HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 25, 1999St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
Regular Meeting
St. Lucie County Administration Building- Room 101
February 25, 1999
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
AGENDA
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Announcements
D. Disclosures
AGENDA ITEM 1: MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 21; 1999, MEETING
Action Recommended' Approval
Exhibit #1' Minutes of January 21, 1999, Meeting
AGENI)A ITEM 2: PRELIMINARY DRAFT - 1998 ANNUAI~ REPORT
Draft 1998 Annual Report
Exhibit//2
AGENDA ITEM 3: FILE NO. RZ-99-004, FATHER MICHAEI~ SAJDA
Petition of Father Michael Sajda (Robert W. Lynch Agent), for a Change in Zoning from the
RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family- 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District.
Staff comments by Hank Flores.
Action Recommended' Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #3' Staff'Report and Site Location Maps
AGENDA ITEM 4: ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PI~AN
Consider the Future Land Use Element, for general amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan. Staff comments by David Kelly.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #4: Staff Report
Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
February 25, 1999
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM 5: ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PI~AN
Consider the Coastal Management Element, for general amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan. Staff comments by David Kelly.
Action Recommended' Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #5' Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM 6: ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PI~AN
Consider the Conservation Element, for general amendments to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan. Staff comments by David Kelly.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #6: Staff Report
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ao
Ce
Other business at Commission Members' discretion.
Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency meeting will
be held on March 18, 1999, in Room 101 of the St. Lucie County Administration
Building.
Next Local Planning Agency Comprehensive Plan public hearing will be held. on
March 11, 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 hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such
purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record
includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party.
to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a heating 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.
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 Members
Planners (Hank and CYndi) Linda Pendarvis
Planning Manager (David Kelly)
Interim Community Development Director (Julia ShewchUk)
Land Development Coordinator (Dennis Murphy)
Assistant County Attorney (Jim Lancaster)
County Administrator (Mr. Anderson) & Phil Freeland
Conner Co~nsUltants (fax Agenda to Karen @ 465-9904-and put packet out front)
ProPerty Acquisition Manager (Don Cole)
Right-of-way (Belinda Vose) .
Don Cooper, City Manager (City of Port St. Lucie)
MaZella Smith~ (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
Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner
Last Fax
Date Time. Tvt>e
Feb 19 12'49pm Sent
Result:
OK - black and white fax
OK color - color fax
Identification
93379774
Fax History Report for
St. Lucie County Florida
4621581
Feb 19 1999 12:50pm
,Duration Paces ,Result
0:56 2 OK
HP OfficeJet
Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner
~st Fax ' ' '
Date Time Tvoe
Feb 19 l:47pm Sent
Result:
OK - black and white fax
OK color- color fax
,Identification
94655433
Fax History Report for
St. Lucie County Florida
4621581
Feb 19 1999 1:49pm
,,
Duration Pages Result
2:00 2 OK
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLO~DA
JANUARY 21, 1999 -. ~GULAR'MEETING
MINUTES
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Stefan Matthes, Ramon Trias, Ed Merritt, Ed Lounds, Carson
McCurdy, Diana Wesloski, Noreen Dreyer, Albert Moore, Charles Grande
OTHERS PRESENT: James Lancaster, Assistant County Attorney; Ray Wazny, Community
Development Director; Julia Shewchuk, Economic Development/FTZ Manager; Dennis Murphy,
Land Development Coordinator; David Kelly, Planning Manager; and JoAnn Riley, Planning
Technician
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE' The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski
ANNOUNCEMENTS- Mr. Kelly stated that the petition of Adron and Pamela Chambers, for a
Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the CN
(Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District located at U.S. 1 and Easy Street has been pulled from
tonight's agenda as one of the applicants is in the hospital. Mr. Kelly stated that an editorial
O ~
appeared, in t day: s paper urging residents to attend and he did not want anyone in the audience
waiting for the petition to be heard.
DISCLOSURES: Mr. Matthes stated that his employer, Culpepper & Terpening represents the
applicant:, Phil Drawdy, Agenda Item//3, therefore he will recuse himself from this item.
Mr. Merritt stated that he has represented the owner of the property in the past and will therefore
recuse hi:mself from Agenda Item #3.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN:
Chairmm~ Wesloski stated that she would take nominations for Chairman.
Mr. Merritt nominated Ms. Wesloski for Chairwoman, with Mr. Matthes seconding the motion.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other nominations.
With no other: nominations, the floor was closed to nominations, and upon roll call, Ms. Wcsloski
was elected Chairman by a unanimous vote.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would open the nominations for Vice-Chairman.
Mr. McCurdy nominated Mr. Merritt for Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Merritt stated that he will have to decline the nomination. He sometimes has to recuse himself
due to the nature of his business.
Mr. Merritt nominated Mr. McCUrdy for Vice-Chairman, with Mr. Lounds seconding the motion.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any Other nominations.
With no other nominations, the floor was closed to nominations, and upon roll call, Mr. McCurdy
was elected Vice-Chairman by a unanimous vote.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -
REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1998
Chairmm~ Wesloski asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes.
There being no further additions or corrections to the minutes of the December 16, 1998 meeting,
Chairman Wesloski asked for a motion. Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval, and it was
seconded, by Mr. Grande.
Upon roll call, the motion was approved 7-0, with Mr. Moore and Mr. McCurdy abstaining.
PUBLIC HE~NG
PHIL DRAWDY
FILE NO. RZ-99-003
Chairman 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 Phil Drawdy for a Change in Zoning from
the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CN (Commercial,
Neighborhood) Zoning District. Mr. Flores stated that subsequent to the application, Mr. Drawdy
requested that his request be amended to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning District.
Mr. Flores stated that the subject property is located on the South side of West Midway Road,
approximately 1,320 feet west of South 25th Street.
Mr. Flores stated that the surrounding zoning to the subject property is AR-1 (Agricultural,
Residential - 1 du/acre) to the north, south, east, and west. RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family- 4
du/acre) to the east and west. I (Institutional) to the northwest. CG (Commercial, General) to the
northeast. CO (Commercial, Office) to the north and northwest.
Mr. Flores stated that the petitioner has requested this change in zoning in order to develop a
building contractor's office on the subject property. The subject property is in an area of residential
uses and some Commercial office uses.
Mr. Flores stated that Mr. Drawdy originally applied for a change in zoning to CN (Commercial,
Neighborhood) Zoning District. When it was determined that the proposed use would not be
permitted in the CN Zoning District, he subsequently amended his petition. The County Attorney
has determined that the CO Zoning District is a subset of the CN Zoning District, and, therefore, a
re-advertisement of the petition is not necessary.
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.
Ms. Dreyer asked staff if the policies of 1.1.8.4 have been reviewed, as recited, to ensure they could
be met by the petitioner for construction of the office facility.
Mr. Flores stated yes.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Flores.
Chairman Wesloski asked if the applicant was present and would like to ad&ess the Board.
Mr. Richard Ladyko, Project Manager with Culpepper & Terpening, 2980 South 25th Street, Fort
Pierce, addressed the Board and stated that they represent Mr. Phil Drawdy.
Mr. Ladyko stated that he is pleased staff is recommending the petition for. approval and he would
be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Ladyko where will the office be located on the parcel.
Mr. Ladyko stated that a preliminary site plan has been developed for the property. Mr. Ladyko
stated that the applicant proposes to develop a small office park containing five buildings, each
averaging 6,000 square feet with associated parking, with access centered on the property off
Midway Road, and a retention area located in the rear of the property.
Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. LadYko if the site was to be designed for a single contractor's building.
Mr. Ladyko stated that it is not proposed to be a single contractor's building, the preliminary site
plan is based on five individual buildings.
Mr. McCurdy asked staff if this will go through the site plan approval process.
Mr. Flores stated yes.
Mr. Ladyko provided the preliminary site plan to the Board for their review.
Chairman Wesloski stated that she did not see a decel (deceleration) lane on the drawing. Chairman
Wesloski asked Mr. Ladyko if a decel lane will be required.
Mr. Ladyko stated that they have not confirmed with staff if a decel lane will be required, the
preliminary drawing is just a foot print that suits his client's needs.
Mr. Lounds asked staff to show on the overhead where South 25th Street is located in relation to this
property.
Chairman Wesloski stated that in the information provided to the Board it states "to develop a
building contractor's office" not offices.
Mr. Ladyko stated that since the application was originally submitted, the applicant changed his
mind, he would be more than happy to allow the applicant to discuss this with the Board.
Chairman Wesloski stated that five buildings will generate more trip traffic than one office.
Mr. LadYko stated that the amount of building coverage proposed: in the preliminary site plan is
approximately 14-15% of the total site, which is well under what the zoning WOuld allow. He stated
that typically the range is 30-35%, and this site as proposed is considerably less intense than what
the code allows.
Chairman Wesloski stated if the zoning were approved.
Mr. Ladyko stated yes.
Mr. Grande asked Mr. Ladyko if the parking area will be for automobiles or trucks and heavy
equipment.
Mr. Ladyko stated strictly automobiles that are consistent with an office use.
Mr. Lounds asked staff if there will be any impact on entering and existing this site near Midway
and 25th street where the roadway narrows..
Mr. Kelly stated that staff'has not looked at this impact. He stated that this Board needs to determine
if this is an appropriate site for Commercial, Office use. He stated that the details of the site will be
worked out during the site plan approval process when staff will review access to the property, the
layout and the type of parking, the type of trees, etc.
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly what is the future of zoning of this area.
Mr. Kelly stated that West Midway Road has Commercial, Office and Institutional uses that mn
from this intersection to the Post Office. He stated that we have a changing use in this area, staffhas
never fully defined what it will be, staff does not believe it should be strict commercial.
Mr. Trias stated that the staff report indicates that this is "an orderly and logical development
pattern". Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly how this rezoning fits into the orderly and logical development
pattern. ~
Mr. Kelly stated that it would be very difficult to argue that Commercial, Office is not orderly or
consistent at this .location when in the past years, this Board has approved three other Commercial,
Office zonings in thiS area.
Chairmm.a Wesloski asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Ladyko.
At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public heating.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of this petition.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this petition.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Ladyko.
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 what would be the pleasure of the Board.
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and
the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code,
Mr. McCurdy moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie
County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Phil Drawdy for a
Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CO
(Commercial, Office) Zoning District because the corridor and the land in question appear to be
moving toward a commercial use.
Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 7-0.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the petition would be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE 99-002
FILE NO. ORD-99-002
Chairman Wesloski convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency.
Mr. Dennis Murphy presented staff comments.
Mr. Murphy referenced Draft Ordinance 99-002 (a spin-off from Draft Ordinance 99-001 reviewed
by this Board several months ago, which was a re-numbering of Draft Ordinance 98-016).
Mr. Murphy stated that the specific amendments contained in Draft Ordinance 99-002 deal with
three areas, two related to each other and one unrelated. The two related areas deal with access for
commercial and zoning district boundaries and the other area deals with telecommunications towers.
Mr. Murphy stated that he would go through each section briefly and then allow the Chairman to
open the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Murphy stated that staff is proposing a change to Section 7.05.05, that did not make the final
production drafts, and provided copies to each of the Board members. Section 7.05.05(A) should
read as follows, the underline text is for addition:
No residentially classified street or zoned property, excluding arterial or m~or.collector
roadways, shall be used for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to any non-
residentially zoned land, or to any land used for a purpose not permitted in a residentially
zoned district except as provided for in Paragraph B below.
Mr. Murphy asked the Board if they had any questions regarding Section 7.05.05.
Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Murphy to clarify Section 7.05.05(B)(2).
Mr. Murphy stated that the intent of Section 7.05.05(B)(2) is that the applicant has satisfied the
standards of review as established by the County Commission in that the dominant use of the
property within the area of the proposed driveway connection, to the proposed or existing use is
vacant or otherwise occupied by non-residential uses. For example, when you look at the area
surrounding the proposed driveway connection, it is either (1) vacant or (2) the dominant uses in the
area are non-residential in nature.
Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Murphy if he is speaking of the area surrounding the proposed driveway
location access connection point.
Mr. Murphy stated yes to the area surrounding the proposed driveway location access connection
point, but not the use itself, the concern is not what's happening on the property, The North
Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage site plan that has caused so much concern in the past, is
administratively dead because of the failure to proceed on the part of the applicant.
Mr, Murphy stated that if someone chose to apply for a warehouse operation on that property fight
now, they :would have to go back to ground zero and start all over again. They would have to
comply Mth all current county standards, including access, which would not be off Marina Drive,
and they wOuld have to go through the conditional use process, which is the level of extra scrutiny
that had been requested from the beginning. Prior to this time, the county did nOt have this ability,
now if someone wants to come in with that use on the property, at least the oppo~unity is present.
Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy if we have existing properties that are zoned non-residential that are
not accessible other than through residentially zoned areas, if we consider streets as part of the areas
prior to this change, are we looking for some relief for the owners or builders of those non-
residentially properties so that they can have access, or are we not going to assume that the zonings
are erroneous or incorrect. ~
Mr. Murphy stated that at this time staff is not going to assume that the zonings are erroneous or
incorrect.
Mr. Grande stated that if the Board approves the changes as proposed bY staff, we are guaranteeing
the property fights of the properties that may have been zoned incorrectly or may be sitting with an
old zoning that has not been updated and should have been.
Mr. Murphy stated that we are guaranteeing the rights of the property owner to at least make their
best pitch, should it be necessary to do so. The exception provisions if approved are very strict,
wherein you have to demonstrate you have no other way to access your property and that it was
through no fault of your own.
Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy how many properties are located in the county, other than the North
Hutchinson Island property, that would cause the county to take this corrective action, which really
grants property fights which may be very dangerous.
Mr. Mu .rphy stated that the county has enough existing uses that are potentially being placed in
precarious positions should the continued interpretation as rendered be that roads are considered to
be zoned, residential, therefore you cannot use them for access, becauSe of the way the existing.
zoning lines are in the various parts of the county. He does not foresee a great flood of uses coming
in right now and he does not foresee commercial or other types of intense development in the middle
of areas like Lakewood Park or Indian River Estates.
Mr. Murphy stated this really applies to the church and park type uses, which are by definition, non-
residential and may be in residential areas, and by statutes the county is required to provide for these
uses. He does not see this change as opening up the gates. The county cannot blanketly state you
cannot do it, without having a relief mechanism available, otherwise they could be setting
themselves up for various types of litigation.
Mr. Grande stated that if the county has the ability to look .at parks and churches on a case by case
basis using the variance, or conditional use as the solution, by incorporating these changes into the
code, the county be:giving property owners with improperly zoned parcels property fights that they
shouldn't have. This would put the county in a position where they will not be able to stop the
a '
property owners in the future from using ccess they shouldn t be able to use, only because the
property was poorly zoned to start with.
Mr. Murphy stated that the method to address that specific issue would be to review the entire zoning
structure of the county. He stated that denying this change would not cure the problem, it would
only delay the issue until a prope~y owner is denied and brings it forward in a court of law.
Mr. Grande stated that it would come up case by case.
Mr. Murphy stated that it would come up case by case and in a very painful and expensive manner.
He stated that if you want to evaluate the zoning applications across the board, there is an
opportunity to some degree to do that relative to the comprehensive plan updates. He would caution
the Board that there are property right components that we must be cognizant of, there should be
compelling reasons to change from one use to another is very complicated.
