .the front lot lincs of said lots, nor nearer than ?.5 .feet to any side lot ].ine, r,o.r nearur than 25'f¢:et tb the rear lo~ lines of said lots. The side lot lin= and th'e rear lot line shall not apply t'o a garage locar.~.~d 50 feet or more from th.e minimum buil~iing' setback l ina, u:<cept that on co~'ner lots no Page 2. (D.B. 219-439) . · structure sh~ll be permitted near=r tha~l 25 Y'eet. to front lot line of said 'corn¢.r lot nor nearer tha~l 12½ feet to thc rear lot line, nor nearer than'12.5 fe~.t to' the side street lihe. 'For the purpose oF this covenant eaves, steps and 'open porches shall not be con- sidered as a par~t of a buidling~ provided, ~hOwever that this shall no't be construed to permit any portion of a building on a lot to encroach upon another lot. . . . No residence lOt .shall be resubdiv.ided into buildin~ lots havin.~ .s~ .thee 15,000 Square F~t, nor ~aving a width of ~ess than 70 feet at the minimum building setba'c.k l~ne. NO building shall be erected on. any residence building lot hav~ng an· area of less than 600 squa'r'e f~et for.a one story building not,ess th~n 1080 square feet (ground area) for a dwelling, of more than one story. .4 NO Noxious or offensive trade Shall be' carried, on any lot, 'nor ' s~all any.thing' be d~ona· thereon which may be or become an annoyanc~ or nuisance to the neighborhood. 5.' No house trailer, basement~ tent, shack, ~arage, barn or'other 'outbuildiug erect.ed on any l'ot shali at' any time be used as a residence, t~mpOrarily or permanently, nor shall any residence of a temporary .character be permitted. Boat trai!~rs, and cargo trailers must be stored to the r~=ar of' lots and Out' of view from street lines. 6. No SYgn 0f any kind ~hatl be displayed.to the public view on any tot,.'except one (1)profe~ssional sign of not more than one (!) square foot, or one (1) sign of not more than five (5) square feet advertising .the p~ope, rty for sale or rent. or si'gns used by a bUilder to advertis~ the.property d~:ring the const~ctYon and sales .period 2. No nil'drilling, o).t deveiopmunt operations, .oil reflnin~, q'uar~ying or mining oi~ration's of'any kind ~.:hazl~ be' p~rmitted upon -or in any lot, nor s}~all oil. wells, tanks, tunn,~ls, mineral excava- tions or 'shafts. be permitted upon or in any !of.' No de,riCk or oth~ .struct.ure designed for' uste in boring for oil or natural gas shall be erecte~, maintained or permit, ted Upon any lot. . ~8. ,No animals, tivcsto.ck or Pouit. ry of any '~..a'r' .shall be raisect, brc~ or kept on any lot, except that dogs, cats or other household pe~ts may be kept, provide'd that' they are not kept, 'bred' or main- rained for any commercial purposo~. Privat=ly ownud s~j~]%j%9~ses, hunting dogs and hounds may be ke~t pro.vialed.enclosed/are erected, therefor an~ suc~h shelt=rs mdst .be locatgd a minimum of !00, feet from any-residence.. C~hickeus and p.o%~lt~y may be kept.. ..~o,,~e,,e._ _ such poul~Fy oF poult'my products.are not pFocessed, slau~hteFed, dFedded oF sold on the p~mises. Chicken houses must be p~ovid6d and' yards oP pens must be fenced. No PoultFy oF chicken may be kept within 100' F~et of any ~sidence. 9. No' lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground.for rubbish, tra. Sh, garbuge or otl~er waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers. Alt incin~.rators oP othtr equipment for the .sto.rage.'o'r disposition of such mat=rial shall be kept in .a clean arid sani. tary condition. · 10. No building shall be erected on nny r.esidence lot.until the design and location thereof have been approved, in writing by a committee '~ppoi.nted by GENERAL DEVEI,OPMENT CORP., a Florida corpora- t~ion, or e~lect=d by a majority of' thu ownurs of the property fi'rst here£nabove describ¢.,d; provided, l~ou,:ver,.' in thc- event s~ch commit- te is not .in existence, or fail:'; to approve o:' disapprove such · · o Page 3. (D.B' '219-439) ' design 6r loCntio,.l within 'thirty (30) days,, th~.n, such approval ~.~i!l not re required, provided the. design and locat'ion on th:~ lots first ~ereinabove describod. ~n',-uny evian, either with or Without approval -' 'of the Committee the ground flOo.r square feet of any building on any lots, shall not be l'ess thegn 600 square feet in t~he case of a one Stor~ construction, nor less th~n ?.20 square feet {ground area) in ~ase of a 1½ br 2 story struct6r.~. · 11. NoJf~nce,~ wall, hedge or s~'rub planting v~hich obstructs sight .lihes at elevations between two and six feet above the road~ays shall be.placed or permitted to ~rcmain on any corner lot within the triangular area formed by thc st~reet property lines and a lin~ connecting them at points twenty five feet from the intersection of · any. street lines, or in t.he case of a. rounde~t property-corner from the inters.action of the st.~2t proI~erty line.-ext.~nded. The same sight line lim:itations..shall. apply on any lot ~ithin ten feet from the inte~rsection of a street property-line with the edge of a driveway or allc. y pavement. No tree shall be .permitted to remain ..~ithi'n such distance .of such intersections unless tl~e foilage line . is maintained at stifficient height .to prevent obstruction of such sight lines. · I2, The. Easements 'S'~own. on the plat of INDIAN [~.IVER-ESTATES, Unit' 3, recorded in Plat Book 1.0, .at page 47-of the Public Records of : S.t. Lucia County, Florida,. are h~.r~by reserved as perpetuaI ease- ~ments for utility installati~ons and maintenance'. . . 1.3'-These covenants and restrictio.fls are, to run ¥;ith th'e l. and, "and -shall be bin:Sing on al]. pu.rties and all pcrso~s claiming under them until D-ccembur 20,..1979., at ¥~hich timu .said covenants and restrict- ' ions shall autom:':tica[tiy b~ ~xten~!.~d..for su__~cessi'v~ periods, of'ten · ('t0) y.cars, 'uh'l'~ss by vote. of a .majo.rity of.th~ then o¥~ntrs of the lots, it is a.grecd[ to change said covunants in wl]ole or in part. · 14.. If. the ~artit. s h~reto, or any of th~.mor th~:ir.?,,?irs, pc~rsona! . representatiV.~s of. assigns.., shall vi "', oz,.to or attempt t.o violate any of the covenants or restrictions .h~rein, it Shall .be !~-:.~u,_~,'r ~ for any · : othur person or pursons o~4ning ~ny of the lots h:~,~inabove describ- ed to prosecute any'proceedings at law or in .~quity against the person or p~rsons violati~ng or ~ttcmpting to violat~ any Such coYenant or restricti~n,'and either' to pre· ~v~n~ him or ~t'h~m from so doing, or to recover damages or· other duos f~or such violations. 15. Invalidation of any on~ of th~se covenants by judgment, decree or court order shall i.n no ~ise effect any of the other orov'isions which shall remain in full for. ce and .effect. -. · .. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GENERAL DEVE£OPMENT CORP., 'a Florida corpora- tion. has caused these presents to bc executed by its proper officers 'who are th~?eunt:o du'~y authorized and its corporate'" 'seal t° be affixed, at Miami, Dado County., Florida, .this 21st. day of S~-~Ptumbur, 19)6. · Corpo.ra'te S.eal.' GENERAL DEVELOPMEN'T CORP. 'BY: E. J. Mackle, President A'TTEST- R. F. Mackle, Secretary -Acknowledg.e~ by E. J,.Mackle a~]d R. ];'. Mackl=, Pr=sident and Secnetary, respectivu!y, of GE~;E[~,~L DEVEL~FME~:4~ CORP a Florida . corporation;, on S~ptemb~r 21.st, 19~6., before a Notary.Public ~-~ith Seal., in Dado County, Florida, w~ose commission expires ~ay 28th,.. ' 19J8. VIA FACSIMILE danuary 21, 1999 St* Lucie County Zoning Department Fi' Pierce., FL We have Just learned that Adrod Fence Co. of 0keechobee is reque$cin$.a zoning chang~ from residential to .commercial for the property they Own om Easy Street. As a res£denc of Indian River Estates we totally oppose., any re- zoUin8 of property on. Easy Street f~om residential to commercial. The intersection of E~sy Street & U.S. I is conge~ed most of the .time with passenger cars waiting to exit Indian River Estate~. The light .to turn sour~h on U~S..I im extremely sl~' and when it ruins, lt. does not no,ally allow all those waiting to make it through the light. Any trucks from a co~rcial enterprise would go~a.lly exasperate this condition, your consideration is app.reciaced. Sincerely, R.H. Anderson Hickory Drive Ft. Pi, rc~ 34982 P'S. Easy Street is a. very. narrow street with narrow grass shoulders. Truck traf£ic:woUld be most haza-rdous for pedestrians. .. :I~:!::::i:,~i:i:i~:i?>:: .... .:.::.' ::..,.:::~.. :).i~:.-..i:~::i::!?>::..:::::. ::..::: .:../.: :-: : '. FIE~T BAPTIST PSL PAGE 02 April 10, 1999 Board ,of County CommisSioners Fort FL 34982-5652 Dear Ms. Diana Wesloski. Ref: File Number RZ-99.002 This letter is to let you know that we oppose the petition for the Chilnger from EasY ~Street that Adron & Pamela Chembem this street is too busy as it iS lng to get out on US #1 and any area. Please vote NO to tht,~ petition. In regards, Elranc~ 299 Ft AGENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1999 7.'00 P.M. Adron and Pamela Chambers (Harold Melville, AgenO, have petitioned St. Lucie County for' a Change in Zoning from the R$-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning DistriCt for the following described property: (Location: South side of Easy Street, approximately.2OO feet east of South U.S. High w ay No. D Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning. Agency. are electronically recorded. Ifa peraon decides to appeal' any decision made by. the Local Planning Agency with respect .to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need., a record of the'. proCeedtngs, and that, for ~uch purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the . proceedings .is made, ~which record includes the testimony and.evidence upon which, the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be ~worn in, Anyparty to the proceeding will be granted, an opportunity to.cross~examine any ... individual testifying durtng a :hearing upon request. ~ritten comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be.considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property, owners March 3i, 1999,~ Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on April 2, 1999. File No. RZ-99-002 ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA APRIL 15, 1999 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTIC. E is hereby given in accordance with Sedion ! 