Mr. Moore stated that he would like to make a point for the edification of the Board and for the
residents present tonight. The last time this Board visited this issue,' he adopted Mr. Killday's
suggestion for modifying the proposed ordinance. ~en he saw that it hadn't been done, he spoke
with Mr. Murphy and he believes it is important for the Board and the audience to hear why that was
not adopted.
Mr. Moore stated that Mr. Killday offered proposed language that may have worked better than the
language provided by staff and it seemed like a good compromise for the people that were concerned
about the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage and for the instances staff raised that night. He
stated that Mr. Murphy told him the reason the proposed language was not adopted into tonight's
draft was because there were other instances that weren't just potential for negative litigation, but
there are parcels of land present today that are not improperly zoned and in commercial areas and
there is no way for the property owners to use that land given Mr. Killday's proposed language.
Mr. Moore stated that if staff feels it is necessary to talk about those instances that exist today, he
thinks the Board and the audience should listen to why Mr. Killday's language would not work.
Mr. Murphy stated that there will be situations where the configuration of the parcel, the condition
or requirements of the adjacent collector roadway would preclude or otherwise prevent a driveway
connection to that roadway. You then have a parcel that cannot have access to it.
Mr. Murphy stated that an example of this could be Ridge Haven Road and North U.S. 1. where you
have commercial zoning fronting onto U.S. 1 and the lots carry all the way back through to Ridge
Haven Road. Ridge Haven for all practical purposes is a residential street. It may not be possible
to have a driveWay connection at the comer lots due to the access management criteria with DOT.
Today there are connections, but the moment you go to improve the property you must meet all
current DOT standards and that will have a negative impact.
Mr. Murphy stated that in this situations you at least want to have the. opportunity to explore a safer
design that~would allow some encroachment back onto the street. The standards outlined in these
change staffbelieves are in this vein. The burden of proof and responsibility remains on the property
owner, it is not the county's responsibility to prove that the property owner cannot get to their
property.
Mr. Murphy stated that other examples could include Beach Club Colony, where a string of old
duplexes were converted into businesses years ago. They are double frontage lots and the businesses
have constantly wanted to use the back door approaches to get in. Legally they can't do it. It's a
constant war to come in and prevent it. In some instances, in general, there may be no alternative.
Mr. Trias stated that he is not familiar with the background of the North Hutchinson Island Mini-
Storage project. He can understand in some cases there is a real problem with access to property.
He is a little concerned about applying this concept generally throughout the county as proposed in
the draft ordinance.
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy What happens with. the pattern when you have a grid of streets with a
variety of useS, such as an older neighborhood in Fort Pierce, when someone wants to create new
construction..What is the affect of having a residential street that actually takes you to a commercial
area. How would this apply in the county~
Mr. Murphy stated that if you are coming from the residential area into the commercial areas, with
commercial on both sides, there is no affect.
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy what if you have a commercial establishment in the middle of your
residential area.
Mr. Murphy stated it l~ills it.
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy why would that be a good thing.
Mr. Murphy stated that the way the Code is written and interpreted right now, it would kill it. This
mechanism assuming you have the commercial zoning and the other criteria, would at least allow
for it to be considered. With the recent interpretation that has been carried forward, it would mn
counter to the concepts of new and traditional and integrated land use, straight-up, you can't do it.
He stated that the Board needs to decide if this is good or bad. To not be able to integrate your uses
in an urban environment such as Fort Pierce.
Mr. Trias stated that in his opinion, there may be a better tool to address some of the issues and
specific concerns that apparently brought this about, than changing the overall definition of streets
in the county.
Ms. Dreyer asked if this could possibly lead to the tail wagging the dog if you have a small
commercial Parcel with no other access than through a residential street located in an undeveloped
area. Would that not then be an impetus for the neighboring properties to request commercial zoning
10
since you now have a commercial constructed use and a road leading to it.
Mr. Murphy stated that no more than it would if you had the frontage off of the arterial or the
collector.
Ms. Dreyer stated this is where we would typically place commercial.
Mr. Murphy stated that this would really only apply in a comer lot situation. He cannot see the
County Commission sanctioning the introduction of a commercial use, distinguishing commercial
specifically, into an established residential area knowing that it would result in a domino effect of
applications for converted uses for that activity.
Chairman Wesloski stated that her understanding is that a request for a change in zoning would not
be able to move forward because roads currently having zoning. This draft ordinance will allow the
request for a change in zoning go forward through the process, providing it meets all of the criteria,
including the public heating process.
Mr. Murphy stated that if a private property owner wishes to make use of this property and could
not otherwise meet the regulations as set forth in the code. The components in Paragraph B provide
a relief mechanism the property owner can take advantage of. This is no guarantee. It provides an
available mechanism for the property owner to use. The county's defense will then be, it was made
available, if for whatever reasons coming forth through the review process it is determined to be
totally inappropriate. It puts the county in a better position to defend our actions, rather than being
accused of being arbitrary and capricious.
chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if the warehouse on the beach were to come forward, would
they be under the new regulations.
Mr. Murphy stated that they would be under the new regulations and would require a conditional use
approval.
Chairmm~ Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if during a prior meeting he used the example of a property
on Old Dixie Highway.
Mr. Murphy stated that was the zoning petition of the Baptist Church.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if that road is zoned residential.
Mr. Murphy stated yes it is zoned residential.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the majority of the properties in that area are commercial.
Mr. Murphy stated that non-residential land use designations are in that area, but Old Dixie
Highway was classified for residential uses.
11
Chairman Wesloski stated that we all know what goes up and down that road. Chairman Wesloski
asked Mr. Murphy if trucks can travel on a residential road.
Mr. Murphy stated yes. He stated that he believes the amendments outlined in this draft address that
point.
Chairman Wesloski stated that Old Dixie Highway would no longer be considered residential.
Mr. Murphy stated that it would .be an arterial collector roadway so the provisions of access
contained herein would not apply in that particular instance. He stated this draft ordinance could be
approved in the most rigid form possible that might state "we cannot access commercial or industrial
property from anything but an arterial collector roadway" and there could possibly be that one flukey
situation where this would still not fit.
Mr. Murphy stated that we have to choose our words carefully because we have situations where we
have a commercial local street. For example, Fort Pierce Business Park, off' of Selvitz Road,
technically the street entering this park is a local street. We are in no way stating that you cannot
access that local street because there is industrial on both sides and all around it. He stated that
residentially zoned local streets are those with the predominant use on both sides are residential in
nature.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there are any more questions for Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage property was zoned
when the land use designations were put into affect.
Mr. Murphy stated that particular parcel has had a commercial classification as far back as the late
1'960's early 1970's. It has had different degrees of commercial and different classifications, but it
has had a non-residential use. Non-residential is a broad heading, it covers churches, schools, parks,
low intensity commercial, moderate intensity, high intensity, industrial and landfills.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if there are a lot of other properties that carry the zoning through,
before the land use program was adopted in 1984.
Mr. Murphy stated that is correct. He stated that there were uses in 1984 and again in 1990 (when
changes were made to the code) that were subject to new zoning categories. The use that may have
been permitted in the previous category no longer worked and had to go to the nearest compatible,
and churches are a good example.
Mr. Merritt stated that if we do not provide some method of relief, we are opening up the county
for lawsuits.
Mr. Murphy stated that he is not an attorney. He believes the county is opening themselves up to
a potential problem in the way of access and damages regarding the denied use of property and/or
restricted use of property.
12
Mr. Murphy outlined the changes being made to Section 2.00.00 and Section 7.10.23. He stated that
in Section 7.10.23(A) the underlined language should have been eliminated and the struck through
portion 'should have been left in. He stated that he believes the remaining changes are minor in
nature. He stated that the landscaping and aesthetics requirements have been strengthened around
telecommunications towers.
Mr. Murphy stated that a problem has recently come up on permitted use towers. He referred the
Board to Section 7.10.23(E)(3). He stated that a few tower providers have come into areas that are
zoned industrial or agricultural, which are a permitted use of fight. One specifically was surrounded
by five or six tire mounds and two out in the middle of groves. He stated that landscaping is
required around the tower base. The towers in these particular instances are not anywhere close too
or visible from a roadway, at base level. In the case of the industrial location, it does not make sense
to go into the middle of a tire chip dump and put in trees that will not live.
Mr. Murphy stated that staff proposes to allow the Community Development Director discretion to
waive the landscaping requirements provided the substandard requirements are complied with and
screening is Provided at the base level. The requirements of the base level would require an opaque
screening around the base of the tower.
Mr. Murphy stated that in the case of the groves, ornamental landscaping in the middle of a
productive agricultural environment will do nasty things to citrus trees, so you would not want to
put landscaping there, you already have grove trees that will shield the base.
Mr. Murphy stated the intention of Section 7.10.23(E)(3) is to provide some ability for the
Community Development Director on a case-by-case basis to review the development plans and
provide for some relief in those instances.
Mr. Murphy stated that the county encourages co-location of services providers and requires a
$15,000 removal bond. He stated that the Security Fund, Section 7.10.23(F), does not distinguish
between co-located providers. He stated that the county had a problem (which we are attempting
to address here) where a provider wanted to co-locate onto an existing tower. The provider was told
$15,000 (in addition to the $15,000 that the county was already holding for the tower) they raised
the question why. This is a legitimate question.
Mr. Murphy stated that staff is proposing if you are co-locating onto an existing tower the fee will
be $3,000 which should be sufficient to remove the antenna. He stated that based on economics, he
believes this will encourage co-locating rather than building from scratch.
Mr. Murphy asked the Board if they had any questions.
Mr. Merritt stated that to charge $3,000 for co-location seems to punish a co-location instead of
encouraging. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if the security fund of $15,000 is not enough on the
original tower. He stated that he has seen leases on towers that have had up to 12 co-locations. He
stated that he does not have a problem with the $3,000 but he feels the co-locator may have a
problem with it. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy what it costs to take down a tower and why are we
13
discouraging the co-location with a $3,000 fee.
Mr. Murphy stated that he does not believe we are discouraging the co-location, he believes we are
encouraging the co-location. If the applicant :does not co-locate they would have to write a check
for $15,000, fight now they only have to write a check for $3,000. A year and a half ago, the County
Commission determined that it was appropriate to require a bond to ensure that the tower would be
taken care of and/or removed should it be necessary. Consistent with that, the recommendation was
made that $3,000 was reasonable for a co-located antenna or antenna array.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy what would be the cost to take a tower down.
Mr. Murphy stated that he cannot give a precise amount.
Mr. Merritt stated that we do not even know if the $15,000 would cover the cost of taking it down.
Mr. Murphy stated that it would depend on the type of tower. A monopole or guyed tower would
be cheaper to take down than a self-supporting tower, due to the amount of time involved in
removing the tower. It would also depend on the complexity of where it is located, and how you
access the property.
Mr. Men'itt stated that he has a problem with the cost of $3,000 for removing a co-located antenna,
he would like to see that changed and encourage co-location.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy how many applications per year are received for co-location, and are
they increasing.
Mr. Murphy stated that he does not have an exact number.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the county would rather see them co-locate then to apply for
separate towers.
Mr. Murphy stated absolutely.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the $3,000 would cover the cost of hiring someone to take that
specific antenna and co-axial cable off of that particular tower.
Mr. Murphy stated yes if it were necessary.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy why this is not left up to the tower owner.
Mr. Murphy stated that it could be. The county could put the burden of responsibility on the owner
of the tower. The present structure of the code is that, if you want to co-locate a facility, in addition
to the $15,000 paid by the original tower owner, the co-locator would have to pay $15,000. This
14
change is an attempt to change what staff felt was a contradictory action on the
For instance, on one hand we want you to co-locate and on the other hand we
you $15,000 to place the co-locate.'
Mr. Lounds stated that he understands and agrees with the intent. He stated that he
Merritt wherein the county would rather have people co-exist on a tower than
He stated that $3,000 for a radio station may n°t be a lot of money, if it were a
needed' that antenna, height and location $3,000 may make a decision, for them.
Chairman Wesloski stated the Board will have a public hearing on each section and vote on each
section, during this time we can get into the specifics.
·
Mr. Murphy. stated that staff recommends approval of Draft Ordinance 99-002 as
Section 7.05.05(A) as presented tonight, with
Chairman Wesloski stated that the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage is no lon viable
project.
Chairman Wesloski asked the Board if there were any specific questions of staff'regard: Section
1.06.02 and 7.05.05.
·
At this time, Chairman. Wesloski opened the public heating on Sections 1.06.02 and 7.0- 05.
Chairman
Wesloski
asked
anyone who would like to speak on Sections 1.i '
if
there
7.05.05.
was
i.02 and
Chairman Wesloski requested that Mr. K' '
filday s hand-out be made a part of the record.
Mr. Brian Killday, 923 Jackson Way, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Killday that he
is speaking tonight on behalf of the Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County. Mr. ay read
into the record as folloWs·
Dear Commissioners:
I hereby submit to the record the position of the St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance with
to Draft Ordinance 99-002. We have concerns with certain provisions of this proposed
as stated below.
1.06.02 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
7.05.05 USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS
The proposed amendments to these sections, as written, clearly violate the intent of
Development Code and are inconsistent with the County 'Comprehensive Plan. Secti,
(page 3) clearly states that, where indicated on the zoning map, the zoning district bo~
the center lines of the streets and roads. If the intention had been to exclude the streets
15
Land
02
,s are
the
. zoning :regulations, the zoning atlas boundaries would have been drawn as such. He stated that if
streets were intended to be excluded it would have been drawn along the property lines. It is very
clear that in the situations were it was intended to be excluded it would not be drawn along the center
of the streets.
These amendments, as written, directly violate Policy 1.1.8.4 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land
Development Code must be in conformity with Objective 1.1.8 which states: The protection of the
single family neighborhood as a defined residential area from the encroachment of commercial
and/or other inappropriate land uses will be provided for through the Land Development
Regulations.
He stated that Policy 1.1.8.4 requires that any commercial/non-residential use in residential areas
must meet the following standards'
2)
The property for which the commercial designation is sought is located on an arterial
or major collector; and
5)
The site does not have direct driveway access onto any local or minor collector street.
Policy 1.1.8.4 does not allow for exemptions of this role. Mr. Killday stated that their suggestions
for remedying the problems brought forth, churches and commercial uses in the middle, most of
these are on major collector or arterial streets.
Mr. Killday stated that there is no needed to amend the definition of Section 1.06.02, it is very
clearly written as it was intended to be. Martin County has the same provisions as St. Lucie County
as it's presently written. If we change the code to read "no residentially zoned property excluding
arterial or major collector street or road fights-of-way, shall be used for driveway, walkway, or any
other access purpose to any Other non-residentially zoned land, or to any land used for a purpose not
permitted, in a residentially oned d~stnct then it will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The way it is written is not.
Mr. Killday stated that we have a beautiful county with well-written Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Code provisions that allow for reasonable development. The proposed amendments
cited would only serve to degrade our property values and quality of life. In addition, these
amendments are inconsistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and in violation of
Section 163, Florida Statutes, and can be appealed to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant
to this statute.
Mr. Killday stated that the Land Development Code as presently written has a legally defensible
position against takings lawsuits. It is written in the Land Development Code that if someone had
a problem they could have come out when the Land Development Code was being written and
challenged it through the Department of Community Affairs. He stated that now there would
certainly be an argument that they are being estoppel from arguing. If Draft Ordinance 99-002 is
adopted and the property owner can prove they do not have access to a major collector street, the
county no longe~- has a choice, the county mdst allow access through the neighborhood to their
16
property. The County Commission would then be forced to approve the access because it is written
in the Land Development COde and the property owner can sue on a takings clause if you do not
allow it.
Mr. Killday stated that Section 11.06.01 outlines the purpose of this section is to provide for a means
for amending the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the.Land Development Code or the Official
Zoning .Atlas. Section 11.06.03, Standards of Review, in reviewing the application of a proposed
amendment to the text of the Land Development Code, the Board of County Commissioners and the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan. These amendments clearly violate the spirit, the intent
and clearly the letter of the Comp Plan.
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affected
the .property value in the area. We have the same amenities as Martin and Indian
River Counties yet Property values here in St. Lucie County are much lower for
equivalent houses. Why move to St. Lucie County and buy a $250,000 water-front
home, when all at once the Land Development C~)de can be changed and you have
trucks accessing a storage warehouse or whatever may come forward, perhaps a
pawn shOp. Your home is suddenly worth $100,000 lesS than you paid for it, if you
can find a buyer. Why not move to Stuart where they prohibit commercial access on
residential streets, they have safe-guards in their code that we have in our Code. So
why should we change our Land Development Code to be sub-standard to the
surrounding counties.
Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and
is in harmony with the purpose and interest of this Code. The citizens here are
opposed to these amendments. Where are those who are in favor of this. Who ask
the COunty Planners to changes these Codes and why are they not here stating their
public interest. Where are the potential litigants.
Mr. Killday stated that he urges someone to make a motion to reject this and to listen to the people.
Chairman Wesloski requested that Ms. Spalding's hand-out be made a part of the record.
Ms. Nancy Spalding, 211 Marina Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Spalding stated that
the warehouse proposed for North Hutchinson Island withdrew their application because the Land
Development Code does not permit it. As soon as the new code is implemented, she believes they
will be back in to re-apply.
Ms. Spalding stated that in 1958 the land in question was to have been developed as a yacht club and
this is why it was made commercial.
Ms. Spalding stated that Section 1.06.00 as written, specifically permits warehouses. She stated that
17
Section 7.05.05 is completely:contradictory. She stated that the change made by Mr. MurPhy tonight
regarding Section 7.05.05(A) incorporateS the changes she is suggesting in her hand-out as Section
7.05.05(C) and asked Mr. Murphy if this is correct.
Mr. Murphy stated that it is a redundant semence and it doesn't undermine anything, in his opinion.
Ms. Spalding stated that if Section 7.05.05(B) stands as is, definitely the warehouse as it was
proposed could go in there because it states that "the dominant use of property within the area of the
proposed driveway". If they put the driveway on Flotilla Terrace instead of Marina Drive, the
property just east of Flotilla Terrace is commercial and that would be permitted. The residents
would still be left with a warehouse in a residential area.
Ms. Spalding stated that she just can't understand, July was the first time the code changes were
proposed, and since then conversations have been held with staff, including a public meeting where
it was explained what the residents want, but they don't seem to get it, they seem to want a
warehouse on this property.
Chairman Wesloski stated that Draft Ordinance 99-002 is not for the warehouse, it is for the whole
county.
Ms. Spalding stated that no matter what staff proposes always permits the warehouse to go on that
particular parcel.
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would not say that it would permit it, it might give 'it the.
opportunity to request to be permitted, but that does not mean it would be permitted.
Ms. Spalding stated that she believes it would be impossible, given this wording, for the County
Commission to turn it down. She stated that staff if very concerned about the hardship for the
property owner but not about the hardship for the residents.
Mr. Murphy stated that it is important to remember the third word in Section 7.05.05(B): Except
as may be specifically authorized. This is not a mandatory action, it is a permissive or subjective
type action. The Board of County Commissioners has the ability through the review process to turn
it down.
Mr. Murphy stated that staff is cognizant of what happens to each individual property as well as the
impacts on the surrounding area.
Chairman Wesloski stated that each property owner has the ability to ask.
Mr. Murphy stated that this simply provides a mechanism. It is not a guarantee, you have to meet
the standards. It does not guarantee approval.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if the applicant does not meet the standards would they still
go forward through the hearing process.
18
Mr. Murphy stated yes, staff does not have the ability to administratively deny.
Chairman Wesloski stated that a property owner in the County would have the ability to have a
forum to bring forth their request.
Mr. Mm.phy stated yes.
Mr. Grande stated that if this Board does not make any changes at all, property owners who are
affected have the right to come forward to ask for relief at the County Commission level. The
County would only be exposing themselves if the property owners are unsatisfied with the relief at
the County Commission level. If this Board makes these corrections we are reversing the process
and in affect giving the property owners the fights to expect relief.
Mr. Murphy stated that presently there are no provisions. The property owner may come in, request
a development plan or access rights to their property, be denied, and go to court. Draft Ordinance
99-002 at least attempts to provide an interim step. If a compelling reason is given, due to the
particular circumstances associated with that case to the satisfaction of the County Commission, they
may grm~t some level of relief.
Mr. Grande stated that they may hope to exercise a right and put the County on the defensive.
Mr. Murphy stated that he does not see it that way.
Chairman Wesloski requested that Mr. Doran's hand-out be made a part of the record.
Mr. John Doran, 3300 North A1A, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Doran stated that he serves
as the Director of the North Beach Homeowners Association. He stated that in the summer of 1998
the St. Lucie CoUnty Planning Department proposed a number of changes to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan. There were strong objections to the changes proposed in 1.06.02 and 7.05.05,
This Commission instructed the Planning Department to hold a "workshop" to listen to and then,
hopefully, adjust the proposed language. The "workshop" was held, however, our Association felt
we were not listened to.
In November of 1998 the .proposed changes were again before this Commission. Again, this
Commission sent the proposal back to the Planning Department and suggested a re-write. Our
Association even suggested acceptable language for Section 7.05.05. Again, we feel, we have been
ignored by the Planning Department. We ask that Ordinance 99-002 be rejected in totality.
Please look at page two of my presentation. This is the language of 7.05.05 as it is today. You will
note that it was adopted in August of 1990. It was reviewed and passed without revision in August
of 1996. One sentence, two lines.
Now, please look at page three of my presentation which is 7.05.05 as revised by the Planning
Department after the "workshop" in August 1998. It now has a total of thirteen lines. This was
rejected by this Commission in November of 1998 and sent back to the Planning Department for a
19
re-write.
Now, let's look at page four which is the proposal that is before you tonight; without the revision
provided by Mr. Murphy tonight. It is now thirty three lines long.
Mr. Doran stated that do you, as an advisory board wonder why we citizens at times question our
governmental units. South Beach has been driven to their current pursuit only because the County
Planning Department overstepped its authority. Likewise, North Beach has spent over $17,000 in
legal fees opposing the variances the Planning Department provided in an area called "Barts Bay".
That is still before the Courts.
Mr. Doran stated please listen to us, lOok closely at my presentation. Look at page two. Look what
happened after the "workshop", the language expansion. Look what happened after this Commission
sent it back for a consideration of a small re-write. Now you have a full page, thirty three lines of
this proposed ordinance. We strongly urge this Commission to reject this entire proposal.
Mr. Dick Spalding, 211 Marina Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Spalding stated that
he just wants to point out that the beach is our greatest asset. Presently the beach is a very high taxed
area, compared to the rest of the County. The atmosphere and the ambiance are present and he
would like to keep it that waY. To build a warehouse on the beach does not seem like a very
intelligent thing to do to choice property to keep the pace of taxes that support the whole County.
It does not make economic sense to the County, to allow a warehouse on the beach.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on Sections 1.06.02 and
7.05.05.
Mr. Leslie Savino, 3207 South Lakeview Circle, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Savino stated
that his property faces the street where the warehouse supposedly was going to be 'constructed. He
stated that he has owned his property for four years, and purchased this property because he thought
North Hutchinson Island was the most beautiful area he had seen in Florida.
Mr. Savino stated that he can understand the 'Commission evaluating this area where residential
streets are slowly being converted into commercial streets. Commercialism over-powers residential
areas, people move out, commercial properties move in, and it becomes a residential street.
Mr. Savino stated that on North Hutchinson Island the reverse is tree, this is a residential area and
there is no commercialism that could possibly find its way onto the Island unless we allow the areas
that we have today already zoned commercial to be developed as commercial properties. He stated
that he believes this property was mis-zoned originally. It is not a commercial area.
Mr. Sav]no stated that he compliments members of the Commission who questioned this change.
These changes are not applicable to everyone, only in some areas of the County, not North
Hutchinson Island. He believes the County should leave it as is. Look at it on a case by case basis,
leave the street zoning, and let each property owner fight for their position.
20
Mr. Bill Hearn, who resides in Indrio, addressed the Board. Mr. Heam stated that he concurs with
the residents who have proceeded him tonight, He must point out, if the owner of this commercially
zoned property, in: the middle of a residential neighborhood, wanted to obtain the most value for his
property, he could have the zoning changed to residential to conform with the other uses. He stated
that in most cases, in a residential area like .North: Beach, the values for the residential property
would equal the commercial property.
Mr. Heam stated that he would like to suggest that the Board delete the following from Section
7.05.05(A) "excluding public or private street or road rights-of-way".
Mr. Murphy stated that language has been deleted and referred Mr. Heam to the language shown on
the overhead projector.
Mr. Heam stated that he would like to suggest the following changes to Section 7.05.05(A)'
change the last line in Section 7.05.05(A) to read "district, however.
include the two paragraph in Section 7.05.05(B) as part of paragraph Section
7.05.05(A).
after paragraph number 1 add the word "and".
after paragraph number 2 add the word "and".
Section 7.05.05(C) would then become Section 7.05.05(B).
Mr. Heam stated that this is the only possible compromise. He stated that he would encourage the
Board to leave the wording as is.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on Sections 1.06.02 and
7.05.05.
Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05,
Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing.
Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board.
Mr. Grande stated that he cannot vote on these two sections. He does not feel staff'has corrected the
problem. He does not see any risk to the County by leaving these sections as they are. If a potential
risk to the County were present, he would like to see that risk defined by the County Attorney at a
level the Board coUld understand. He cannot see any reason whatsoever to make the requested
changes.
Mr. Matthes stated that he disagrees with Mr. Grande. The Land Development Code is only a
working document. When it was put together, it was not cast in stone. The Board was giving the
21
ability to make changes to the Code as situations arise. He does not believe a warehouse ~ or some
commercial applications would be proper at the end of Marina Drive.
Mr. Matthes believes that the Planning Department has come upon a legitimate concern, wherein
some type of litigation could possibly happen if we do not allow for some type of a relief
mechanism, for a different situation, to mn its due course. He believes staff is trying to point out
these situations and protect the County from litigation.
Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with Mr. Killday's proposal because it seems to address the
fundamental issues of what a street is and what a lot is.
Mr. Trias made a motion to reject the changes drafted by staff.
Mr. Grande seconded the motion.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any discussion.
Mr. Lounds stated that he would like for Mr. Trias to explain whether or not he is asking fOr Mr.
Killday's language be substituted for what staff presented.
Mr. Trias stated that his motion is to reject the changes drafted by staff.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any further discussion.
Chairman Wesloski asked the Recording Secretary to call the roll.
Upon roll call the motion was denied 6-3.
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would entertain another motion.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy what differs from Mr. Killday's interpretation of Section 7.05.05(A)
and the language proposed by staff.
Mr. Murphy stated that there is no difference other than staff has added an exception clause which
refers you to paragraph B. The only difference in the lead-in language provided by Mr. Killday,
excluding arterial or major collector street or road rights-of-way, from that provided by staff, is the
word "street" versus "roadways".
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the exception clause is to cover the County from a legal
perspective.
Mr. Murphy stated yes, in his opinion.
Mr. Moore stated that the problem he has with the proposed changes are staff has informed him there
are instances in the community fight now that are not on HutChinson Island and are not on the Beach,
22
where owners of commercial property cannot use their property. The example given by Mr. Heam
is a great argument because if you are on the Beach, and you have a commercial piece of property,
you are not going to lose any money because you can use the property in a residential manner.
Mr. Moore stated that if we have instances that are not on the beach and the area has been zoned
commercial for as long as the surrounding areas have been zoned residential, and the owner bought
that piece of property, has been assessed and paid taxes on that piece of property at a commercial
rate (which is higher than a residential rate), you have basically cut the owner offby saying that they
cannot use their property.
Mr. Moore stated that he disagrees with Mr. Killday's assertion that if a property owner has not
challenged the language at this point, they are stopped from doing so. He does not believe this to
be tree. He stated aside from a legal challenge he believes there is an inherent unfairness. For
example if a property owner states they are going to develop a commercial piece of property and the
commercial property has existed as long as the residential, to say sorry you can't develop, that's
what he sees as the problem. This is why he now tends to favor what staff has recommended as
opposed to Mr. Killday's suggestion.
Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with Mr. Moore. He feels the plea of the residents. He stated to
Ms. Spudding, Mr. Killday and Mr. Doran that he understands their feeling. He stated that he does
not know what the ramifications are that the residents have to do in order to continue to protect their
property, their property fights and their feelings.
Mr. Lounds stated that every piece of property with similar circumstances has the same fights of
protection and development as Ms. Spalding, Mr. Killday and Mr. Doran are trying to protect for
their own. He stated it is very admirable the residents have brought these ideas forward and as a
group are here to fight for it. He wished there were more public interest in the other areas the Board
looks at. He does not know how you protect a glitch other than get out and fight for it.
Mr. Lounds stated that the Draft Ordinance presented by staff is a clear example of working with
some of the original ideas brought forth months ago. He believes this is an attempt to correct the
wrong in unclarified rulings years ago, and in the future there will probably be more that will have
to be done, whatever this Board decides on we will all have to live with.
Mr. Grande stated that he would like to hear from the County Attorney's Office exactly what this
Will protect the County from.
Mr. Lancaster stated that if the County denies property owners the right to develop their property
it could cause litigation. He stated that Mr. Murphy is not attempting to state that it would be
successful litigation. He'stated that this is recognizing a problem and attempting to deal with it head
on. He stated that this is an attempt by staff to make a compromise between the concerns of the
residents present tonight, that there be no access, and the person who may have a unique situation,
that has to be dealt with.
Mr. Grande asked Mr. Lancaster if this is approved can the specific case of the North Hutchinson
23
Island Mini-Storage be brought back as it was originally proposed.
Mr. Lancaster stated that the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage could come before the Board
of County Commissioners and asked for an exception. He stated that Mr. Murphy has other issues
that would also bear on that.
Mr. Murphy stated that for the record the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage is dead. He stated
the zoning on the property still remains. In the discussions earlier tonight, all have been centered
around what could happen on the property. This could get approved tonight, and someone could
come in tomorrow and propose to do another commercial use on that property. This could get
denied tonight and someone could come in tomorrow and propose another commercial use on that
property.
He stated that if the driveway connections are mn through the shopping center at the front end, there
is not a thing in the world the County can do to stop it. This has not addressed the fundamental
concerns of the neighborhood. You could have a restaurant or an expansion of the shopping center
out there tomorrow and there is not a thing the access matters are going to do about it. They could
still come through the property from A1A down through the shopping center and into that area, all
they have to do is secure the access rights through that property.