1=.00.03 of the 'St. Lucie CoUnty La,nd Devel- opment Code and the provisions of 'the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, the following applicant has requested that the St. [ulcie County Planning and .ZOning Commission consider the following request: ADRON AND' PAMELA CHAM- BERS (HAROLD MELVILLE, AGENT), for a Change :in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single- FamilY-3 du/acrel Zoning Dis~rid to' tlie CO (commercial~ Office) Zoning DiStrid .for the following described properly: . Indian River Estates-Unit 03- Block 16, Lot 1 (Map 34/ 10S)(0.41 ac)(OR 1156-1199)(1'ax ID NO. 3402-604.0055~-000/~). (Location: South side of Easy Street, approximately 200 feet east' of South U.S. Highway NO. 1) A PUBLIC HEARING Will be held in Room 101, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Vir- ginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on April 15, 1999, begihning at 7:00 P.M. or as soc;n the'reafie;' as possible. PURSUANT TO Seclion 286;0105, Florida Statutes, if a person .decides to. appeal any deci- sion made by a board, agency, or commission with reSpect to.any matter considered at a meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may .need to ensure that :a verbatim record of the pro- ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and ~vi- dence upon which the appeal is to be based. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/DIANA WESLOSKI, CHAIRMAN Pub.: April 2, 1999 No. 5725 ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARII~IG AGENDA APRIL 15. 1999 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 1-1.00.03 of.the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and the provisions of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, the . following applicant has requested that the St. Lucle~County Planning and Zoning COmmission consider the following request:. ADRON AND PAMELA CHAMBERS (HAROLD MELVILLE, AGENTj,' for a Change in Zoning from the RS,3 [Residential, Single,Family - 3 alu/acre] Zoning District to the CO [Commercial, Office] ZOning District for the following described properly: Indian River Estates - Unit 03 - Block. 16, Lot I (Map: 34/10s} [0.41 ac] (OR 1156-1199] [Tax I.D. No.. 3402-604-0055.000/7] [Location: South side of Easy Street, al~p'roxlrn~, ely 200 feet east of South U.S. Highway No. 1) A PUBUC HEARING-will be held'in Room 101. St. Lucle CoUnty Administration .Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort PierCe, Florida On April 15, 1999, beginning at 7:00 EM. or as 'soon thereafter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105,.Florida Statutes, i.f a,person deC!ideS to appeal any decision made by a board, agency, or commission With· resPect to any matter considered ~t a m~ting or hearing, he Will need a record Of the proceedings, and'thai, .for suci~ purpose ,st-he may need to ensure lhat a Verbatim reCOrd of the proceedings is made, which record inclades the testimony and evidence Upon whiCh the aPPeal is to be based. " PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/DIANA WESLOSKI, CHAIRMAN Publish: April 2, 1999 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY D'EVELOPMENT Planning Division To' Local .Planning Agency From: David' Kelly, Planning Manager Dat~: April 14, 1999 Subject: Policies on Farm Worker Housing Based on Direction .of the Local Planning Agency, I.met with Ramon Trias, Planning Director for Fort ~Pierce to discuss draft policies for the provision of adequate housing for the County's farm workers. The following policies are the result of that meeting. FARM WOR~R HOUSING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The following Comprehensive ~ Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies are modifications of the portions of'the Housing Element ~as previously reviewed by the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency. ~~~. at~ ~ ~. is recommended for adait~,- ,.,.~ ............. ~,~~[!,~ .................. e.-- is recommended ~for deletion. New recommendations ard also underlined. GOAL 5.1: .1.5. Objective 5 -' PROVUE AN ADEQUATE MIX .OF S~ AND SANITARY HOUSING WHICH MEETS THE NEEDS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE ST. LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTS. ..~ ....~..~. -, .... , ~..~ The County will ~establish a Farm Workers Housing Task Force ~ . This task force will ~ evaluate prOblems, identify needs, develop strategies for action, and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for the prOvision of an adequate and affordable housing stock, equal in amount to the need, for the rural and farm worker populations b-' *? ----~-."* .... a ...... ¢.. · f~%,tom by' 2005. Policy-5.1.5.7: Policy. 5.1-2.8: By August 1, gOO!l! -t99t-, the Farm Workers Housing Task Force shall report to the Board of County Commissioners on the strategy it recommends for the F6~at:ion¢ construction, rehabilitation, ownership, financing, and management of farm worker housing in order that appropriate amendments to make this Element of the Comprehensive Plan more specific may be evaluated. Rural and farm worker housing locational criteria shall be reviewed for incorPoration ~ ...... t- ...... into the Land Development Regulations by August 1' ~00 499t-, according to these general guidelines: A) B) Rural and farm worker housing should be located near collectors or artenal__s m~dwa'y~ leading to work Sites, shopping and social services; It is recognized that rural and farm worker housing often will be dependent on on-site sanitary sewer and potable water supplies. Policy 5.1..5.1' Policy 5.1.5.2: Policy 5.1.5.3' The Farm Worker Housing Task Force shall include at least one farm worker or union representative, at least one agricultural employer, at least one building contractor, and at least one social serviceprowder.-.' ^ The.Farm Worker Housing Task Force shall provide information to private agricultural business, so that appropriate affordable housing can be obtained for persons employed by them. The Farrn Workers Housing Task Force will encourage .private agricultural Policy 5'1.5.4: business to work with Farmers Home Administration and other nonprofit organigations in.the development and management of housing for farm workers and migrant laborers. The Farm Workers Housing Task Force will assist non-profit agencies and other support groups to plan and develop low-cost rental housing and other non-houSing support services for farm workers and their families. MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPME NT Planning Division To: From: .Local Planning Agency DaVid Kel'ly, Planning Manager ,Date: April 14, 1.999 Subject: Transportation and Land Use Study Committee - Comprehensive Plak Issues At a previous .meeting, the Local Planning Agency asked that I review the Final Report of The Transportation and Land .Use Study Committee (January 15, 1999) for possible inclusion of its recommendations in the draft .Comprehensive Plan currently under consideration. I .have reviewed the report.and have.attached its Cover Sheet, Table: of Contents, ' Executive Summary, Appendix A: Legisl:ative Charge', and Appendix B: Summary of Recommendations for your review. 'The-recommendations from the committee target Smart Growth initiatives and are aimed primarily at~acti~ons that should be taken by the State of Florida-and its various agencies. Recommendations 4, ! 1, 14, 18, 20, 22, 27, 30, 32, and 36 are those which most directly deal with local.Metropolitan Planning-Organizations (MPO) and local governments. Even these recommendations, generally speak to fiamre requirements,-assistance, and empowerment for local .At this. time I do .not :recommend that specific policies based on this report be included in the :draft Comprehensive Plan. The following more general objective and policies which are generally drived from the report and .support the Smart Growth initiatives .previously-discussed might~be included. Objective: The ~County shall consider development and implementation of a Smart Growth plan and implementation policies. Policy Any Smart Growth plan adopted by St. Lucie County shall be consistent with applicable federal, state and regional plans, Policy Upon completion of the Smart Growth Plan, the County will review and revise if necessary the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Comprehensive Plan. Policy The Cou ty .s ~Smart.Growth plan shall consider land use and ~mobility. Inte~odal facilities for the movement of people and freight and connections to Federal, State and regional facilities shall be considered. Po'licy Transpo~ation policies that encourage infill and redevelopment, discOurage urban sprawl, and reward transit oriented developments shall ~be considered. ~Policy ~The County's Smart 'Gro~h plan shall consider alternative techniques for measuring and providing level of service for transportation. Policy Traffic calming .measures Shall be considered. Policy Positive and negative envkOnmental impacts of the ~anspo~ation plan as a whole shall 'be considered. T o o o , ~ i' i * h~s object~ve and itS .supporting pol_c~es are-intended only to support. · the Smart Growth initiatives and to begin'to set parameters for Sma~ Gro~h Planning within the Comprehensive Plan. They are based on and consistent with the committee report but ~on their om. only require consideration, of Smart Growth. FINAL REPORT January 15, 1999 Table of Contents Executive ~ Summ_ary .......................................................... i Introduction ......... - lee .... · . i e e * .e e e · e e e e ~' · · · e ~11 el e e ! e . e e e. e e e e · .... 4, e e e .... 1 II. III. Chapter One: Better Co.mmunity Design Background ................................................................. 