He stated that if the fundamental concern on the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage case is that
the zoning is wrong, then access is not the tool to control that. To stop it, you change the zoning.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board is not here to discuss that case.
Mr. Murphy stated that is correct but in this one instance, it is not an access question, it is a
fundamental zoning designation on the property.
Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with Mr. Murphy. The issue is access not zoning. He stated that
7.05.05(B) and 7.05.05(C) are unclear. 7.05.05(A) seems to deal with the fundamental issue of the
confusion of, what is a lot and what a street is. He believes to complicate the issue as proposed is
not necessary at this point.
Ms. Dreyer stated that she applauds staff for bringing this problem to the Board and would like staff
to continue to do 'so. She stated that she does not agree with this particular correction. It is not in
violation of the Policies of the Comprehensive Plan that were cited. This is not a clear violation and
this is a big stick to bring at a small problem for lawsuits that may or may not happen, and she would
not be in favor of this particular amendment.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the exception would give property owners the fight to come forward
and present their issues at a forum and she believes everyone should be allowed to do this.
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would entertain a motion.
24
Mr. Mcrritt made a motion to approve Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05.
Mr. Lounds seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 6-3 with Mr. Trias,
Ms. Dreyer and Mr. Grande voting in opposition.
..
Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board will' continue with Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Murphy on Sections 2.00.00 and
7.10.23.
Mr. Grande stated that he has a philosophical problem with the language contained in Section
7.10.23(E)(3) "the Community Development Director may consider" and in 7.10.23(L)(1)(c) "the
Community Development Director may approve variances". He believes variances should be
approved by the elected officials. If these variances are permitted, he would feel more comfortable
if they were at the discretion of the County Commission.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if he Would like to comment on this.
Mr. Murphy stated that the Land Development Code has two levels of variances. There are a series
of admi:nistrative variances, which are minor in nature. The remaining variance provisions, typically,
with very few exceptions, go to the Board of Adjustment. These are considered major, they require
a public hearing and are dimensional with fundamental impacts on an area.
Mr. Murphy stated that the County Commission in prior years determined they did not want the
burden of a variance request for routine items. If the recommendation of this Board is that all
variances be routed through to the appropriate Board (and in most cases it will be the Board of
Adjustment) that's fine. He believes this will have a negative effect on development and permitting
properties. Staffhas requested a number of times from a number of entities to liberalize the variance
provisions to approve items at the staff level as opposed to going through the Board process. In prior
years the Boards have been very receptive to minimizing time, constraints and other impacts on the
use of property. This is really a philosophical position.
Mr. Grande stated that he did not mean this in a negative sense. His concern is that if we allow the
administrative variance procedure, we would preclude the hearing process, wherein interested parties
may want to have input.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if staff has been instructed to handle the minor adjustments
at the administrative level.
Mr. Murphy stated yes and you are.precluding being heard at the time the order is written. There
is an appeal procedure for administrative variances and typically they go to either the County
Administrator or the County Commission to arbitrate and make a determination. Variances issued
by the Board of Adjustment are appealed through the Circuit Court. Board of County Commission
variances are also appealed through the Circuit Court.
25
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Murphy.
· Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with Mr. Murphy's proposal, and he would move for approval.
Chairman Wesloski stated to Mr. Trias that she had not opened the public heating so she will not be
able to consider his motion at this time.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Murphy before she opens the
public hearing.
Mr. Lo'unds asked Mr. Murphy who would a land owner go to for arbitration regarding Section
7.10.23(E) if the Community Development Director said no.
Mr. Murphy stated that the appeal route for administrative variances would be the County
Administrator and then to the Board of County Commissioners. In this particular instance, it would
be County Administrator and then Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Lmmds stated that several years ago the Fire District constructed a building on Shinn Road and
the landscaping cost several thousand dOllars more because the plants were required to come from
a certified nematode free nursery. There were no provisions at that time for this and this would have
eliminated the ne:ed for that. He stated that he believes this is a good provision.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Murphy.
Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Murphy if a co-located antenna is simply an antenna and cable on an
existing tower.
Mr. Murphy stated that it cOuld be. It could be an array or dish.
Mr. McCurdy stated that the $3,000 figure is prohibitive. He stated that $1,000 seems to be a more
reasonable figure in his opinion.
Mr. Murphy stated that the Board may change the $3,000 figure.
At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing on Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23.
Mr. Heam, who resides in Indrio, addressed the Board. He asked Mr. Murphy if there are any towers
that were approved for construction prior to September 19, 1997 that have not been built.
Mr. Murphy stated none that he is aware of.
Mr. Heam stated that he has some suggested wording changes that would clarify the intent of the
definition and the code and they are as follows:
on page 4, PRE-EXISTING TOWERS AND PRE-EXISTING ANTENNAS' he
26
would like this paragraph to read y, permitted, existing tower or antenna
constructed prior to September 19, 1997 (the effective date of Ordinance 97'023),
excluding residential radio and television towers". He stated that he can see a very
creative attorney telling someone who has a television antenna tower in their yard
that it would qualify for a replacement for a larger tower that could hold a
communications antenna.
on page 6, PURPOSE: he would like this paragraph to read "The purpose of this
section is to establish regulations and requirements for siting of wireless
telecommunications towers. All new towers or antennas in the County shall be
subject to these regulations".
on page 7, GENERAL: he would like the third line of paragraph 1 to read
"requirements of Section 7.10.23. Telecommunications towers may be located as a
conditional".
on page 7, GENERAL: he would like the fourth line of paragraph 1 to read "use,
subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.23 and Section 11.07.00, in all remaining
zoning".
on page 9, he would like the third line of paragraph b to read "way, public park or
playground, public or private school (K through 12), any habitable residential
structure or any area".
Mr. Heam stated that on Page 10, Table 7-40, the CN, CO, CG, IX and I, have been added to make
it easier to erect towers in areas other than where they are now permitted.
Mr. Heam stated that he would like to comment on Section 7.10.23(L)(1)(c) wherein the Community
Development Director may approve variances. At some later date he would like to see the wording
in paragraph c read-"The Community Development Director may approve variances up to 10% from
the separation requirements..." He would like to see this change because of what happened last
summer. The Community Development Director issued a variance down to 300 feet, when the
requirement is 750 feet. He believes this is a major variance and should have been handled by the
Board of Adjustment.
on page 11, the first sentence at the top, he would like to read "to habitable
residential structures of less than 300 feet provided the applicant meets all conditions
of Section 7.10,23(L)(c).
on page 11, paragraph P, he would like the first sentence to read "Any permitted
existing telecommunications tower erected before September 19, 1997 (date".
Mr. Heam stated that he hopes this Board will give careful consideration to these suggested changes.
He has had close and personal relationships with problems that have occurred without this language.
He believes this will clarify the ordinance and make it a little more difficult to place towers in areas
27
that they are not permitted in.
Mr. Grande asked Mr. Heam if he was suggesting that CN, CO, CG, IX and I be removed now from
Table 7-40 or was he just making a comment.
Mr. Heam stated that he is suggesting that they be removed now because these are not permitted
areas.
Mr. Grande stated to Mr. Heam in paragraph c on page 10 he recommended that staff add "up to 10"
in the fi~ture. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Heam if there was some reason why.he was not recommending
that this change be made tonight.
Mr. Heam stated that he does not have the ability to recommend this change tonight based on
advertising constraints.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Heam why he wants to exclude IX.
Mr. Heam stated that IX is a temporary zoning classification. When the extraction is finished the
property is rezoned to another zoning classification. A tower is not necessarily a temporary
structure.
Mr. Merritt stated that the property would have to go through a rezoning. If you have a property
zoned IL or IH with a tower on it, you can still rezone it.
Mr. Heam stated that he does not feel a temporary zoning classification is the fight place for a tower.
He stated a good example would be the Stuart Sand Mind property. It would make a fantastic
residential homesite for eight or ten beautiful homes on the lake. If a tower is present, not too many
people 'will want to build up scale homes.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on Sections 2.00.00 and
7.10.23.
Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23,
Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Grande asked Mr.-Murphy if he has any objections to Mr. Heam's suggested changes.
Mr. Murphy stated he has concern regarding the suggested changes on:
page 9, paragraph b, adding the words "any habitable residential structure". To the
extent that this does not conflict with the items of Table 7-40 nor conflict with an
agricultural environment, he does not believe this to be a problem. His major.
concern is really in the agricultural/grove areas. In this type of environment,
domestic ornamentals, you are creating a problem for the agricultural operation itself
which has a negative impact. By trying to minimize the impacts of one use you wind
28
up hurting the primary industry in the coUnty.
page 10' Table 7-40, CN, CO, CG, IX and I are not permitted uses of fight, they have
to be accessory to an existing commercial use on the property. They are subordinate
to the commercial use on the property. It was felt the owner should not be penalized
for placing a tower on their property. They know what they are getting into. If you
have a house on the property, that is not an accessory security residence, meeting the
criteria you: can't take advantage of this exception, you have to meet the applicable
standards for that particular use.
Mr. Murphy stated that his recommendation would be to leave Table 7-40 as is. With a little work
between now and the County Commission we can work on the appropriate language for page 9,
paragraph b.
Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy if he feels the proposed language for page 9, paragraph b, is a simple
redundancy that may be a potential conflict with something that he does not recognize at this point.
Mr. Murphy stated yes.
Mr. Murphy stated that regarding the proposed language on page 4, PRE-EXISTING TOWERS
AND PiRE-EXISTING ANTENNAS, he is not aware of their being any towers that were previously
approved prior to this date that have not been built. He will check:. If there are none with lawful
approwfl, no harm. If this are some with lawful approval, staff will need to address this.
Chairman Wesloski stated that if someone would choose in their motion to pickup that wording, the
Board would need to clarify that staff would need to check that.
Mr. Murphy stated the comments are on record. As long as we are not creating an undue hardship
on anyone, no problem. If an undue hardship exists, he will have to express that concem as it is this
Board's ultimate recommendation as to which way to go.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if the existing antennas or miniature towers that are on the
condominiums on the beach, are considered towers.
Mr. Murphy stated yes.
.Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy how are we going to differentiate those from the habitable structures.
Mr. Murphy stated that you can put up a tower fight next to a house if you want to, if you obtain the
proper variances.
Mr. Merritt stated that these are approved pre-existing towers.
Mr. Murphy stated that someone Could install an antenna fight next to his house, provided the proper
variance is obtained. The exclusionary language in this Draft Ordinance is for accessory security
29
units only and for the particular zoning districts without having to go through the formal Board of
Adjustment variance.
Mr. M~hy stated that Section 7.10.23(L)(1)(d) on pages 10 and 11 is the variance provision that
the Board of Adjustment will allow the tower to go up tomorrow. That would include, potentially,
the construction or the erection of an antenna array and or communication system on top of a
condominium.
Mr. Gr~mde asked Mr,. Murphy if these towers would fall within the height overlay zones on the
Island.
Mr. Murphy stated yes. He further stated that there is no prohibition of having a multi-story building
on the mainland. If you can meet separation standards and meet the requirements of the Land
Development Code, you could put up a tower in the middle of Reserve.
Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Heam if he wanted to change anything in Table 7-40.
Mr. Heam stated that CN, CO, CG, IX and I zoning districts are not districts where towers are
permitted uses. The additions of these zoning classifications to the exempted habitable residential
structures that are accessory uses makes it easier to put towers where they are not permitted. For
example, if you own a piece of property that is.zoned CG with a habitable residential structure, that
happens to be a security residences, and the person living in that structure works for you, they are
not going to object.
Mr. Moore stated to Mr. Heam that he also has a problem on-page 10 with the discretion that the
Commrmity Development Director would have.
Mr. Heam stated that is something we can't deal with tonight.
Mr. Moore stated that he understands we can't deal with this tonight. He asked Mr. Heam if this is
something that he does not agree with.
Mr. Heam stated that when you take the required 750 foot distance and one person who may or may
not live in our community, reduces it to 300 feet, that's a major variance.
Mr. Moore stated that he agrees and there is not a problem with re-publishing.
Mr. Heam stated that in the future a 10% variance would be reasonable for one person to make, and
when it exceeds 10% the Board of Adjustment should make that decision.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if he would re-consider the amount of the security fund on page 9.
Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Lounds which portion.
30
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if he would lower the co-located telecommunication providers
antenna or antenna array fee.
Mr. Murphy stated that $3,000 is only an estimate. The Board can recommended another amount
if they so desire.
Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to recommend that the co-location amount of $3,000 be
lowered to $1,000 and would suggest the $15,000 for each tower be lowered to $7,500.
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would be opposed to lowering the $15,000 figure because some
of these towers are large and it would probably cost more than that to remove them.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the idea of $15,000 is to cover removal of the original base and
tower.
Mr. Murphy stated yes.
Mr. Lounds stated strike his request for lower the $15,000 amount. He would like to recommend
co-location be reduce to $1,000 to enhance co-locating.
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would like to entertain a motion.
Mr. Grande made a motion to approve Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23, with the changes outlined by
Mr. Heam in totality and the reduction from $3,000 to $1,000.
Mr. Lounds seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-1 with Chairman
Wesloski voting in opposition.
31
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Kelly stated that he has an item not on the agenda tonight. He stated that he would like to take
this opPortunity to distribute draft Comprehensive Plan information and to discuss scheduling only.
Mr. Kelly stated that he wished Mr. Killday were still present because he is going to quote him. Mr.
Killday stated that the County has a good Comprehensive Plan and Mr. 'Kelly agreed. Mr. Kelly
distributed to each Board Member the first of a series of drafts for amendments of that plan.
Mr. Kelly stated that you will find GOPs, which is planner language for, Goals, Objectives and
Policies for a number of elements.
Mr. Kelly stated that amendments noted in the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) had been
made. New policies have been added where they seemed necessary for items like management of
Environmentally Sensitive Lands. Recommendations from members of the public (primarily from
the study group) are indicated by italics. Staff continues to check for consistency with State
requirements.
Mr. Kelly stated that the numbering system is a mess. He felt that it should be left it as close to the
old plan as possible. We will renumber everything before we submit it. There are a few 'elements
that have not been included in your package as they are not complete. The data and analysis is still
being worked on.
Mr. Kelly stated that he would propose the Board begin to think about hearing dates. He provided
Chairman Wesloski with the calendar for Room 101 and stated that the Planning and Zoning
Commission is apparently the only Board that meets in Room 101 at night.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly what are the requirements.
Mr. Kelly stated that staff will have to advertise each heating date. He stated that he would like to
propose that since staff'has only one rezoning petition scheduled for February, that this Board at their
regular February meeting begin reviewing these elements. This will allow the Board a month to
begin to digest the information provided tonight. The study group asked for another "workshop".
This will allow some time to roll all of these things together.
Mr. Kelly asked the Board if Thursday nights are a reasonable night that we could schedule one or
two additional meetings, we could start with the February P&Z and then schedule a few Thursday
nights after that. He stated that he did not feel comfortable picking dates for the Board. He stated
that there is a lot of work that needs to be done.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the Board should breakdown the information into sections
and work on a few sections at each meeting.
Mr. Kelly stated that certainly can be done if that's the desire of the Board.
32
Chairman Wesloski stated that the public and the Board seem to stay on track when broken into
sections.
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Kelly how soon does this need to be completed.
Mr. Kelly stated July l~t.
Mr. Lounds stated that he would prefer the Board break these into smaller sections even if it requires
having more meetings.
Chairman Wesloski stated that there are nine sections.
Mr. Kelly stated that there are two more to come, Capital Improvements and Infrastructure. He
stated that the Data and Analysis, which is a lot of text and support for this, will be pertinent data,
but not something that staff will recommend the Board adopt. He stated Data and Analysis was not
adopted the last time' we only adopted GOPs. Staff will recommend the same thing again this time.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the Board heard two a month woUld there be enough time.
Mr. Kelly stated probably not because they will still have to go before the County Commission.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the County Commission wants all of the elements together.
Mr. Kelly stated yes, he believes they would like a recommendation from the Local Planning Agency
as a package.
Mr. Grm.~de asked Mr. Kelly if staffhas suggested to the County Commission the phased approach
and that they also approve it on a section by section basis.
Mr. Kelly stated that staff'has not and that we can p°ll the members of the County Commission. He
stated that his experience has been that it is easier to keep the whole thing open, because you
continually have changes on items that may have gone forward.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly to poi1 the County Commission and stated that the Local
Planning Agency will hear three elements next month.
Mr. Kelly stated that he felt this would be a very reasonable approach. He stated that the Board will
then need to think about when the additional meetings will take place.
Mr. Grande asked Mr. Kelly if the Economic Development element is a new section of the
Comprehensive Plan and if this should be heard alone.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board has decided three elements will be heard at the regular
meeting in February, although we have not decided which three. The Board needs to decide if the
first Thursday is suitable for everyone for an additional meeting. Chairman Wesloski asked if there
33
were any objections.
Mr. Lounds stated that he would not be able to attend on the first Thursday.
Chairman Wesloski stated that March 4th would be the first Thursday.
Mr. Merritt suggested the second Thursday.
Chairman Wesloski asked the Board members if the second Thursday would be better for everyone.
Mr. Matthes stated that any Thursday is good.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board will meet on the second Thursday of the following month.
The Board will hear three elements in February. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if there are
any three that need priority.
Mr. Kelly .stated that Mr. Grande has requested Economic Development.
Mr. Grande stated that Economic Development is not a priority, however because it is a new element
it may take more time and perhaps it should be heard alone.
Mr. Kelly stated that Ms. Shewchuk, the Economic Development Director, wrote the Economic
Develop:ment element and she does not seem to think that it would require to be heard alone.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the Board will hear Future Land Use, Coastal Management and
Conservation at the regular February meeting.
Ms. Dreyer asked Chairman Wesloski if the Board will then try to hear another two or three elements
the following week.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the next meeting will be March 1 lth and March 18th. Chairman
Wesloski stated that she would like to hear at least one at the March 18th meeting.
Mr. Kelly stated that he would like to do more than one, we need to move this along.
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would recommend that the Board hear the next three elements
at the March 11 th meeting.
Mr. Kelly stated that Future Land Use, Coastal Management and Conservation are the three toughest
elements. Some of the other elements like Recreation they don't take as long and therefore we may
be able to group them up and go a little faster.
Chairman Wesloski stated that for now the Board will not assign additional elements to any specific
meeting date.
34
Chairman Wesloski asked staff about the annual report.
Mr. Kelly stated that it will be available.next month.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any other business.
Mr. Trias stated that he would like to announce that Thursday, February 18th, the City of Fort Pierce,
the citY. of Port St. Lucie and the County are organizing a Smart Growth Conference to be held at
the Port St. Lucie Community Center with very notable speakers. He would like to encourage
everyone to attend.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Trias what time.
Mr. Trias stated 8:00 a.m. to 5'00 p.m. and he will mail an agenda to all Board Members.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9'39 p.m.
The Board agreed on the following schedule:
February 18, 1999:
Regular Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning
Agency Meeting
March 11, 1999'
Special Meeting of the Local Planning Agency to hear
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
March 18, 1999'
Regular Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning
Agency Meeting
Subsequent the meeting of February 18th was moved to February 25th.
35
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DE VEL OPMENT
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DA TE:
Planning and Zoning Commission
David Kelly, Planning Manager~[/
February 19, 1999
UBJECT: Draft Planning and.'Zoning Commission Annual Report - 1998
During the 1998 calendar year, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard 24 petitions. The
petitions.are listed by Name-with Planning and Zoning and Board of County' Commissioners results
on the attached list.
R ezonin gs 14
Conditional Use Permits 5
Ordinances 4
Plan Amendments 1
TOTAL 24
In 21 instances, the Board of County Commissioners agreed with the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning 'Commission; .1 petition .Was approved by .the Planning"and Zoning
Commission and subsequently .withdrawn; 2 petitions were denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and subsequently withdrawn. _
_
The high rate of apprOvals (92%) this year has, in the past'raised questions about the Planning and
Zoning Commission and CountY~Commission approving everypetition which comes forward. Staff
discusses many petitions with potential applicants and is often successful in discouraging the
majority of those which cannot or in the opinion of staff shoUld not be approved
I wouM 'be happy to address any questions or concerns you may have at your February 25th
meeting.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS_SION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
PETITIONS HEARD- 1998
RZ-98-001 Carter's :Grocery, Inc.
From the AG-I (AgricUltural - 1 du/acre)and the
-CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts
to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District.
RZ'98-003
Harbor Branch .Oceanographic Institution
From the R/C (Residential/Conservation), AR-1
(Agricultural, Residential- 1 du/acre), RS-2
(Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre), RM-5
(Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre), CG
(Commercial, General), IL (Industrial, Light), IH
(Industrial, Heavy), and PMUD (Planned Mixed-Use
Development- Harbor Branch) Zoriing Districts to
the PMUD (Planned Mixed,Use Development-
Harbor Branch) Zoning District.
RZ-98-005
James and-Genny:JaCksOn and
Rh°nda COOper.
From the PNRD (Planned Non-ReSidential
DeveloPment- Connie's Kountry Junction) Zoning
District.to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning
District.
CU-98-001
AeroCommunieation,Systems, Inc.
To allow a450 foot'radio/communications tower in
the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family- 3 alu/acre)
Zoning District.
CU-98~002
@Reserve - '
lage @ Reserve
Construct a 110,Unit Hotel
CU-98.003
Construct a.n 80-Unit Hotel
Reserve
RZ,98-006
'CU-98-004
CU-98-005
RZ-98-007
ORD-98-006
The:ProfesSional Fire.Fighters and
Paramedics of St:.:LUeie County
The.Professional Fire Fighters and ..
Paramedics of St. Lueie County
Riverview Oil Compa'ny -
International Alzheimers Foundation
.Trust
St. Lucie County. Board of County
Commissioners
~From the RS.3 (Residential, ~Single-Family- 3
alu/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional)
Zoning District.
TO Allow a Membership Organization in the. I
(Institutional) Zoning District.
To allow a self-storage facility for household goods
in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District.
.
From the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential. 1
du/aere) Zoning District to the I (Institutional)
Zoning District.
Vessel Control and Water Safety Ordinance.
RZ-98-009
James and Genny Jackson and
Rhonda Cooper
From the PNRD (Planned Non-Residential -
Connie's Kountry Junction) Zoning District to the
CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District.
04/16/98
Approval
01/15/98
Approval
02/19/98
Denied
03/19/98
Approval
06/18/98
Approval
03/19/98
Approval
03/19./98
ApProval
03/19/98
Approval
..
03/19/98
_
Approval
04/16/98
Approval
04/16/98
05/21/98
Approval
05/21/98
Approval
05/19/98
Approved
02/03/98
Approved
03/17/98
Withdrawn
04/21/98
Approved
Withdrawn
04/21/98
Approved
04/21/98
Approved
04/21/98
Approved
· .
04/21/98
Approved
05/19/98
Approved
06/02/98
07/21/98
Approved
07/21/98
Approved
.RZ,98-010 ApoStle Faith : ChUrCh of DeliVerance From the RS-4 (Residential,'Single-Family, 4 06/18/98 07/21/98
.... ' : du/aere) Zoning District to the l'(lnstitutional) Approval Approved
i Zoning District
RZ~98-01 I' Martin Naftal' From the AR- 1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 06/18/98 07/21/98
alu/acre) Zoning District tothe CN (Commercial, Approval Approved
· Neighborhood) Zoning DiStrict
PA;98-001 Paradise .Palms ' i i Change'in the Future Land Use designation from 07/16/98 08/18/98
' RS. preferred Residential (Residential Suburban) to Denial Denied
. · RS (Residential Suburban)
-98-008 Paradise Palms From the AG-1 (Agricultural- 1 du/acre) Zoning 07/16/98 08/18/98
· ' District to the I (Institutional) Zomng D~stnct
. ' ' i ' ' · Denial Withdrawn
RZ'98'012 J&J Baker Enterprises, Inc. From the IH (IndUstrial, Heavy) Zoning District to '07/16/98 08/18/98 '
. the U (Utilities) Zoning D~strict
. . ~ ~ · ' "' ' APproval Approved
RZ-98-013 ' Joe and Arbell Miles and From the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family. 4 ' 08/20/98 09/15/98
James and.Connie Childs : du/acre) Zoning District to the cN (Commercial,
, ' ' Neighborhood) Zoning District. APproval Approved
oRD-98-019 St. Lucie County Board of County Amend various Sections of Chapter 13 of.the St. 08/20/98 09/15/98
Commissioners Lucie CoUnty Land Development Code, Building Approval 10/06/98
Codes and Standards. Approved
ORD-98-020 St. Lucie COunty Board of COunty 'Amend Section 6.06.01(B)(11), of the St. Lucie 08/20/98 09/15/98
Commissioners .County Land Development Code, ~Mining, Approval 10/06/98
Restrictions, Regulations and.Conditions on a : Approved
mining.permit to provide for the ability to mitigate
wetlands as a part of a mining operation.
RZ-98-015 ' Riverview Baptist Church - .From the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family, 3 1.0/15/98 12/15/98
alu/acre) to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning Approval Approved
District. '
ORD,99-00I :. St; LucieCoUnty Board of COunty General amendments to the St. Lucie County Land 10/!5/98 02/02/99
'Commissioners DeVelopment Code. .Approval Approved
RZ'98,O16 · St. Lucie County:Board of CoUnty From the I (Institutional) Zoning District to the U 11/19/98 12/.15/98
:COmmissioners '(Utilities) Zoning District. Approval Approved
RZ-99-001 Ernest Bodine From the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family- 5 12/16/98 ' 01/19/99
du/acre) Zoning.District to the AR-1 (AgriCultural, Approval Approved
' Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District.
H:\WP\WP~P&ZkANNUAL3 .RPT
PLYING ~'ZONING CO~ISSION REVIEW: 02/25/99
File Number RZ'99-004
M E: M O R A N D UM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Plying and Zoning Commission
Planning Manager ~~~~
February 18, 1999
SUBJECT:
Application of Father Michael Sajda for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3
(Residential, ~Single-Family- 3 du/acre) Zomg District to the, I (Institutional)
Zoning District.
North side of Delaware.Avenue, approximately 500 feet east-
of Hartman Road.
E~STING ZONING: ·
RS,3 (Residential, Single-Family- 3 du/acre)
PROPOSED ZO :
.. I (Institutional)
FUTURE LAND USE:
RU (Residential Urban)
PARCEL SIZE.:
3.67 acres
PROPOSED 'USE:
Ballfields for an Existing School
SURROUNDING ZONING:
To the north, south,' east, .and 'west the zoning is RS-3
(Residential, Single-F~ly - 3 du/acre). To the northeast is
CG (Commercial, General) Zo~g. To the east is I
· (Institutional) Zoning.
SURROUNDING L~D USES:.
General existing ,use of surrounding property is residential
and institutional.
COM (Commercial) Future Land Use to the northeast. RU
(Residential Urban) Future Land Use to the north, south, east,
and west.
FI~~MS PROTECTION:
Station #1 (2400 Rhode Island Avenue)
approximately 2.5 miles to the: southeast.
is located
Febma .ry'25, 1999
Page 2
Petition: Father Michael Sadja
File No: RZ-99-004
UTILITY SERVICE:
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
RIGHT-OF-WAY
~EQUACY:
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS:
TYPE OF 'CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT ~QUIRED:
The site is in the is in the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority
(FPUA) water and wastewater service area.
The. existing fight-of, way width for Delaware Avenue is 60
feet.
None at this time.
Concurrency Deferral 'Affidavit
STAND~S OF :~VIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03,
ST. LUCiE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
ln'reviewing:.t~s application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall consider and make the: fOllOwing determinations: .. .- _ .
1[.
Whether ~tlie proposed rezoning is in conflict wRh any' applicable portions-of the'
St. Lucie CoUnty Land Development Code;
The proposed change in zoffing is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie
Count3~, 'Comprehensive Plan. The request is compatible with the RU (Residential
Urban) Future Land Use classification, which allOws I (InStimtional).Zoning.
_
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St.
Lucie County Comprehensive Plan;' .
®
The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code and specifically has met the standards of Section 11.06.03.
Whether~and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the
eXiSting and proposed land Uses;
The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing land uses. These land uses
include an-eXisting school and single-family homes.
February 25, 1999
Page 3
Petition: Father Michael Sadja
File No: RZ-99-004
e
5~
e
o
8~
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
.city of such public facilities, inclUding but not
ansportation fa , sewage facilities, water s parks,
drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medl
The intended use for this rezoning, is not expected to create significant additional
demands on' any public facilities in this .area. Any development will need to
demonstrate that there .are adequate public facilities in. the area to support such
development.
:'Whether and.-the extent to which the 'proposed-amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;.
The proposed'rezo~ng is not ~anticipated to create 'adverse impacts on the natural.
.environment. Any dewelopment will need to comply with-local, state, and federal
env al regulations.
Whether and the extent to which the -proposed . amendment would result in an
orderly and lo,cai develOpment pattern specifically identifying any negative
affects of such patterns;
An orderly and lOgical development pattern will occur with this change in zoning.'
The surrounding properties are generally used for residential, commercial, and
religious purposes, which are compatible with the proposed use. '.
Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Cod: e',
The proposed amendmem would not be in conflict with the public interest and is in
harmony ~with the purpose and intent of the St.. Lucie County Land-Development
Code.
February 25, 1999
Page 4
Petition: Father Michael Sadja
File No: RZ-99-004
COMMENTS
The petitioner, Father Michael Sajda, has requested 'this change in zoning from the RS-3
(Residemial, single,Family - 3 du/acre):Zoning District to the I (Institutional) ZOning District on
acres Of On the north side: of Delaware Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of
Del:aware in order to establish ballfields ~on.the ~:subject property for an existing school.
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms With the standards of review
as set forth in Section 11.06.03 Of'the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in
conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County-COmprehensive Plan. staff
is recommending that' you .forward ~this petition to the Board of County Co~issioners with a
recommendation, of approval. '
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.
A~achments
hf
cc: Father Michael Sadja
File
Suggested motion to.reco~end :approvaYdenial of this requested change in zoning.
_
MOTION TO APPROVE:.
AFTER. CONS~ER1NG THE TESTIMONY P~SENTED DURING THE P~LIC HEARING,
~CLUDING ST~F CO~ENTS, AND T~.STAND~S OF RE~W AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11,06.03, ~ST, LUC1E CO~Y LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE
THAT THE PLANNING ~ ZONING CO~SSION ~CO~END THAT THE ST. LUCIE'
CO~TY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT ~PROVAL TO THE
APPLICATION OF FATHER ~CH~L SAJDA FOR A cHANGE .IN ZONING'FROM THE
RS-3 (RESIDENTIAL, S~GLE'F~ILY- 3 DU/ACRE) ZO~G DISTRICT TO THE I
(~STITUTIONAL)' ZONING DISTRICT.