7 I. The State Role · ' ..................................................... 8 Issue A: Improved State Coordination and Planning (Rec. 1 &2) .................. 8 Improving Existing Local Piing Processes ...................... ......... 10 Issue .A: M~ti-Modal Transportation Planning (Rec.3&4) ...................... 10 ~ Promote Sm~ Come.ties .............................................. 12 Issue A: Create .an Alternative Plug Process (Rec.5) ....................... 14 Issue B: "Smart Communities" Incentive and Support Tec~ques (Rec.6) ......... 16 II. III. Chhpter Two: Get Concurrency ~ght Background....'. .......................... · .... 1~9 A Good Idea with Unintended -Consequences ... · 21 I. Exemptions to Tr ~anspo~tion Concurrency ................................. 2! Issue A: Public Transit ,and Conc~ency (Rec.7&8) ............ 22 · r por io,n ¢ono noy xoeption ~ 2'2t Issue C: Financially Fe~ible Plans(Rec. 10) ........... - .......... 24 Concurrency and ~e Florida Interstate' Highway System ....................... 25 Issue A: Re~ng ~the FIHS (Rec. 11 &12) , - ..... ' ......... - ........... 25 Issue B: Concurrency on the Existing FIHS (Rec. 13&14) ........ 28 Issue'C: FDOT M~im~ State Highway System Lane ~ta~t~a~ ~~:i5')' 29 Additional Concurrency Issues ............................................. 31 Issue A: C~o~ Management Information ' System (Rec. 16) .................... .31 Issue B- Tr~~g and ReSo~ces (Rec.17) ......................... . ......... 31 II. Chapter Three: Land Use Impacts and Coordination Background _. ............................................................... 33 I. Impm~g 'CoOrdination ,of Land Use and, Transportation Pl~g .............. 33 Issue A: Planning Coordination (Rec. 18-21) ................................. 34 Issue B: Data Coordination and Critical Planning Information (Rec.22) ........... 36 Issue C: Right of way Protection (Rec.23) ................................. 37 Issue D: Access Management (Rec.24-26) .................................. 38 Issue E: Traffic Calm/rig (Rec.27) .............. · ................... 39 Improvin~ Impact Assessments and Mitigation 3'9 Issue A: Secondary (Rec.28-30) ........................................... 40 Issue B' Vested Development (Rec.31) ..................................... 43 Issue C: Impact Fees and Alternative Mitigation Financing (Rec.32) .............. 43 Issue D: ReStore Pipel~ng for Multi-Use Developments of Regional Impact (Rec. 33) ................................................. 44 Chapter Four: Invest in Florida's Future BackgroUnd A:"'"Meeting' '''' '''"'''''''' ' ''''" ' .... ''''' Issue the Cha/lenge i(Rec.34&~i i i i · ............. , .... Issue B: UnderStan~ding and Reducing Transportation Demands i~t~~)' Issue C: Reward Those ~at Help ThemSelves (Rec.37&38) .' .. .IsSue D: Re InnovatiOn (Rec.39) .~ ...... ' ................. Issue E: ConSider Additional.Funding Options ~l{;d.~)i ' i iI .... Smnrnary of Meetings ...................... Oloss~ ................... . .......... ' .............................. 55 Ac~oWledgments ..................... ' ................................... ,. 57 Bibliography ...... . ............ .......... .. 61 Appendix A: LegiSlative Charge .... .. .. 63 Appendix B: Smmary of Recommendations . A-I Appendix C: Full Explanatory Materlfls for th~ .................................... B-1 · Commtmity Designs Section .. C-1 Appendix D: Background on T~portation Financing ............................ D-1 47 48 48 49 50 5-1 j[ ,[ ;[ ,[ ,[ Executive Summ.ary This report presents, the unanimous recommendations of the Transportation and Land Use Study Commiae.'e. 'Created by the 1998 Legislature in Section 30 of CS/SB 2474, the Co~ittee was charged with eval~ting transportation ~d land .use plug and coordination issues in Florida. Recommendations were required .to include needed changes to :the :transportation piing requirements ~ in Chapter 1~63, Florida Statutes, and in other:statutes as appropriate. The Co~.ttee's 25 membem reflected the geograp~.c,'gender and e~c diversity of Florida and represented the. specific inmrest are~named in the legislation-- the private sector, local governments, regional planning co,oils, metropolim pl~ing :o:rg~~~, tions, regional transportation au~ofities, and ~ki. zen ~d enviromental organizations. The Co~ttee concluded that despite .muCh well intended work .and effort, FlOrida's land use and transportation system is faithg many of~e nearly 15 million Flofidians. and ~e 47 million plus ..~annual visitors to our state. 'With the implementation of~e 40 reco~en' ~ ~dationS in ~s report, however, Florida ~I1 more ~!y commit i~elfto the principles of smart growth ~d smart communities; ~portation concurrency will be less about Process and more about ~ fight outcomes; and proeed~ requirements ~II ~not holdup plans and projee~ that spur minvesm~ent ~ existing co .mm~ties, provide more oppo~ities for those who cannot ~ve or choose not to, and revitalize our:main streets. The report: introduction· ~ . .. outlines, the rec~ng key themes that evolved dt~ng the Committee's deliberations .and thatguided its decision m~ng. -~ Florida must have true mUlti-modal planning and transportation systems. Especially in urban areas, no amo .unt of ~ding MI1 alloW.enough ~ghways to be built to eliminate congestion. 'Florida .needs meaMng~! multi-modal and intermodM transpo~tion options. Toward this end, loom government land ~e and ~portation pl~g should be an iterative process ~at builds kom a comm~ty vision, not j~t from a mi~um criteria role. * Regional r-mobility should not adversely affect community livability. "People first" pl~ng techniques ~favofing.~e pedes~an frequently come into conflict ~ effo~ to. m~mize vehicular mobility.~ough multi-lane, high-speed roadways. At the same time, Florida needs a sysmm of high speed'msportati'on networks connecting i~ urban areas. Coordinated planning can allow local gove~ents to improve the livability of their communities while supporting the ability of the state to achieve and maintain an effective interregional transportation system. * Transportation .is essential to economic vitality, Transpo~tiori is essential for the movement ofpeopleand ~eight. Florida's ~sportation planning must put more emphasis on providing multi-mOdal movement'options -for freight. Providing alternative transportation options is .also keY to helpMg People improve their economic standing. For example, ifa household is able to manage wi~ one car or less., the transportation cost savings can translate directly into higher savings rotes, which can result in 'earlier home ownership. -i- Better land use planning will lead to better transportation systems- The relationship between land use and:transportation is reciprocal; land uses create a demand for transportation facilities:and transportation .se~iees are catalysts for land development. Coordinated and integrated, transportation and land use decisions can foster a~inment of state, regional and The ~fo~ development ~es~ has a ~direct impact'on~ the transportation Options that MI1 be .densities and concentrating dev, eoffidom can help make public ~transit feasible. Reward development in the right Place.at the right time with the right form. The State of Florida's goal should be to build more livable commtmities, not just to assure cone ~: ~u~ency inpl~ing. For~s reason, ~e Co~ittee proposes a partnership' be established that focuses the public, p~vate and political energies of Florida into defining and aeMeving desired outcomes, i.e., m~:'ng planning ~more about results than processes. This will req~re providing support .for i~ovative approaches and changing the roles to reward people proposing to build in the right places. ~ *. One size does notfit all. Florida. needs a mix of good community design and vehicular mobility ~lored ~to particular needs of each community and the State's economic needs. Land use and 'transportation planning and reView criteria should be guided by local circumStances while meeting state goals. Local governments, especially those with a proven track record, should have enhanced fle~biliW in how they meet desired outcomes set by ~e state. Political leadership is essential for resolving Florida's land use and transportation challenges. Citizen suppo~ for enhanced ~ding for transpo~tion systems depends on a recognition that · ose systems are being designed in concert ~th desirable'land use plans. Land use and tmn.sportation-pl~, therefom,.must:offer choices to people while providing .for the tmnspo~ of c~go and freight. Part of.