BECAUSE ...
[CITE ~REASON WHY.- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC].
MOTION. TO' DENY.:
~TER CONS~ TEST~ONY P~SENTED DURING THE. P~LIC HEARING, ' '
~C INGS F C S, ~T~ ST~ARDS OF RE~ ~VIEW AS SET. FOR~~
SECTION 11.06'03, ST. LUC~ C 'L ~AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE '
THAT T~ PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION RECO~ND THAT THE ST. LUCIE
..
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTy COMI~SSI~NERS DENY THE ~PLICATIO~I OF FAT~R
MICHAEL SAJDA FOR A C~GE ~ ZONING FROM THE RS-3 (RESIDENTIAL,; SINGLE-
FAMILY- 3 DU/ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE i (INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING.
BECAUSE ...
[CITE ~ASON WHY- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC].
S ~,£
S S£
S 9£ ~
~[NNO0 33BOH033~IO
ZO'ninO
F-ather Michael Sajda
Orange Ave
CG ~
City of
Ft. Pierce
OeerwOOd
Ave
onedo
RZ
99-004-
'~(~~~~.~/ Co mm u n ,ty D eve lo pm ent
'q' Geographic Information: Systems
¢ '.,
Map revised January 25,1999
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e~ a~ ~te
N
Land Use
COM
RU
Father Michael Sajda
Orange
RH
Ave
COl
City: of
Ft. Pierce
Ln
RU
i
~ I
i
,I
RZ
Community Development
Geographic InfOrmation Systems
Map revised January 25,1999 j
I~T
AGENDA -PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION
THURSDA Y, FEBR UAR Y 25, 1999
7:.00 P.M.
Father Michael Sajda (Robert W. Lynch, Agent), has petitioned St. Lucie County for a
Change in Zoning from~ the RS,3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I
(InstitutionaO Zoning District for the following described property:
(Location:'
North side 'of Delaware Avenue,. approximately 500 feet East of
Hartman Road)
Please note that aH proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically
recorded' Ifa person decides .w appeal any decision made by .the Local Planning Agency
respect to any matter considered .at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the
procee and that, for :such purposes, he may~ need to ensure that a verbatim record of the.
proceedings, is made, which record includes the testimony, and evidence upon Which &e.appeal is -
to be based. ' Upon the request of any party W the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing
will be sworn, in. Any party to the proceedtng Will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any.
individual testifying'during a :hearing upon request... Written comments received in advance of the
public hearing will also be considered
.o
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to'all adjacent property owners.
Februa~ 12, 1999. Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie :News and The Tribune, ·
newspapers Of general circulation in St. Lucie'County, on February 12, 1999. . ..
File No. RZ-99-004
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 25,. 1999
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE is hereby given in
accordance with Section 11.00.03
FATHER 'MICHAEL
8, Township. 35
(Lckation: NOrth side .Of Delaware
Avenue, approximately 500' feet
East of Ha~tman ,Road) '~
·
·
A PUBLIC
held in Room 10
Administration
' ginia Avenue,
on February 25, 1999,
at 7.-00 .P.M. or as So~n thereafter
as possible. .' ' i ·
· PURSUANT TO Section
284.0105, Florida statutes,' it:' a
person decicl'.e~ io ap~l-anYdeci-i
sion made.by al '
commission With
he
that a verbatim
ceedings is
includes, the
denoe i~pon which
be based. '-
PLANNING AND zONING
coMMIsSION
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/S/DIANA WESLOSKI,
,-"- .. '. CHAIi~MAN
'Pub.: Feb. 12~ 1999
.
,
~. ~T.'. JCIE COUNIY PLANNING AND ZONING .coMM~
~ .' PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
,~ FEBRUARY'25, 1999 . .:.
~O WHOM ff MAY CONCERN: , - ....
! is hereby given .in accordance Wllh
·
(Robert W,'Lynch,~ Agent),' ior a
zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single,Family-.3
(Institutional) zoning DistriCt for
._
· ..
will be held in Room 101, St,
' t0' .,Virginia .Avenue,
beginning at 7:00"R
...
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
To.'
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Planning ,Manager
Date:
January 21, 1999
Subject':
ComprehensiVe Plan Review
Attached are 'draft Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPS) for .the Future
Land Use, Coastal Management, Conservation, Transportation, Recreation,
Housing, Economic Development and Interg0vemmental Coordination elements
of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan).
These GOPS-are :based on revisions to the existing Plato They have been
modified to .be consistent with the approved Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR). Other mOdifications.are included as necessary for conditions that have
~since~ adoption ofthe currem Plan. These modifications are-indicated by
generally bered :c°nsistently with the current Plan renumbering will be.
required prior .to submission.
The draft GOPS also contain suggestions for changes which have:come
from the St. Lucie ~County Comprehensive Plan Study Group., a volunteer
organization of citizens formed to consider.the Plan. These proposed changes are
indicated by italics. In most cases, staff has proVided a comment based on the
recommendation. Also attached for reference are copies of the documents
provided by the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Study Group. It is staff s
intent to place ail of:these issues before the Planning and Zoning Commission for
discussion purposes. Not all of the suggestions are easily placed in a specific
portion of the plan' but all need to be considered.
The draft .GOPS are currently being checked for consistency with the
January 2 I, 1999
page 2
Comprehensive Plan Update
requiremems of Chapter 9J-5, the state rules for Comprehensive Plans. The
proposed GOPS are-generally consistent, additional GOPS may need to be added
for consistency.
' GOPS fOr the Capital Improvements and Infrastructure Elements are not yet
complete. They will be provided, as they are compl.eted.
Each Plan Element is also required to have supporting data and analysis.
These areas-are still being updated and will also be provided as finiShed. As with
the current Plan, staff Will recommend that only the GOPS be adopted as a part of
the Plan.
These GOPS are Provided so that you may begin to review the direction
staff has taken 'up ~to this point. There is still much work to be done. At our regular
meeting of,this ~evening, staff will ask for your input on meeting dates and times
for. review of the Plan..
For your info~ation only, the St, Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Study
Group has requested .that staff conduct an additional workshop' to explain
Comprehensive Planning .in general and prOvide an update on the County's plan in
an effOrt to. generate additional public input. Staff has agreed to this request.
cc: St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Study Group
GOAL
ENSURE THE HIGHEST QUALITY LIVING
ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE, THR 0 UGH A
MIXTURE OF LAND USES REFLECTING THE
NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE LOCAL
RESIDENTS AND HO W THEY WANT THEIR
COMMUNITY TO DE VEL OP. THE GOAL SHALL BE
IMPLEMENTED B Y S TRiCTL Y ENFOR CED
B UIL ZONING AND DE VEL OPMENT CODES
BA ON OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT
}FILL ENHANCE ST. L UCIE CO UNTY 'S NATURAL
MAN-MADE RES O UR CES WHILE
MINIMIZING ANY DAMA GE OR THREAT OF
DEGRADATION TO THE HEAL TH, SAFETY, AND
WELFARE OF THE COUNTY'S CITIZENS,
WIL AND ENVIR ONMEN~ THR 0 UGH
INCOMPATIBLE. LAND USES.
FUTURE LAND USE
GOALS, OB~CTIVES, AND POLICIES
The following ComprehensiVe Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies are modifications of the
portions of the Element as adopted in 1990. The numbering system 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. °
o~,~,~ ~,,,,~,~,, ,,,.~,,~, is recommended for
deletion.
Material indicated by italics has been recommended by a member of the public. These
recommendations are included verbatim. Each will be notated with its source and staff
comments.
GOAL 1.1
ENSURE A HIGH QUALITY LIVING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH A
MIXTURE OF LAND USES THAT WILL ENHANCE ST. LUCIE
COUNTY'S NATURAL AND MAN- MADE RESOURCES WHILE
MINIMIZING ANY THREAT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
WELFARE OF THE COUNTY'S CITIZENS THROUGH
INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION.
GOAL 1.1
ENSURE THE HIGHEST QUALITY LIVING ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE,
THR O UGH A MIXTURE OF LAND USES REFLECTING THE NEEDS
AND DESIRES OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS AND HO W THEY WANT
THEIR COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP. THE GOAL SHALL BE
IMPLEMENTED B Y $ TRICTL Y ENFOR CED BUILDING, ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT CODES BASED ON OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT
WILL ENHANCE ST. L UCIE COUNTY'S NATURAL AND MAN-MADE
RESO UR CES WHILE MINIMIZING ANY DAMA GE OR THREAT OF
DEGRADATION TO THE HEAL TH', SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE
CO UNTY'S CITIZENS, WILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENT, THR O UGH
INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES.
Objective
Objective
Require approval of a super majority of a Board of County
Commissioners for any change in land use designation.
Require that any applicant desiring to change a permitted land use, be
required to apply f or~ a PUD (Planned Unit Development) classification
rather than simply a land USe, conditional use, and/or zoning change.
PUD approval will require the activity to be implemented within two
years ~of approval date or the PUD permit will expire.
January 14, 1999
FUTURE LAND USE
Objective
Administrative waivers shall be limited to ~a maximum of no more than
10% of the code requirements. Any requested waiver of more than 10%
must be approved by a super majority of the Board of Adjustment.
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
We want cOde enforcement to be mandated to be proactive. Lack of
meaningful code enforcement has caused a serious deterioration of
property values. The department should become self sustaining through
the implementation and collection of realistic fines for violations. We
feel thatproper implementation will geatly enhance our community.
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Downsize density in multi-family acreages along Oleander and Sunrise
south of Edwards where multi-family density would overcrowd those
limited access roads.
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
OBJECTIVE 1.1.1: ~'- '~--"~---
t, ~u~,,,~ ~l, the Future Land Use Map land with the
use designations SUlffi¢ieiit to portray the future
development patterns of St. Lucie County.
Policy 1.1.1.1'
The following land use designations/intensities, as indicated on the Future
Land Use Maps are provided as the pattern for the future development of
the area within unincorporated St. Lucie County.
Land Use Category.
Residential Density/
Max. Lot Cov. by Structure
AG-5
AG-2.5
RS
RU
January 14, 1999
Agriculture- 5
Agriculture- 2.5
Residential Estate
Residential Suburban
Residential Urban
1 du/5 acres
(.2 du/1 acre)
1 du/2.5 acres
1 du/1 acre
2 du/1 acre
5 du/1 acre
FUTURE LAND USE
RM ReSidential Medium 9 du/1 acre
RH Residemial High 15 du/1 acre
R/C Residential/Conservation 1 du/5 acres
· - (.2 du/1 acre)
Cpub Conservation - Public 0 du/5 -10%~ 4
COM Commercial 0 du/40-50%~ 4
IND Industrial 0 du/40-50%~ 4
P/F PUblic Facilities 0 du/40-50%14
T/U Transportation/Utilities 0 du/40-50%~ 4
MXD Mixed Use Development .2-15 du/acre23
40%- 50% 4
H Historic 0 du/40-50%~ 4
SD Special District .2-15 du/acre23
40%- 50% 4
l.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
Residential uses permitted only as accessory to primary permitted use. Refer to Zoning/Land Development
Regulations for special restrictions.
Maximum Densities subject to compliance with intensity plans for each mixed use area, as set forth in Policy
1.1.6.4.
Special restrictions apply. Refer to Policy 1.1.6.5.
For specific non-residential land use intensities, refer to zoning/land development regulations.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.2: Provide in the land development regulations provisions for a
compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes
agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban service'boundary
and promote retention of agricultural activities, preserve natural
resources and maintain native vegetative habitats.
Policy 1.1.2.1'
Require that new developmems Within agricultural land uses not exceed the
gross densities provided in Policy 1.1.1.1; however, for developments in
excess of four units require approval through the PUD process and include
provisiOns in the land development regulations requiring clustering of such
January 14, 1999
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1.2.2:
Policy 1.1.2.3:
Policy 1.1.2.4:
developments.
All furore non-agricultural development within the agricultural land use
categories will be required to preserve open space (defined as agricultural
activities such as groves and range land as well a preservation of natural
areas) according to the following criteria:
ae
developments in excess of 20 units must retain a minimum of
80% of the project site as open space;
be
developments in excess of four units up to 20 units must retain a
minimum of 50% of the project site as open space; and,
developments of four dwelling units or less are not required to
retain open space except as may be otherwise required in the land
development regulations or elsewhere in this Plan; provided that
this paragraph shall not be applied to avoid the remainder of this
policy through further subdiVision of land parcels as existed as to
record on January 9, 1990.
Provide the means to manage growth within the agricultural land use
categories through the orderly delivery of services concurrent with the
impacts of development. It is anticipated that over time portions of the
agricultural land use categories will be converted to urban uses as services
are provided. However, the physical extension of County provided central
sewer and water shall only occur within areas which are in or have been
converted to urban uses.
The County shall include in its land development regUlations a site
assessment process to evaluate the potential conversion of existing or
designated agricultural land uses to non-agricultural land uses in a rational
and orderly manner. Such p~ovision shall require as a condition to such
conversion that the Board of County Commissioners affirmatively-find that
the proposed non-agricultural use:
a. is compatible with adjacent land uses;
b, maintains the viability of continued agricultural uses on
adjacent lands;
c. comains soils suitable for urban use as defined by the St.
Lucie County soil survey;
January 14, 1999
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1.2'5:
d. is suitable with existing site-specific land characteristics;
e. is consistent with comprehensive development plans;
f. will have available the necessary infrastructure concurrent
with the anticipated demands for development; and,
g. Will avoid the extension of the urban services boundary to
create any enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine
patterns.
Provide adequate buffering and/or setbacks between agriculture and non-
agricultural uses to ~protect such agricultural uses from adverse impacts
associated With encroachment of non-agricultural development or creation
of nuisances by agricultural operations.
Development Regulations .which support the implementation of the
Future Land Use Element, and the other components of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 1.1.3.1
Adopt and/or amend existing land development regulations to ensure that
they contain the specific and detailed provisions necessary to implement
the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and which as a minimum include the
following:
ae
Regulate the subdivision of land;
b,
Regulate the use of land and water consistent with all
elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, to
ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses and provide
for adequate open space;
C,
Protect those areas designated for conservation purposes or
that contain other special environmental habitat as
identified in the Future Land Use and other elements of the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan;
do
Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding
and provide for drainage and stormwater management;
e,
Protect potable water wellfields and aquifer recharge areas;
January 14, 1999
FUTURE LAND USE
Regulate signage;
g,
Provide minimum landscaping standards for all
development-that encourages the use and protection of
native and drought tolerant species in lieu of exotic and
water consumptive plants;
h.
Ensure safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and vehicle
parking needs;
Provide that development orders and development permits
shall not be issued which result in a reduction of the levels
of service for the affected public facilities below the level
of service standards adopted in this and other elements of
the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; and
jo
Provide for procedures and time schedules for acceptance
of amendments to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
163.3187, FS.
OB~CTIVE 1.1.4 Require through the Cou.nty's Land Development Regulations, specific
performance criteria (ie; landscaping and use separation standards;
· -t~-~), that all new development be compatible with surrounding
land uses, both existing and future as represented in this Element.