~e 'leadership must come from the Legislature, w~ch should provide C'hai~ter One: Be~er Communi~ Desien focuses on improving pl~g processes at the state and local levels. ~e Governor is asked to develop and implement a smart gro~ plan and policies, including a state.de capital investment strategy, and to create a S-mart Growth Advisory Board. Local pl~g processes .are recommended to be refined to authorize local governments .to create Multi-Modfl Transportation Disffic~ and to use alternative'-level of se~ce me~~ements. The establishment of a new alternative local, government Planning process, entitled Smart Communities,. is rec. o~ended to refocus planning on implemen~g community visions instead of just complying with minimum criteria. ' Chapter Two: Get Concurrency ~ht outlines needed changes to trans~~fion concurrency processes and addresses .issues pertaining to statewide transportation facilities. Improvements are recommended to ass~e concurrency requirements do not inappropriately restrict the development of transit systems, .transit oriented development, and urban redevelopment. Measures are offered to improve the coordination between local government-capital budgeting, concurrency systems, and understanding of transportation needs. An immediate and systematic reevaluation of the o. Florida Intrastate Highway System (~FIHS) is recommended to improve coordination with local government planning efforts, revisit ho'w levels of service are set on all segments, and assure the' state is 'focusing i~. resoUrces on ~anspo~tion inves~ents that will best serve interregional ~ctions. The es~blishment ora Florida Intrastate Transportation System, which, would include tlie ~FIHS and other.major facilities such as mil coffidors, major seapo~, and international airpo~, is reco~ended to move Florida toward ~e establishment of~ inte~odal, interco~ected s~teMde transpo~tion network.' ~e Florida Dep~ent of sportation's M~mum State Highway. System L~e Standards Policy is strongly endorsed. Chaoter Three: Land Use !moacts and Coordination stresses, the need to improve coordination of land use and tr'anspo~fion Pl~ng and processes for impact ~sessments ~'and mitigation. Steps for improving coordination between local govemmem plans and me~opolitan piing organization (~0) pl~ are outlined, as well ~ processes for.improving compatibility among MPO pi ~ans :Mthin each regional piing co~cil (~C) district. Increased technical assistance and coor~nation on data and modeling at all levels is recommended. A series of recommendations call for enh. anced attention to and cooperation on right-of-way protection, access management, ~~c c~~ng, secondary impact assessment, and Vested rights issues, The use of variable impact fees is encouraged along wi~ the restoration of ~sportafion pipel~ng for~certain multi-usedevelopmen~ of regional impact. - - · Cha~. er. Four; Invest.in. Fl:0rida~s Futu. r~ covers.a series of important transportation, financing assues. ReCo~endations-call fOr ~i ~ding of the FIHS over the next 20 years, as well as substantial improvements to ~eight ~d passenger rail systems. Better information on transportation needs is requested. New policies are recommended to give priorit~ in the allocation of new discretion~ ~ds beyond what is currently expected to reward communities that ~e doing be~er pl~g 'and have ~ed their ~I available fimding c~tpabilities at the local level. ~e establis~em of'a new Florida Transportation and Comm-~unity Innovations Grant Program is reco~ended to provide incemives for comm~ties to undertake innovative projects. The final recommendation calls for continued attention to options for reduc'~ng Flonda'· 's transportation-funding shortf~l. Rem~ng portions of the report include a Summary of Meetings, which briefly reviews the Committee's seven meetings, :a Glossary, Acknowledgments, and a Bibliography. Appendix A con~ the Committee's legislative charge. Append~ B presents.. ~e text of each of Committee's 40 recommendations, withom the introductory text or explanato~ comments. Appendix C con~ a .detailed description of the Co · ~mmittee's Smart Communities proposal. Appendix D con.ns background information pertaining to ~portation financing issues. -iii- Appendix A- · Legislative Charge Section 30 .of Senate Bill 2474, enacted during the 1998 .Florida legiSlative session, created the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee. The text of the section read as follows- 30, The state land planning agency and the Department of Transportation shall eval ~uate the ?atutory provisions relating to land use and transportation coordination and pl~ng issues, including commtmity design, required in p.art II of chapter !63, FlOrida Statutes, and shall-consider.changes to statutes, as well as to all.pertinem roles ~mciated Mth the statutes. The evaluation must include an evaluation of ~e re!es of :local government, .regional planning councils, state agencies, regionfl transportation authorities, and metropolitan pl~ng org~.z,atio~ in ad&essing these subject are~. Special emphasis must be given, in this evaluation to concurrency on the hghway system, levels .of service meth°dologies, ~d l~d ~e impact assessments used to project transportation needs. The evaluation must be conducted in consultation w~'th a technical co~~ee, of at least 15 members to be known 'as the'Transportation and La~ - Use' Study Co~i~ee, .appointed jointly 'by ~the secretary of the state land planning agency and the Secretary of Transportation. The membership may be representative, of local gove~ents, regional planning councils, the private sector, metropolim pl~ng organizations, regional transportation authorities, and citi2~en and environmental org~zations. By January 15, 1999, ~e committee shall send an evaluation.report to the Governor, the President of the senate, and the Speaker of the.House of Representatives to provide recommendati0hs for appropriate changes to ~e transportation planning requirements in chapter 1-63, Florida S~tutes, and other statutes, as appropriate. A-I Appendix B: Summary of Recommendations Reco.mmendation #1- The Governor, as the Chief Planning Officer of the State, should use the Office of Plzmning ~d Budgeting m direct and provide policy guidance to state and regional agencies to develop and implement a smart ~o~ plan and policies. This should include a state.de smart gro~ inves~ent s .tx..ategy .guiding all state i~truc~e expenditures, as auth. orized by the Legislature. Recommendation tt2.: The Governor should establish a~Smart ~o~ Advisory Board .comprised of representatives of business, local and..mgional gove~ent, and public '~terest groups. The Governor :should begin work ~ediately ~~ the Adhsory Board, as well .~ ~th the best design pmfessionfls in the state and nation working in the smart gro~ area, to review.the, best practices .available, prepare legislation, and an implementation-piari. Any .legislation should 'undergo peer review before it is presented to the Legislature. Recommendation #3: The 1999 Legislature should amend section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, m allow [0eal governments to create M~fi-Mo~ Transportation Distrie~ (MMTD) in areas-designated in the local ComprehenSive plan for more intensive mixed-use dev61opment. Recommendation #4: Local governments should be specific~ly .encouraged to employ alternative tee ~hniques for me~~g level of semite, ~cl ~ud.~g m~ti-modal, vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-b~ed, access-b~-ed, and zone-based approaches. ~ _ Recommendation #5: The Florida Legislature should amend Chapter 163, F.S. to authorize .and encourage the development of an alternative local government pl~g process entitled"Smart Communiffes. " Recommendation #6: The Florida Legislature should establish prioritized programs, techniques and mechanisms to provide appropriate incentives for the use of the "Smart Communities" process. [l-I i , , Recommendation #7: The 1999 Legislature should amend section 163.3180(4), Florida Statutes, to exempt public transit facilities from. transportation concurrency requirements. Recommendation/t8: The 1999 Legislature should amend section 163.3164 (28), Florida Statutes, to expand the definition of"projec~, that promote publie'transportation" to promote transit-oriented development that is.designed to complement reasonably proximate.planned or existing public transit facilities. Recommendation/t9: Existing ~authorizations pe~ffi~ng to ~portation concurrency exceptions should be reviewed by FDCA. FDCA should propose amendments as needed to 'the 1999 Legislature to provide greater flexibility to'lo¢fl governments in this area. Recommendation #I0- The Committee reco~ends that local governments be required to sub~t to FDCA evidence oran -~annufl reView of~eir ~apital improvements pro~ (CIP). If the fmancia[ fe~ibility has .changed, or if projects Within .the CIP have changed, the~ feasibility and consistency of the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plafi shoed be maintained by adoption of amendments to the local government COmprehensive plan. Recommendation #11: Inl ' . ~ght of the State s lemdership responsibility, the FDOT and FDCA, in parmers~p ~th the MPOs, ~CS and local govemmenB, should commence an extensive and de ~,~led land be given to advance piing-along se~en~ of the FIHS where significant problems have developed, followed' by ~ose FIHS facilities where significant problems may not yet have occurred. This pl~ng process should - result in the reevaluation of the appropriateness of each part of ~e FIHS rem~ning on the system, mutual agreemen~ wi~ local governments for protecting ~e FIHS for intercity movements in mini and urbani~g areas, and appropriate revisions to LOS standards for ~ose communities willing to co~et a local transportation.system to serve 1o~ travel and development needs. For FIHS facilities that fail to meet the adopted level of service standards, local governments, in par~ership with FDOT, sh~l be ~lowed to set interim standards to alienate concurrency failures during the periOd of plan development. B-2 Recommendation #12: The Florida Legislature should direct the FDOT to identify and establish the Fl°r}da Intrastate T£anspo~tiOn System (FITS). ~e FITS should become the: prim~ means for the.movement of people and freight in the State of Florida and should have appropriate ~ding, :The system should connect F ~onda s major airports, deepwater seaports, and mil o ! sysmms (including critical intermodal connectOrs) - both passenger and freight, to the FiHS facilities. The FITS should be suppOrted by a strategic plan for the pl~ng, ~ding and COnsmmtion of needed facilities and semi.ecs to make ~e FITS a ~ly Recommendation #13: The LOS s~dards on mini segments of the FIHS should be set at LOS C totake advantage off.the :State's investment in these facilities. To justify ~er.lowering the level of service on. the FIHS, a commmty would have to' a) demonstrate to the FDOT and FDCA that ~ey'have a fmaneia!ly feasible transportation management plan tliat p~ovi.des alternatives.to acco~odate local transportation needs adequately, or; b) participate in an ' inm~ive pi process involving FDCA, FDOT, the appropriate RPC; all affected levels of gOve~ent and private interests to develop an adequate ~portation management plan. If fie' local government plan is deemed inadequhte by .FDOT, ~e comm~ty should receive a lower priority for FDOT ftmdhg on the FIHS. Recommendation #14: In urb~zed.are~, a local ~govemment should be able to establish in its comprehensive plan, .