Policy 1.1.4.1
Encourage the location of urban land use intensities; tl~-ough hh¢
~~,~,.~.~ .~~.~.~ to those ~eas that lie within the defined
urb~ semite bound~ before encouraging/suppoaing the conversion of
prope~ in the agricultural and suburb~ areas to higher intensiW urban
uses, but still keeping all development authorizations in line with the
adopted levels of se~ice within this pl~.
Policy 1.1.4.2
Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner which
does not place an unanticipated economic burden upon the services and
facilities of St. Lucie County.
Policy 1.1.4.3
Encourage the use of cluster housing and Planned
unit development techniques to conserve open space and environmentally
· ' gh th '- ............ ' .... ""-- ~'-" .... '---' ..... ~-- unty's
sensitive areas, throu e lxx~UXl.,Uxa.uxx ux ux~-xux, u~v.xg .x[u txt~ Co
Land Development Regulations :~
a,
rT~I ......1_1'_1 ......... _o qui
~r ~ ~ ~ ~"O~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ minimum acreage re rements
January 14, 1999
FUTURE LAND USE
necessary to support a viable mixed use community
providing sufficient design flexibility to allow innovation
and creativity in all forms of planned unit developments;
Dennis?
b,
~"~-~ ,.~ cstablishnicnt of minimum open space ratios of 30% or
greater in all planned unit developments including within
the PUD documents assurances on the part of the
developer that such areas will remain as open space to
protect existing native habitat, to provide for minimum
setback needs from adjacent uses, and to provide active and
passive recreational as well as visual amenities.
C,
The~[,o,~,..,~.['-"-'--- .... ,,.~' minimum open space standards;
do
~" ...... '-'=-' ........ '" i i i g the long
· .~ ~[ao.,,,~.,~t,r ,,, prov sons ensur n term
preservation of remaining open spaces;
e,
,l~ ~[.o,,~,-,,~,,[ ,- a mixed use district combining
residential, commercial, recreational, educational, and other
income producing uses providing significant functional and
physical integration among uses;
· ..~ ~.~,,~,,,,.~.,[ ,~. minimum standards for the provision
of on-site shopping, job opportunities and internal trip
capture; and,
Policy 1.1.4.4
g,
~"- ...... ~"-' ......."pecifi quir p id
x x,~ ,~ta~,~x~x.x~x.~ ,,~ sc re ements to rov e
efficient, centralized infrastructure (potable water and
sanitary sewer). Include specific restrictions on the use of
septic tanks, individual wells, and package plants in
planned unit developments.
1 ~, ~,~,~ .,., .,~ ,.,~,,.~,.[,,~,, of gross residential density on lands
that lie 'above the mean high water elevation and provide.~- TM`~,*,~'']- for the
ability to transfer/cluster of residential density from wetland and other
sensitive or unique environmental habitats to upland areas on contiguous
property.
OBJECTIVE 1,1.5 In coordination wi~h the other elements of this plan, future
development within the Planned Urban serVice Area shall be directed'
to areas where urban and community services/facilities can be
provided in the most efficient and compact manner so as to discourage
the proliferation of urban sprawl.
January 14, 1999
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1,5.1
Urban development activities shall be restricted to that area identified as
the Planned Urban Service Area (Fig. 1-9). Urban development activities
are defined, for the purpose of this Policy, as any residential development
activity in excess of two units to the gross acre, any non-agricultural
commercial activity or any non-extractive/non-agriculturally related
industrial activity..
Dennis - amend now or after update of Water and Wastewater Master Plan?
Policy 1.1.5.2
Until amendment of this Plan to incorporate the water and wastewater
master plan as provided in Policy 1.1.5.4, the County shall establish a water
and wastewater utility extension policy and develop roles and regulations
which provide that within the Planned Urban Service Area, such public
facilities' shall be extended so that growth occurs in an efficient and rational
manner progressing outward from existing urban development. In
accordance with PolicY 1.1,11.3, the County will pe~it only those
proposed locations of such facilities which maximize the efficiency and
minimize the cost of services provided by making such services available
according to the following priority:
a.
provide service to existing residential urban developments
(those areas having a density in excess of two (2) dwelling
units per acre), or to existing non-residential urban
developments, not presently having service;
be
provide service to new developments immediately
contiguous to or within one-fourth mile of existing non
residential urban development or residential urban
development (those areas having a density in excess of two
(2) dwelling units per acre);
Policy 1.1.5.3
Where regional water and wastewater utility service is not extended the
County shall allow for non-residential development, or residential.
development in excess of two (2) dwelling units per acre as per Policy
1.1.5.10, where the following factors are met:
a) the development bears the entire fiscal impact of providing its
own water and wastewater system; and,
b) the developer agrees to connect to a regional Water and
wastewater system when such system becomes available to the
site with none of the cost for connecting to the regional system
January 14,: 1999
FUTURE LAND USE
figure 1-9
Policy 1.1.5.4
Policy 1.1.5.5
Policy 1.1.5.6
Policy 1.1.5.7
Policy 1.1.5.8
passed on to the regional system.
urban service area
The County shall complete a potable water and wastewater master plan to
delineate Policy 1..1.5.2 and Policy 1.1.5.3 on or before December, 1991
and shall thereupon amend this Plan to incorporate such master plan.
The County shall not at public expense construct any new roadways
which will extend public facilities to areas not presently served within the
Urban Services Area unless such areas are immediately contiguous to
existing non-residential or residential urban developments (those areas
having density in excess of two (2) dwelling units per acre) or which have
been identified by the Metropolitan Planning Organization as part of its
area roadWay network to meet areawide transportation needs.
No urban development activity shall be permitted outside of the Planned
Urban Service Area that does not address all of its community
infrastructure impacts, both on-site and off-site. All development outside
the Urban Service Area shall pay the entire cost of its fiscal impacts on
public f~icilities and services.
The Planned .Urban Service Area is not intended to be a static line of
development. This area may be extended or contracted only for a
residemial classification up to 1,500 feet from that which is indicated on
Figure 1-9 without necessitating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
where the urban service area lies contiguous to a residential classification,
the owner of contiguous property can ensure, the provision of appropriate
infrastructure and services, and the resulting change does not detrimentally
impact the established character of the area. St. Lucie County shall be
responsible to maintain an updated map indicating the location of the
approved Planned Urban Service Boundary and once every two years
include as a part of its .Comprehensive Plan ~endment process, the latest
Urban Service Area Map.
Any extension of the Planned Urban Service Area Boundary beyond 1,500
feet, will require a formal amendment through the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process.
In conjunction with Policy 1.1.5.9, new industrial development shall be
located in those areas that are serviced with acceptable water and
wastewater facilities that will not contribute to the degradation of surficial
January 14, 1999~
.
FUTURE LAND USE
·
Policy 1.1.5.9
Policy 1.1.5.10
Policy 1.1.5.11
Policy 1.1.5.12
Policy 1.1.5.13
water quality, or in areas that can be provided those services concurrent
with the development of the property.
The.use of individual on-site septic disposal systems for industrial
deVelopment activities shall be in accordance with all applicable state and
local regulations,, including but.not limited to Rule 10D-6, FAC., and St.
Lucie Environmental Control .Ordinance 89-02 (wastewater and sewage
disposal regulatiOns).
As provided for under Policy 1.1.5.1, construction of new residential
development at densities greater than two units per acre shall only be
permitted when central or on-site water and central or on-site wastewater
systems are available or will be provided concurrent with the impacts of
development, consistent with the adopted levels of service found in the
plan.
Existing development will be required to connect to central water and
sewer systems when such facilities are made available in accordance with
applicable Rules and Regulations, e.g,; Rule 10D-6, FAC.
All new subdivision and site plan development projects that are proposed
to take place within the approved service area of any duly authorized
water/wastewater utility in St. Lucie County, shall be required to provide a
"du-line" central water and wastewater distribution/collection system, and
provide for the connection to Centralized systems as they become available.
The standards for construction of these systems shall be included as a part
of the County's Land Development Regulations.
Local utility services (i.e., electric substations, wastewater lift stations,
telecommunication sites and other small scale utility service operations)
necessary to provide for the utility service needs of the neighborhood area,
may be approved without the need to amend the Future Land Use Element
so long as the property on Which the activity is to take place is less than
five (5) acres in total area. Zoning compliance and review procedures are
to be as described in the County's Land Development Regulations.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.6 St, Lucie County shah require, through the County's Land
Development~Regulations, the protection of historically significant
structures, facilities and locations within the unincorporated areas of
the County, as identified by the State of Florida or the Federal
Register of Historic Places.
January 14, 1999
10
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1.6.1
Policy 1.1.6.2
Policy 1.1.6.3
Policy 1.1.6.4
St. Lucie County shall continue, with the assistance of the State of Florida
and'the St. Lucie County Historical COmmission, to identify significant
~storic :resources Within the unincorporated areas which are in need of
protection and develop management and restoration plans as appropriate.
Historic resources shall be protected through designation as historic sites by
the State or the County.
St. Lucie County shall include within its Land Development Regulations
specific actions as prescribed by the Division of Historic Resources of the
Florida Department of State, that are to be followed in the event hiStorically
significant facilities are discovered through or threatened by the land
development process.
Adaptive reuse of historic structures shall be given priority over activities
that would harm or otherwise destroy the historic value of such resources.
Policy 1.1.6.5
..,,.. IT_'_x__:_ Ta ......... z : _ t"N '._ .J !
Policy 1.1.6.6
St. Lucie County shall ---': ........ '
--"-"- "-- '*' ......... '-' .... '"--' .... ' ~" ..... -'---" ...... -" ' '~- i ntory
mapping of all archaeological and historical resources within the County;
b_. I .......a.. I ('t/'~,"t
y .'-~U~U:,L, -vv~.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.7 Future development and redevelopment activities shall be directed to
those areas depicted with urban land use designations on the Future
Land Use Map and are to be consistent with sound planning principles
contained in the goals, objectives, and policies of this plan.
January 14; 1999
11
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1,7'3
Policy 1.1.7.4
Policy 1.1.7.5
.
.
.
(~D) zomng des~gnm~on w,--[-,,~ both reSidential ~d
non'residential development within a single plied developmem.~
~~ ~/O. l~l~iltl~t 111 tll~ ~Yl1~ ~ ~tlYl~ ~1~,
Mixed Use activity areas shall be developed as
indicated in the following sub-area Mixed Use activity areas plans as
depicted in Figure 1-10a thru 1-10j.
The following use intensity definitions shall be used for the purpose of this
Plan for the Mixed Use activity areas:
High Intensity developmem areas may include the following types of land
·
uses,
Residential
Institutional
Professional Service/Office
General Commercial
Public Service~tility
Industrial
5 to 15 du/acres
1.5 FAR *
1.5 FAR *
1.0 FAR *
.5 FAR *
.5 FAR *
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
Medium Intensity development areas may include the following types of
land uses;
Residential
Institutional
ProfeSsional Service/Office
General Commercial
Public Service/Utility
Industrial
5 to 9 du/acres
1.0 FAR*
1.0 FAR *
.75 FAR *
.25 FAR *
.25 FAR *
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
Low Imensity development areas may include the following types of uses;
January 14, 1999
12
FUTURE LAND USE
Figure 1-10A
Figure 1-10B
Figure 1-10C
Figure 1-10D
Figure 1-10E
Figure 1-10F
Figure 1-10G
Figure 1-1 OH
Figure 1-10I
e
Residential
Institutional
ProfessiOnal Service/Office
General Commercial
Public Service/Utility
not to exceed 5 du/acres
.5 FAR *
.5 FAR *
.5 FAR *
.25 FAR *
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
Specific Use Areas;
Areas with special or unique local character may be included within the Mixed Use
Designation. These areas, because of conditions unique or peculiar to them alone, have
been limited to specific activities and zoning options as set forth in the activity area plans
described in Policy 1.1.7.4. Any zoning application not consistent with this policy must
be accompanied by a corresponding Comprehensive Plan Amendment indicating the
change in intensity classification.
Application of the Specific Use Area designation is to be made to those areas recognized
by the County as suitable for alternative land use as the full spectrum of community
services become available. This designation would serve to prevent the unplanned or
premature development of such areas until all services were provided for and are
consistent with the Furore Land Use development philosophy of St. Lucie County.
The terminology used in the Specific Use designation identifies the type of permitted
activity, maximum zoning density or maximum zoning intensity. Each Mixed Use
Activity area will identify the type of Special Use areas in the legends of each area.
January 14, 1999
13
FUTURE LAND USE
Figure l.-10J
Policy 1.1.7.6
St. Lucie County shall review on an annual basis, beginning one year from
the adoption of this plan, all mixed use activity areas for consistency with
the other elements of this plan and to determine if any amendments or
further definition of intensity designation is warranted.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.8 The protection of the single family neighborhood as a defined
residential area from the encroachment of commercial and/or other
inappropriate land uses will be provided for through the Land
Development Regulations.
Objective
Provide for the consistent and predictable application of the
Comprehensive Plan and EDR that will ensure protection of the St. £ucie
county property owners' investments and their quality of life.
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
.Policy 1.1.8.1
All new subdivisions, planned unit developments and site development
plans shall be designed to include an efficiem system of internal traffic
circulation, that does not require internal trips or trips of short duration
~ frOni b¢ing'forced Onto the major roadway network.
Policy 1.1.8.2
Ail new subdivisions shall be designed so that all individual lots have
direct access to the internal street system, and that any lot or property along
the periphery of the development is to be. buffered from any major roadway
and incompatible land uses.
Policy 1.1.8.3
In conjunction with the Objectives and Policies of the Traffic Circulation
Element, St. Lucie County shall develop and implement by August 1990 a
county-wide right-of-way protection regulation and Right-of-Way
D edi cati o n Ordinance.
Policy 1.1.8.4
Limited development of commercial/non- residential 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:
1)
The intent of the commercial use is to provide.easily
accessible, convenience-type uses to immediately
surrounding residents;
January 14, 1999
14
FUTURE LAND USE
2)
The property for which the commercial designation is
sought is located on an Arterial or Major Collector;
3)
Conversion of the petitioned property would not promote
any strip commercial use of land;
4)
The use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is
provided with adequate screening and buffering, of any
adjacent residential property;
5)
The site does not have direct driveway access onto any
local or Minor Collector street;
6)
The property for which the commercial designation is
sought does not exceed 10 acres; and,
Policy 1.1.8.5
Require effective visual and light diffusion barriers between residential and
non-residential uses. Standards and requirements for such barriers are to be
included in the landscaping and screening regulations of the St. Lucie
County Land Development Regulations.
January 14, 1999
iS
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1.8.6
Eliminate furore scattered and highway strip commercial development by
encouraging the development of commercial centers or nodes consistent
with the Furore Land Use Map.
Policy 1.1.8.7
Restrict strip commercial development to those traffic corridors where such
development patterns now exist. The depth of these commercial areas
should average 600 feet, with the exceptions to be found at points of
arterial intersection.
Policy 1.1..8.8
Concentrate tourist and regional service related commercial activities to
those areas adjoining the interstate highway system or that have sufficient
regional automobile access.
Policy 1.1.8.9
Interchange development activities should not include commercial
activities that are designed to service a small geographic market area.