~e level of service for general use lanes of FIHS roads ~thin its j~sdietion, with FDOT's conc~ence. ' ' Recommendation #15: The Co ~mmittee strongly endomes continued adherence to the current Maximum .State Highway System Lanes Policy. Therefore, the Committee urges that other responses be developed and made av~lable in order to relieve development Pressur.~s until-the lane policy is ~ly.implemented in a particular location. Recommendation #16: Local governments sho.uld be required to publish on mu annual basis, a summary of current transportation LOS conditions, approved developments, their incremental-trips assigned to the transportation network, and the anticipated resulting LOS. This summary should be provided as pa~ 'of the annual capital improvements program update explained in Recommendation # 1'0. tl-3 Recommendation #17: In the ~~e,' .th.e state should provide training and additional re~;ources to local _ governmen~ "that have the fewest resources. Recommendation #18: For a lOcal government located wi:thin an ~O jurisdiction, the transportation and capital improvement elements of its comprehensive plan should be coordinated and developed th the MPO s long range transportation plan, and shoUld use common piing horizons .and consistent land use and demographic data. Recommendation #19: bM. POs .~hould :c?.ordinate ~eir long range transportation plan updates and forec~t yem to e'conslstent ruth ~e Plans of adjacent MPOs. In addition, each RPC should coordinate the MPO long range transportation plans wi~ 'its jurisdiction. The FDOT should be responsible for identifying inconsistencies between the long range transportation, plans of MPOs with common boundaries. Recommendation #20: Local comprehenSive plans, MPO long range transportation plans, SRPPs, and the FTP should address and plan for intermodal facilities for the movement of freight and people within and ~ough the state, and shOuld provide for access to, and'connections between, those facilities. Reeo m m e nda ti o n #21- The FDCA, in cooperation ~~ RPCs and local government representatives, should develop model land deyelopment'regulations and.development order language to'assist local governments in proteqfing.the ~ed:use character of development proposes. Recommendation #22: MPOs and'~loeal governments should improve coordination on data and modeling. MPOs should provide technical assistance to local governments in modeling alternative development scenarios. In addition, the.Legislature should .require '.that MPOs give local governments the oppo~w to review and approve data sets to be used by the MPO, especially pemining to land absorption and population growth, prior to an MPO commencing i~ long range ~portation plan updates. Loc~ government review and approval ofdata sets Sho. ffid .be based on data underlying ~e comprehensive plan and 13-4 Recommendation #23: FDCA, the ~Cs and FDOT should assist local g(~vemments to amend lo~al -' ._ comprehensive plans.~d implementing land development regulmions to p.rovide-the m~imm, protection allowed by law to planned regional corridors identified in local gove~ent comprehensive plans, MPO long range transportation plans, MPO TIPs and FDOT's adopted work program. Local comprehensive, plans shoUld conch :objectives and policies for accelerated .acquisition of fights-of-way for these condors where project due diligence and public p~icipation have advanced.:through the piing level study, Recommendation #24: The ! 999 Legislamre'should give FDCA specific mlem~ng authori~ to require local government comprehenSive plans and implementing land development regulations to include ~ac~ss management me~ .ures, such ~ cross connections, to protect ~e ve~ele capacity of interchanges ~d mgiona! transporta~ tion coffidors. Recommendation #25: The .Legisla~e~is requested to assure that mendments to the Florida Statutes do not .create the situation in which ~e application of reasonable state or local access management req~emenB becomes a basis for compensation to~ property owners. Recommendation/t26: The :Legislature and FDOT should establish a roadway designation for protection of - enVironmentally sensitive lands. Guidelines should be established that encourage FDOT to select cons~cti-on of limited or controlled access facilities .as an ~temative in are~ identified ~ .~e~ ~sociated Mth sensitive resources.. Increased attention should ~so be given to ens~ng coordinated actions by acquisition agencies. Recommendation-.#27: Local go'vemmen~, Mth FDOT support, should be empowered- m use ~e c~ming measures and the FDOT should provide technical assistance to local governments and neighborhood ~sociations in how to use ~ese valuable techniques. Recommendation #28: As part of the lOng rage ~portation pl~g process, a qualitative flagging system should be established by the M?Os, in cooperation with FDOT, to identify potential negative secondary environmental and land use impacts of, and induced gro~ res~ting from, new transpo~tion projects and new major expansion of existing facilities. In areas without an MPO, RPCs, in cooperation with FDOT, should establish a quantitative flagging system .~ part of FDOT's work program development process. t5-5 Recommendation #29: o The .FDCA should give increased emphasis to assu~ng internal consistency,among the elements of the local government comprehensive .plans. Recommendation/t30: As an option to facilitate the 'recognition of potential environmental and land use consequences, it is suggested that local governments develop a Programmatic Environmen~ Impact Statement (PEiS) d~ng the early stages of transpo.rtation planning - and development. Such~research would study the positive and negative impacts of all transportation.projects idefitified in the local Plan, rather ithan study single projects in .isolation. The review should ~e ~e environmental sensitive screening .'~alysis adopted by FDOT to identify ~and flag projects with potenti~ 'for negative environmental impacts. Reco.mmendation #31- "1- MPOs, loc~ governments, regional planning councils, and the FDOT are eneotirag~d to . develop agreements for impact assessment purposes that increase uniformity across ' jUrisdictions in the treatment of vested development. Recommendation #32: Transportation impact fee mechanisms should be designed to support transportation and land ~e objectives of the comprehensive 'plan through variable rates that encourage urban infill and redevelopment, discourage urban SPrawl, and reward transit oriented developments and developments with low VMT generation characteristics. Recommi~ndation//33: The· Legislate Shoed mend Section 163.3180, F..S., to provide that a multi-use development ofregionfl impact with a residential component _that eon ~.~:'ns at least 100- residential dwelling-~mB or 15 percent of the applicable residential DR/threshold, whichever .is ~greater, and that meets or exceeds ~e guidelines and standards of Section 380.0651(3)(i), F.S., and Rule 28-24.032(2), F.A.C., may, at the local government's discretion, be allowed to satisfy the tmnspo~tion concurrency, requirements of a local ~ e ~ comprehensive-pl~, ~ local government s concurrency management system and Chapter 380, F.S., if ~e local government detemfines that the traffic impa~ts of the DRI would not have an unacceptable impact on'the development fights of other property owners, and the developer pays or assures payment of its proportionate share contribution, which: shall be sufficient to pay for one 'or more required improvements that 'would benefit regionally significant transportation facilities. Where.the needed regionally signifieant transpo~tion facility to be constructed or improved is under the maintenance authori~ of a governmental entity 'other than the lOCal government wi~ j~sdiction over the development, the deVeloPer ShoUld be required to enter intoa binding and legally 11-6 enforceable commitment to transmit the funds to the governmental entity with maintenance authority. _. or Otherwise assure con'S[motion or improvement of the facility. _ Recommendation #34- ' - - The Florida Legislate should fully ~d the construction of the high-priority, limited access FIHS,.consistent with the FDOT's maximum number of lanes policy, in the next 20-year planni, ng horizon, through a dedicated increase in state gas roes. Recommendation #35: The ~Flofida Legislatur~ e.sho~d fi~lly ~d the capital improvements needed to substantially improve freight .and passenger rail.systems across Florida. Recommendation #36: FDOT, RPCs, and MP-Os should assist local governments to document their ~sportation ~ding needs in a similar manner to FDOT, wherein local goverhrn~nts would .prepare.maps similar to ~ose used by FDOT to graphcally portray transportation needs, be~er define .the expected shortfalls, and identify transportation projects that could be advanc~ M~ additional funding. ~s should be accomplished wi~n one.year of the update of the applicable MPO plan as pa~ of the annual review and evaluation of the Capital Improvement Element. Documentation ~of fundhg needs should be based upo~a comprehensive pl~ of loe~ governments, the adopted MPO. long-range transportation plans, and applicable plans of FDOT. ~ Recommendation #37: FDOT and ~Os should disffibute new discretionary fimds, beyond those currently -anticipated, to reward those co~tmities that develop and adopt transportation system 'management p! '~.~s, .p~cul~ly when those pl~ .target multi-modal/intemodal solutions. that identi~-~it mutes, stops, park and.ride~locations and ensure coordination with pedestrian ~facilities. - ... Recommendation #38: FDOT .~and MPOs should reward co ~ .mm~ties that have a proven performance record and have utilized ~eir full available ~d~g capabilities. Counties should.be rewarded if they have enacted all of their local option gas ~, enacted significant transpo~tion impact fees, or adopted the one percent i~tmcture surtax. Mtmicipalities should be rewarded if they have enacted significant transportation impact fees, or have supported the adoption of their co~ty's lOcal option gas t~ or one percent in~astmcmre surtax. These comm~ties should receive priority for discretionary funding from the State Transportation Trust 'Ftmd if local revenues are being used on' regionally significant [1-7 transportation-facilities or transportation 'facilities .that provide direct relief for regionally sigr~fieant.facilities, particul~ly- ~ transportation funding is increased. _. Recommendation #39: _ The 1,999 Florida 'Legislate should establish a Florida Transportation and Community Innovations Grant Program. Recommendation #40: The Governor, ~e Legislature, ~e FDOT, MPOs, and the 'Florida Transportation Commission should continue :-to work together ~to. address Florida's serious funding shortfall for :transpo~ation facilities and services. 13-8 ME M-'O RAN_D U M COMM'UNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division To: From' Local Planning.Agency David Kelly, Planning Manager Date' April 14, 1999 Subject: Comprehensive Plan - Level of Service Standards At a recent Comprehensive Plan hearing the Local Planning Agency expressed an interest in.:lowering the county's adopted level,of service (LOS) standards. ! believe-it was the intent of the :LPA to'recogniZe the extreme cost of building and maintaining roadways which allow for free flow of traffic at all times. The LPA asked that planning staff review.and .bring back for discussion the LOS'~Standards as presented in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed ,the standards of the Florida Department of Transportation and of the City of Port St. Lucie, Both have adopted LOS standards lower than the County. Based on this information, staff recommends that the LOS standards of the Comprehensive Plan be amended ~as shown on the attached amended draft Table 2-4, These recommended standards are still somewhat more stringent than the FDOT standards because those :standards are based on an approximation of-the peak hour- peak.season count while 'this recommendatiOn is based on average annual daily traffic (AADT), These standards are consistent with the city .of Port St, Lucie who also uses AADT, TABLE 2-4 ST. LUCIE COUNTY AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) LEVEL .OF SERVICE STANDARDS FACILITY Rural Urbanized Constrained ~L.ocal Road C D Maintain* Collector C D Maintain* Minor rArterial C D Maintain* Major Arterial C D Maintain* Limited Access C D Maintain* FIHS C D Maintain* Backlogged Maintain & Improve Maintain & Improve Maintain & Improve Maintain & Improve Maintain & Improve Maintain & Improve * Transportation ~System Management and Transportation Demand Management will be used to maintain and improve traffic flow. T PIERIE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING City Hall · 100 North U.S. I · P. O. Box 1480 · Fort Pierce, Florida 34954 Phone (561) 460-2200 · Fax (561) 466-5808 April 14, 1999 Mr. David Kelly St. Lucie County Planning Manager St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Dear David: The following policies ad&ess the concerns raised by Mr. Heam. I recommend incorporation into-the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the County Comprehensive Plan. P01iCyl St. LuCie County will support the City of Fort Pierce in its efforts to implement the 1996 Port Charrette recommendations, including' a) Preparation of a master plan which locates a Variety of uses, among them recreation, .commercial, residential, office, warehouse and mixed uses; and which establishes adequate access and an efficient transportation network.' b) Adoption of land development regulations to ensure the construction of private projects consistent with the 1996 Port Charrette Plan. c) Creation and maintenance of public open space. d) Design and construction of infrastructure projects. Policy 2: St. Lucie County will fund and maimain major infrastructure and park projects in the Port and along the Waterfront consistent with the 1996 Port Charrette Plan'. If additional information is needed, please don't hesitate to contact me. sin%rely, ~_.~_... ~ . . Ramon Trias, AICP Director of Planning AIRPORT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The: following COmprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies are modifications of portions oft in 1990. The airport section will 'be incorporated as a part of the g is'consistent with the 1990 Plan and, in order to facilitate the~public 'hearing process will not be mOdified until this plan is ready for submission to the Department of' Community Affairs. is recommended for addition. -° ...... '--' ...... ~, ..... ~ .... :-, · Otl U~I~ tlllUUgii illaOGIli~[I ISrecommended for deletion. GOAL 4.1: IT IS'THE .GOAL 'OF ST. LUCIE COUNTV ~~ · ~"-~- ~ ~l,~ ~.. "~-~-l,~o IN A SAFE AND EFFICIENT MANNER WHICH WILL MA~MiZE ~ · ~" ~o~ OF MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS AND MINIMIZE CONFLICTS WITH ADJACENT LAND USES AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Objective 4.1.1: Policy 4.1.1.1' ~,y ~J.0-St. Lucle County shall ---~-~---L,-Tv_:-':-_..e ' . . . prepare ,,,,~ auul,, ,a,, ,.,l,u-,,~ o, the-existing Air~'~ rec°mmendati°nS f°r airPort oPeration and development. ~, ,v,,,uz, .,,,~, }~,.,,~ mxu related development activities shall be consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and aPPlicable regional, state and federal plans. April 5, 1999 AIRPORT .% Policy 4.1.1.2: regulations. federal Policy 4.1.1,3: PolicY.4,1.1.4: Florida St. Lucie County shall to Policy 4.1.1.8: .COunty objectives and ] ~t~on of this review for the the April 5, 1999 AIRPORT specifically address any additional impacts identified in the Objective. 4'1'2: All 11 be located in are: of aviation Policy 4.1.2.1: CHECK FAR PART 150 pOlicy 4.1..2.2: CHECK FAR PART 150 Policy 4.1.2.3: CHECK FAR.PART 77 Policy 4.1.2.4: The St. LUcie County.Comprehensive Plan Furore Land Use Element shall e:'. * *' * * ' d hneate ~all ex~st~ng mrport locations and ensure that all' adjacent areas are restricted t° airport comPatible land uses. The type and intensity ofthe adjacent land Uses shall be determined based on the classification of the ai¢ort. St.' Lucie County- : shall make every effort to purchase aviation easements, acquire land and residences and require, compatible land uses in areas consistent~oi, se_~..r, eas as delineated in the FAR Part 150 Study for St. Lucie-County..shall follow existing and projected noise levels as delineated in the FAR Part 150 Study completed for the ~ when considering requests for zoning changes and building permits .for new construction or major reconstruction · and prohibit Construction of' nOise sensitive structures within the 65 Ldn contour of the airport. St. Lucie County ~n,,, ,,~,[,['~a height restriction April 5, 1!;}99 AIRPORT Policy 4.1.2,5: Policy 4.1.2,6: St. Comprehensive Objective 4.1.3: Policy 4.1,3.1' Policy, 4. !.3,2: Policy 4.1,3.3' All aviation facilities ~a areas which minimize adverse impacts on the e coastal scrub habitat, or compliance with Policy 3.2. Whenever any ~wefland, coastal scrub, habitat or. other habitat, is. degraded or destroyed, mitigation will occur to provided by ~existing habitat co'nsistenl such as Florida Department of Environmental South Florida Water Management DiStrict, Water: Fish commisSiOn. All ,poSt development b'e located'in located in areas in through and values encies and Fresh Policy 4.1.3.4: All aviation related activities shall .be, in c >mpliance W~ the..ambient Air Quality Standards set forth by '~ April 5, 1999 AIRPORT Objective 4.1.4: Policy 4.1.6.1.' If any expansion-of the St. Lucie County Airport and related aviation facilities is ............... ,tile aUtlVltlCa pi opuaco shall be consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Surface transportation to the St. Lucie County International Airport shall be coordinated with the traffic Circulation system identified in the Traffic Circulation Element (Figures 2-1, 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8) of the St. Lucie County ComprehensiVe Plan so that levels of service are maintained. All access routes to the St. Lucie County International Airport will be integrated with all other modes of surface transportation so that levels of service, as provided elsewhere in this plan, are maintained. The County will coordinate intermodal managemem of surface and water transpo.rtation throu u,~ ~ u~ a,,u ,-~.~,u~ ,-m.~,,~y a.u the Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure the safe and efficient movement of goods and services while maintaining levels of service as provided elsewhere in this plan. April 5, 1999 AIRPORT 0.3/18/99 17-28 FAX i 561 465 5658 LEVINE & WYNER ~001 To: David Kelly-& The P&Z Board From: T.A, Wyner for lhe Comprehensive Plan Study Group Date: 3/'18/99 I am sorry I cannot attend tonight's meeting, since I am scm'tying to "engage" more artists for Sunnier's Artfull Weekend. Betty Lou Wells asked me to fax you the following note for her to include in our suggestions to The P&Z Board for the Transportation Element. I believe it would be beneficial to factor into St. Lucie's 'Transportation Element of thc Comp. Plan, a report just. delivered to the Governor, fi'om the Transportation & Land Use Study Committee, comprised of appointees from the DOT & DCA. T.A.'s lobbyisL Bob Levy informed us of the The Committee, which was created," to review statutes relating to the coordination of land-use and transportation .... "Bob explained that the report gives special emphasis to coneurrenc~ on the highway system, levels of service methodologies and land use impact assessments used to project transportation needs. The report~ is en route to the Comp. Plan Study Group and T.A. requests that the findings, of the report be factored into the Transportation Element of our Comp. PI.an. 03/16/99 17:28 FAX 1 561 465 5658 LEVINE & WYNER ~]001 To' David Kelly & The P&Z Board From' T.A. Wyner for the ComPrehensive Plan Study Group Date: 3/18/99 I am sorry I cannot attend tonight's meeting, since I am scurrying to "engage" more artists for S ' ' unmcr s Art full Weekend. Betty Lou Wells asked me to fax you the following note for her to include in our suggestions to The P&Z Board for the Transportation Element. I believe it would be beneficial m factor into st. Lucie's Transportation Element of thc Comp. Plan~ a report just delivered to the Governor, from the TransportatiOn & Land Use Study Committee, comprised of appointees from the DOT & DCA. T.A.'s lobbyist, Bob Levy informed us of the The Committee, which was created, ... rewew statutes relating to the coordination of land use and transpOrtation .... "Bob explained that the report gives special emphasis to concurren~ on the highway system, levels of service methodologies and land use impact assessments used to project transportation needs. The report is en mute to the Comp. Plan Study Group and T.A. requests that the f'mdings of the report be factored into~the Transportation Element of our Comp, Plan. 03/18/99 17-28 FAX I 561 465 5658 LEVINE & WYNER ~001 To: David Kelly & The P&Z Board~ · From: T.A. Wyner for ~he Comprehensive Plan Study Group Date: 3/18/99 I am sorry I cannot attend tonight's meeting, since I am scurrying to "engage" more a~sts for Sunnicr's Anfull Weekend. Betty Lou Wells asked me to fax you the following note for her to include in our suggestions to The P&Z Board for the Transportation Element. I believe it would be beneficial to factor into St. Lucie's Transportation Element of thc Comp. Plan, a repOrt just delivered to the Governor, fi'om the Transportation & Land Use Study Committee, comprised of appointees from the DOT & DCA. T.A.'s lobbyis~ Bob Levy informed us of the The Committee, which was " to created, review statutes relating to the coord/nafion of land use and transportation .... '" Bob explained that the repo~ gives special emphasis to concurrency on the highway systen~ levels of service methodologies and land use impact asscssments used to project transportation needs. The report is en route to the Comp2 Plan Study Group and T.A. requests that the findings of the report be factored into the Transportation Element of our Comp. Plan. 03/18/99 17:28 FAX I 561 465 5655 LEVlNE & WYNER ~001 To: David Kelly 8: The P&Z Board From: T.A. Wyner for the Comprehensive Plan Study Group Date: 3/18/99 I am sorry I cannot attend i ' mn ght s meeting, since I am scurrying to "engage" more artists for Sunnicr's An-full Weekend. -- Betty Lou Wells asked me to fax you the following note for her to include/n our suggestions to The P&Z Board for the Transportation Element. I believe it' would be beneficial m factor into St. Lucie's Transportation · Element of thc Comp. Plan~ a report just delivered to the Governor, fi'om the .Transportation & Land Use Study Committee, comprised of appointees from the DOT & DCA. T.A.'s lobbyist, Bob Levy informed us of the The Committee, which was created, "...to review :statutes relating to the coordination of land use and transportation .... "Bob explained that the report gives special emphasis to .concurrency on the highway system, levels of service methodologies and land use impact asscssments used to project transportation needs. The report is en route to the Comp. Plan Study Group and T.A. requests that the findings of the report be factored into the Transportation Element of our Comp, Plan. 03/18/9'9- 17:28 FAX 1 561 465 5658 LEVINE & WYNER [~001 To: David Kelly & The P&Z Board From: T'A. W~er for the Comprehensive Plan 'Study Group Date: 3/18/99 I am sorry I cannot attend tonight's meeting, since I am scurrying to "engage" more artists for Sunnier's Artt'ull Weekend. Betty Lou Wells asked me to fax you the following note for her to include in our suggestions to The P&Z Board for the Transportation Element. I believe it would be beneficial to factor into st. Lucie's Transportation Element of thc Comp. Plan, a report just delivered to the Governor, fi'om the Transportation & Land Use Study Committee, comprised of appointees from the DOT & DCA. T.A.'s. lobbyis~ Bob Levy/n formed us of the The Committee, which was created, "...to review statutes relating to the coordination of land use and transportation .... "Bob explained that the report gives special emphasis to concurrency on the highway system, levels of service methodologies and land use impact assessments used to project transportation needs. The report is en route to the Comp. Plan Study Group and T.A. requests that the f'mdings of the report be factored into the Transportation Element of our Comp. Plan. 03/18/99 17'218 FAX I 561 4-65 $658 LEVINE & WYNER ~]001 To: David Kelly & The P&Z Board From: T~A. Wyner for the Comprehensive Plan Study Date: 3/18/99 ! am sorry ! cannot attend tonight's meeting, since I arn~sc~ng-ro .... eh-gage .......... more art~2sts, for Sunnier's Art£u!l Weekend. Be~, Lou Wells asked me to fax you the following note for her to include irt our suggestions to The P&Z Board for the Transportation Element. I believe it would be beneficial to factor into St. Lacie's Transportation Element of thc Comp. Plan~ a report just delivered to the Governor, fi'om thc Transportation & Land Use Study Committee, comprised of appointees from the DOT & DCA. T.A.'s lobbyist, Bob Levy. informed us of the The Committee, which was created, '"~..to review statutes relating to the coordination of land use and transportation .... "Bob explained that the report gives to concurrency on the highway systen~ levels of service and l~d _~e impact assessments used to project transportation needs. 'lhe repo~ is en route to the Comp. Plan Study Group and T'A: requests that the findings of the report be factored into the Transportation Element of o~r Comp. Plan. St t ews and (an edition of The Stuart Sew ')e News STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MARTIN: COUNTY OF ST.. LUCIE: 'Before the undersigned authority appeared KATHLEEN PRITCHARD ~ who on oath says that he/sheAOCOUNTING MANAGER .... . .......... ~of The Sruart News, and The Port St. Lueie News, a daily newspaper Published at Stuart in Martin County, Florida, that'the attached copy of advertisement being a' ST LUCIE CO BOARD OF CO COMM ' ~ in the matter" of' ' 'COMP~ PEAN HEARINGS in the ..... Stuart News and The POrt st. Lueie News in the issues of APRIL 5, 1999 Court, was Published in The Affiant .further says that the said The Stuart News and The Port St. Lucie News is a newspaper published at Stuart, in said Martin County, Florida with offices and paid circulation in Martin County, Florida, and St.. Lucie COunty, 'Florida and that the said newspapers have heretofore been continuously published in said Martin County, Florida and distributed in Martin County, Florida and St. Lucie CoUnty, .Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he/she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. The Stuart News has been entered as second class matter at the post office in Stuart, Martin County, Florida, and Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida and has been for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. Sworn to and sUbscribed before me this ..... 11IH day 'of MAY (Seal) Notary pub/~ MAR'31-1'~'9 08:29 FORT PiIERCE NEt, S 561 4B0 9588 233965 2x10 415 Comprehensive - Composite ................ . . , , , , , i ~ ,, , i , . i~ ·: -'. ........ N cE OFST- LUCiE COUNTY The ,St,. LuCia C~n'~ Local Pla:nnin9 Agenw ~Oposes to review the Future Land Use~: Coaster Mena~ment~ C~ ~~'.i~o~ T~on; ~eation e. nd .Open Space; Housing; Economic Development;. end ~nte~ovemmen~l Coordi~tion ~n~ of 'the St. LuCia CounW C~ehensiv~ Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on this ma.tter will be. held before the St. Luci¢ Coun~ Local ~ni .~. A~..~r~ .on 'Thursday, ~rl! 15, ~1999~ at 7:00 P.M. or es soon thereafter as possibie"~ in Room 101.~ St. ~EuCie Coun~ Admi~on Bui~in~ 23~ Vi~i~a Avenue~ R. Pierce, FL. Meff~m affecting' your pemonel end p~e~.H~h~ m~ be ~erd ~d e~ed upon.. Alt ~ested pe. mons are in, ted to aEend and be heard. ~H~en comments ~ce~ed In ~e~e of the pUblic h~Hng 'Will also be heard. The purpose of this public heer[n~ is to eme~ the St Lucia Coun~ C~rehensive Pten. Copi~. of the ~o' ;~d ;e'~men~, ere avaii~ble-~r review in the office .of the (;~~-~ment Director, St. Lude Coun~ ~on ~n~ ~3~ ~nie ~nue, Ft. Pierce, ~FL, during ~uter b~:ne~ .hours,. ~endmen~ to ~e p~posed el~en~ may be ~de et the pub:lie ~arlns. if any peso,n, deC.es ~ appeal any .deCision made With respe~ to .any meWer considered et. the mce. t[~. or hearings of any board, c~ees~ ~~ns, agent, counCil or ~~~ ~o~, ~at person will need a record of the p~-ceedJn~ and that, for suc~ ~~osm may need to ensure that e ve~im record of ~e proc~din~s is mede, which record, s~utd ~u~ ~e '~mony and evidence upon which the ~peel: is to be based.. ~on the request of any pe~ to '~e ~~ng,, ~~ls ~ing ~ng. · during e hea[in,!l ~on reque~. This notice dated and-' .~~.ted this 30th clay of' .Mer~ 1999. ~LOCAL ~NING AGENCY 'LUaE COUP, ~F~IDA Diane-~es~i~ Ch~rmen ~BLISH DATE.: Ap~I 5~. 1,999 ~TflL P.. 02 BOARD: OF COUNTY COMMISSIONCRS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FAX# (561)462-1581 TRANSMISSION COVER FORM RAYMOND L. WAZNY NumBER OF PA GES INCLUDING COVER: 3 SENDER: COFI~ENTS : JoAnn Ri 1 e y PHONE NUMBER: "4 62 - 15 8 6 Please fax a proof. Publish date. JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. I · DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 · PAULA A. LEWIS, District No..3 ° FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 · CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · 'Fort Pierce, FL' 34982-5652 Administration.: (561) 462-1590 · Growth Management: (561) 462-1553 Planning: (561) 462-2822 ° Fax: (561) 462-1735 Code Compliance: (561 ) 462-1571 ° Fax: (561 ) 462-1148 .HP Office Jet Personal Printer/Fax/CopieffScanner Fax History Report for St. Lucie County Florida 4621.581 Mar 30 1999 9:34am Dg~ Tim~ T~e Identification. Pages .Result Mar 30 9:33am Sent 94,609588 Result: OK - black and white fax OK color - COlor fax 1-19 3 OK From: To: Date: Subject: JoAnn Riley I:Stefko@stuartnews.com Men, Mar 29, 1999 3:49 PM Comprehensive Plan - 4/15/99 I will be on vacation on Thursday and Friday. Please fax a proof ASAP. Publish Date' 4/5/99. THANKS. NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future Land Use; Coastal Management; Conservation; Transportation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Economic Development; and Intergovernmental Coordination elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on this matter will be held before the St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency on Thursday, April 15, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in Room 101, St. Lu¢ie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters affecting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. The purpose of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lu¢ie County Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the proposed elements, are available for review in the office of the Community Development Director, St. Lu¢ie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL, during regular business hours. Amendments to the proposed elements may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. This notice dated and executed this 30th day of March 1999. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /SI Diana Wesloski, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: April 5, 1999 18 pt type for heading No smaller than 2 column inches wide by 10 inches long Send Proof to: St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Send Bill to: Phone - (561 ) 462'1586 Fax - (561) 462-1581 St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone - (561) 462-1586 Fax - (561) 462-1581' NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St. Lucia County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future Land Use; COastal Management; Conservation; Transportation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Economic Development; and Intergovernmental Coordination elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on this matter will be held before the St. Lucia County Local Planning Agency on Thursday~Apri~'l~', 1~9~i~.i at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in Room 101, St. Lucie--"co-unrty Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters affecting ~your personal and property rights may be heard and aCted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. The purpose of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lucia County Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the proposed elements, are available for review in the office of the Community Development Director, St. Lucie County Administrati°n Building, 2300 Virginia. Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL, during regular business hours. Amendment~ t° the proposed elementS may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considerod at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, council or advisory group, that person ~viil need a record of the proceedings and that, for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record Of the proceedings is made, which record should include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing uPon reqUest. This notice dated and executed this[~d'ay of March 1999. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUClE COUNTY, FLORIDA lSl Diana Wesloski~. Chairman P U B LIS" DAT E: [A~il.' 5;~i ';!-~9"i 18 pt type for heading No smaller than 2 column inches wide by 10 inches long Send Proof to: Send Bill to: St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone - (561) 462-1586 Fax- (561) 462-1581 St. Lucie COUnty Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone - (561) 462-1586 Fax - (561) 462-1581 :3-38-~ 999 ~ 2- L~A~ THE 'T;R I BUNE ~61 :~9E~0106 1:::'.2 N E OF ST' LUCIE COUNt' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St. Lucia 'Coun~ Local Planning Agency propos- es to .review the Future Land Use; Coastal Management; Conse~on; ~Trans. por~Uonl; Recreation and Open S-ace* Housino:' EC om'n De~lopment; :~d lntergovern:mental ~CoOrdination -~~ts of the St. LucJe Coun~ Comprehens~e Plan. A PUBUC ~HEARING on this 'ma~er will be held before the St, L~ie ~unW' Local Planning Ag~cy on Thursday, Ap.rll 15, 1'999, at 7:.00 RM. or as soon thereafter ,as possible, in Room 101, St;'Lucie County Admin~tration Building, 2300 'Virginia Avenue,, Pieme, :FL,., Ma~em affecfln:g ~your ~pemonal and prop- e~ rights may ~ heard and acted up. on. All interest- ed pemons am i~ited to eaen'd and' be heard, comments received in advance: of the public 'hearing ',will also be heard. , The puripose of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lucie County ComprehensiVe Plan. Cop~s of: t~ .proposed elements, am-available for m~ew in ~he office of ~he Community Development .Dime:or, St. Lucia Courtly Administration Building, 2300 '~rginia .~enue, Ft.. Pierce, FL, during regular .business .hours. Amendments to the proposed ele- ment~ may ~be mad® at the public ff a~. person .deCides to 'appeal any decision ~de with r~pe~ to, any ~er ~considered at the meetings or .'hearings of any board, ~c~~ees, .com~sions, .~~nc~ ~ncil or a~iso~' group, that pemon w~ll need a ~re~rd ~of the p~dings and that. for s~h purposes may ne~ to ensure that ;a ve~atim record of' the pro~~gs is made, ~which record S'h~ld in~lu~ the *~tirnony and evidence upon. wh~h the appeal is to he"based, Upon the request ~ any 'pa~y · e proceeding, in--als tesu~ing dur~g a hear. 7 Will be sworn in. Any par~ to the proc~ing wilt ~:~ ,granted an Oppodu~ to cmss-exami~ ~any indi' 'vidal te~ifying during a hearing u,~n request.' This notice dated and executed th~, 30~ day of March :1'999. LOCAL P~NNING AGENCY ST:. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORi. DA /S/Diana Wesl~ki, Chairman PUBLISH DA~: April5, 1999 BOARD 'OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FAX# (561)462-1581 TRANSMISSION COVER FORM RAYMOND L. WAZNY I D ATE: ,~m~ 30, /~/ ,- TO: - I~ ~BER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 3 SENDER: JoAnn Riley PHONE 'NUMBER:. 4 62 - 158 6 CO~I~ENTS : Please fax a proof. Publish date: JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 o DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 · PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 ° FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 ° CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (561) 462-1~590 ° Growth Management: (561 ) 462-1553 Planning: (561) 462-2822 ° Fax: (561) 462-1735 Code Compliance: (561) 462-1571 ° 'Fax: (561) 462-1148 HP Office Jet Personal Pti nter/Fa~dCopier/Scanner .. Last .Fa~ Fax Histo~ Report for St. Lucie Couni~y Florida 4621581 Mar 30 1999 9:43am Mar 30 9:41am Sent Result: identification Duration Pages ~ 95950106 1:45 3 OK OK - black and white fax OK .color- cOlor fax BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RAYMOND L..WAZNY FAX# (561)462-1581 TRANSMISSION COVER FORM c o~~ ~ . /~ ~ ~ NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER' SENDER: JoAnn Ri I ey PHONE NUMBER: CO~ENTS: Please fax a proof. 462-1586 Publish date: JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. I · DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 ° PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 · FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 · CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration. (561) 462-1590 · Growth Management: (561) '462-1553 Planning: (561) 462-2822 · Fax: (561) 462-1735 'Code Compliance: (561 ) 462-1571 · Fax: (561 ) 462-1148 HP OfficeJet Fax History Report for Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner St. Lucie County Flori& 4621581 Mar 30 1999 9:32am Last..Fax~ Da~ ~ ~ Idenfi ficatio~n Mar 30 9:3 lam Sent 94617722 Result: OK - black and white fax OK cOlor- color fax Duratjo~ Pa_Pav~s ~ 1-17 3 OK From: To: Date: Subject: JoAnn Riley I:dcooper@link.freedom.com Mon, Mar29, 1999 3:46 PM Comprehensive Plan - 4/15/99 I will be on vacation Thursday and Friday this week. Please fax a proof ASAP. Publish Date 4/5/99. THANKS. ' NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS The St. Lucia County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future Land Use; Coastal Management; Conservation; Transportation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Economic Development; and Intergovernmental Coordination elements of the St. Lucia County Comprehensive Plan. A PUBLIC HEARING on this matter will be held before the St. Lucia County Local Planning Agency on Thursday, April 15, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in Room 101, St. Lucia County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters affocting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be heard. The purpose of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lucia County Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the proposed elements, are available for review in the office of the Community Development Director, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL, during regular business hours. Amendments to the proposed elements may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to .be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. This notice dated and executed this 30th day of March 1999. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/Diana Wesloski, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: April 5, 1999 18 pt type for heading No smaller than 2 column inches wide by 10 inches long Send Proof to' St. Lucia County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone - (561 ) 462-1586 Fax - (561 ) 462-1581 Send Bill to: St. Lucia County Dept. of Community Development 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone - (561) 462-1586 Fax - (561 ) 462-1581