Local service.activities should be located at points away from an
interchange so as to avoid conflicts between regional and local traffic
which can comribute to accelerated degradation of level of service in these
areas.
Policy 1.1.8.10
Encourage the use of existing commercial and industrial designated lands
within the urban service area, through requiring a strict demonstration of
service availability, before authorizing Land Use and Zoning amendments
in areas not presently indicated as having such a designation.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.9
rn~. · T __ _.' _ t-n ......
L _!. _ ll !__ .!__ J .... !a.l_'._ _'~_ T ....-- _!
~,~~,a,~, ~~,~,,~,,~ criteria and .standards for the
protection/creation of hhe re,~ai~ai~ag native plant communities within
the CounW. For the purpose of this plan, Native Plant Communities
shall be prese'~ed as defined in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council's Regional Policy Plan, Regional Policy 10.1.2.2., ",..prese~ed
in viablecondmon .... with intact' groUnd cover, understo~ and canopy."
Policy 1.1.9.1
St. Lucie County shall include within its Land Development Regulations
criteria and standards for the protection and preservation of both wetland
and upland habitat. The criteria to be included within the County's Land
Development Regulations shall be based upon, but not limited to, the
following'
1)
Size of the property on which the development activity is to
take place;
January 14, 19.99
16
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1.9.2
Policy 1.1.9..3
Policy 1.1-9.4
Policy 1.1.9.5
Policy 1.1.9.6
2)
The type quality.and sensitivity of the native habitat
including nesting and foraging locations found on site;
3)
Methodologies to be employed in protecting and preserving
native habitat:;
4)
The presence or occurrence of endangered or threatened
species on site and methodologies to be employed to ensure
their continuing presence on site or mitigation;
5)
The amount of similar habitat in a state of functional
preserve within the same area; and,
6)
Requirements that all necessary environmemal assessments
be prepared by personnel having the appropriate expertise
to m~e the necessary determinations which shall be
submitted in writing to the Board of County
Commissioners for review prior to their making a
determination regarding any proposed development.
In conjunction with the implementation of Policy 1.1.9.1, the County shall
~]consider the establishment of an impact fee collection system for the
purpose of habitat acquisition/preservation, in lieu of specific on-site
preservation.
All development concepts that propose to impact wetland habitat shall be
consistent with all applicable Federal, State and County regulations.
:Fhe land development regulations ~ shall
provide that existing on-site native upland habitat be incorporated into
required site plans as a part of open space areas, required landscaping or as
a part of minimum yard areas so that as much of the identified habitat as is
practicable is maintained.
or. 1,u~,sw ~uutxty ~lSmX uy ~xugu~t
_l;t'~t"t/~ _1 .... 1 ......_1 _' ..... 1 ....... a._ a.~_ --,_ _1 ___1___ J l_ _L '.a._a. ____z__4.,' ,...,.
_,__1' ....... ~. ......
,.,,,~,,,,~,,~ ~,., },,~,..~Ol[ the premature clearing of land and the concurrent
destruction of native habitats.
St. Lucie County. shall subject propoSed development in areas designated
Residential/Conservation (R/C) on the Future Land Use map to following
January 14, 1999
17
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1.9.7
criteria prior to-approval:
,
Residential development shall not exceed one dwelling
unit per five (5) gross acres;
,
A.11 develOpment shall be subject to specific building
restrictions frs further specified in the County's Land
Development Regulations.
,
The clearing of trees and other native understory, other than
Melaleuca Leucadendra (Punk Tree), Schinus
Terebinthefolius (Brazilian Pepper), and Casuarina Spp.
(Australian Pine) shall be prohibited, unless specifically
permitted through the County's tree protection/mangrove
protection regulations.
,
The addition or expansion of structures that require
development orders or building permit authorization shall
be considered on a case-by-case basis.
,
Any residential development proposal in excess of 10
acres, or involving more than 10 units, shall be subject to
the County's Planned Unit Development regulations,
including all standards of development identified within
them, as set forth in the Land Development Regulations for
St. Lucie County.
North Fork of the St. Lueie River - from .the Martin County line to the confluence with
Five & Ten Mile Creeks
Five Mile Creek- from the confluence of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River to the
Florida East Coast Railroad, Glades Cut-Off Branch Line.
Ten Mile Creek- from the confluence of North Fork of the St. Lucie River to McCarty
Road.
(Beyond these points, channelization effects are so great that natural course and habitat
are lost)
January 14, 1999
18
FUTURE LAND USE
Figure 1-7, Effective unincorporated areas only
Policy 1.1.9.8
} OL, i.~U. blG t./UUIIL,y i)ii(lil U,y /"Itl[ill)l, I ?:TU~ IIit~IUUG VItII,IIIll ill) bO, lit[
,-, .... , .......... ,, .... 1_,. .......... : ...... ~, .... 1__ immediate (within 5 days of
alteration) reseeding or stabilization of areas cleared for development
aCtiVities, Clearing for site construction shall not commence until
appropriate authorizations for such activities have been granted pursuant to
the County's Tree: and Habitat protection regulations, reference Policy
1.1.8.6.
Policy 1.1.9.10
management of runoff in a manner so that post-development runoff rates,
volumes, :and pollutant loads do not exceed pre-development conditions.
Policy 1.1.9.11
IV~tltlIIU, tlilUtl[ll [IIU 9UtlliCJ ~ llllitl tl¢VUIUJJlllUllt
regulations new urban type developments near agricultural areas to avoid
adverse impacts on the natural resources essential to production of crops
and citrus.
Policy 1.1.9.12
~,,.,~,~., activities for natural resources ~.,,~. be
permitted only where compatible with existing and proposed land uses. All
operations must be in accordance with all applicable regulatory permitting
re~u:reme~+~.u~ m~ n .... ,_... ............ : .... , ......... :... ............. , .......~,__
---.~.------,-' ......... . ..~:, .... 1_,11 'L ~. .'__ _1.._1_ -1 .... -- -~-. _.L'~.I_ T .... _1 T'~ .... 1 ......... d
T~ _ __~1 ,.,.' ___
1%..~ ~, t,l.l 1:ILl ~Jll~.
Policy 1.1.9.13
reclamation/restoration
January 14, 1999
19
FUTURE LAND USE
Policy 1.1,9.14
Policy 1.1.9.15
plan shat~ be ~ submitted as part of the required application for an extractive
use permit.
facilities, regardless of type, that is permitted within the identified 100 year
flood zones ~.' shahUbe subject to the County's' Flood Damage Protection
regulations.
New development activities~ shot~ be
consistent with the soil conditions in the area in which the activity is
proposed~ In those instances where soil modifications are necessary, all
activities shoUld utilize best management practices as identified by the Soil
Conservation service.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.10
St. Lucie County shall continue.to protect and manage the
unique coastal resources of the County, balancing the need to
provide reasonable private property use while assuring a full
range of public beach access and recreational facilities for
the residents of the County.
Policy 1.1.10.2
Continue to enforce the provisions of the Hutchinson Island Residential
District as described in the °' ' -'-:-" ....... ~'---:--- "---': .......
,,,~,~,,~ -,~ ,~,,~,~,,~ ,,~ ,,~ ,~v,~e~ L~d Development
Regulations.
Dennis
Policy 1.1.10.3
Recognize that in accordance with the regulations of the Hutchinson Island
Residential District, as described in'the St. Lucie County ~
,7 ......,_ ,.-x..a: ........ I
Z.~UIIIII~, m~J'IU. IIII:IJ.I~C;pthe maximum
..... ' .... density is 18 units per acre, as determined on land above mean
gl CLJ. I,..~I ~ll L
high water.
Policy 1.1.10.4
Future land developmem activities within the identified Hurricane
Vulnerability Zone, shall be consistent with Goal 7.2, its Objectives and
PoliCies, as identified in the Coastal Management Element of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan.
january 14, 1999
20
FUTURE LAND USE
OBJECTIVE 1.1.11
St. Lucie County shall continue to work with the interested
groups and agencies to increase and 'broaden the County's
economic base while expanding existing business and
industrial Opportunities.
Policy 1'1.11.1
St. Luice County shall actively assist to the maximum extent practical in
the recruitment of clean high growth indUstrial activities.
Policy 1.1.11.2
The following standards shall be used in determining the suitability of new
property(s) for designation as Heavy Industrial under the CountY's Land
Development (ZOning) Regulations:
,,
Heavy Industrial property should have available to it
central water services necessary for both domestic and fire
protection purposes.
e
New Heavy Industrial property shall not be located within
1,000 feet of any Aquatic Preserve or other specially
designated aquatic habitat.
ge
New Heavy Industrial property should not be located
within the 100 year flood plain.
o
Heavy Industrial property should have available to it heavy
rail services for the' receipt and distribution of products.
¸o
Heavy IndUstrial property should have immediate access to
the regional transportation network without the need to
travel through residential areas.
Ge
New Heavy Industrial property should not be located
within 1500 feet of any area designated as Preferred
Residential.
Policy 1.1.11.3
January 14, 1999
7~
New Heavy Industrial property should have a minimum lot
area of 10 acres.
New Heavy Industrial property should not be located
within any cone of influence, as identified under the
County's wellfield protection program.
The following standards shall be used in determining the suitability of new
property(s) for designation as Light Industrial under the County's Land
Development Regulations:
21
FUTURE LAND USE
OBJECTIVE 1.1.12
Policy 1.1.12.1
Policy ~1.1.12.2
Policy 1.1-12.3
Policy 1.1.12.4
le
Light Industrial property should have available to it cemral
water services necessary for both domestic and fire
protection purposes.
2~
Light Industrial property should not be located within 500
feet of any Aquatic Preserve or other specially designated
aquatic habitat.
ge
Light Industrial areas should have immediate access to the
regional transportation network.
.
New Light Industrial property should not be located within
500 feet of any area designated as Preferred Residential.
Se
New Light Industrial property should have a minimum lot
size of one (1) acre.
Pursuant to Chapter 5.00.00 of the Land Development Code,
all development orders and permits for future development
and redevelopment activities shall be issued only if public
facilities necessfiry to meet level of service standards (which
are adopted as part of the Capital Improvements Element of
this~plan) are available concurrent with the impacts ~of the
development.
Restrict higher densities and intensities of development to urban service
areas, where public facilities are available.
Time the development of residential, commercial, and industrial land
concurrently with provision of supporting community facilities, such as
streets, utilities, police, and fire protection service, emergency medical
service, and public schools.
Permit only those proposed locations of public facilities which:
a) maximize the efficiency of services provided;
b) minimize their cost; and
c) minimize their impacts on the natural environment.
Require that' all development in areas not provided with central water and
sewer services be governed by the provisions of Section 381.272, F.S.,
regulating on-site sewage disposal systems; and Chapter 10D-6, F.A.C.,
which regulates the installation of individual sewage disposal facilities.
January 14, 1999
22
FUTURE LAND USE
OB~CTIVE 1.1.13
Policy 1.1.13.1
Policy 1.1.13.2
Policy 1.1.13.3
Policy 1.1.13.4
The County:shall improve coordination with
affected and apprOpriate governments and agencies to
include their input into the development process and to
mitigate potential adverse impacts of future development and
redevelopment activities.
Coordinate requests for development orders or permits, as appropriate, with
the City of Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village, adjacent counties,
special districts, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the South
Florida Water Management District and state and federal agencies.
The County shall the various municipal bodies within St.
Luc,e County, to ~ provide the Count~-, oy ~anu&iTy' · J~0, a
Future Annexation Plan -"
IUI III~.,,IW.i~IUII WlLIIIII LIIK;;: Ot. J..~U.%.,I~
tm_ ...... ~....1 ..... Z ....
%..,,UIZI,[.IJ. ~;;;.I.l~i~llDl ¥ ~ I ICi,Il.
The County shall encourage the annexation of any isolated enclave area
prior to the issuance of any County building authorizmions within that
enclave.
The County shall coordinate with the appropriate municipal body, the
review of all development proposals within the identified area of future
annexation.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.14
St. Lucie County shall develop
~-,~ --_-1 ...... .~----' ~t _ --!-'-~--'~ ~.a._' .......
pn .~uun ~a ~0~ tnn~ ~naunua'tnona Oi- · ~UU~tl.~l Oi' USt~S
inconSistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan
unless otherwise referenced through the vesting of
development rights.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.15
The :County shall continue to provide for the location of only
compatible uses of land within the vicinity of the St. Lucie
County International Airport.
Policy 1.1.15,1
~V~IU~ilI~IIL 1%~MI~LIUI~h .... ~ ..... 1 __. ~ -_.1_= _1 .... =11 : ~ ----~2
- .__ Oil ~ii~Uxt u v~xx~j ~Uxx~ ~xii~xX ~xix
those prop~ics likely to b~ impacted From d~velopm~nt activities at the St.
January 14, 1999
23
FUTURE LAND USE
I
Policy 1.1,15.2
Policy 1.1.15.3
Lucie County Imemational Airport and ~ ~ what special
measures Or activity restrictions will be necessary in the development of
'these prope~ies to minimize any adverse impacts.
S~.
~u,~ie ,~ounty sliai~ by AuguS~ 1990 aaop~ aid enact an Airport Height
Regulation Ordinance, and ~ shall~¢ncOui-age as appropriate, the
participation of all other effected units of government in the
implementation of this ordinance.
S Lucie County shall, in oop¢ ati
:t. c i- oii w~u~
_ A ,..zl .... ~z_ _
~-,,,,[~ cominue to work towed the phasing out of incompatible land
uses within the 65 Ldn line as identified in ~e Ai~on Master PI~.
We want support'of the bullet train removed from the Plan. Serious
questions have been raised as to its costs presenting a tremendous burden
to all residents of Florida and as to the environmental damage that wouM
result for the benefit of a few individuals.
SOurce.· SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
January 14, 1999
24
FUTURE LAND USE
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The following Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies are modifications of the
portions of the Element as adopted in 1990. In order to facilitate the public hearing process, the
numbering system will not be modified from its present form until this plan is ready for
submiSsion to the Department of Community Affairs
is recommended for addition, o .....,.., ....... ~ ........ , ~
o[~ ,,~, ,-,,,~. -,,[~,a, is recommended for
deletion.
Material indicated by italics has been recommended by a member of the public. These
recommendations are included verbatim. Each will be notated with its source and staff
comments.
Goal 7.1
Balancing growth and coastal resources. All Development pro'posed in
the Future Land Use Element in the Coastal Area shall occur in a
manner which protects, conserves, or enhances the natural resources
of the Coastal Area and the environmental, social and economic
benefits attribUted to them.
Goal 7.1 - Balancing growth and coastal resources
All development proposed in the future land use element in the coastal
area shall occur in a manner which protects, conserves and enhances the
natural resources of the coastal area and the environment, social and
economic benefits attributed to them.
'Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comment: Third line, "or" changed to "and"
Objective 7.1.1:
Future Development in the Coastal Area. St. Lucie County shall
continue to protectthe natural resources of the coastal area'from
adverse impacts caused by future development
environmentally related laws.
Policy 7.1.1.1'
Future development in the coastal area shall be limited to those land uses
which are resource dependent or compatible with the physical and
environmental characteristics of the coastal area, or to ~those uses which
can occur without degradation 'of important environmental values or
January 21, 1999
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.1.. 1.2:
interference with legally used public access to coastal area shorelines.
All land development regulations adopted pursuant to this element shall be
consistent with:
a,
c,
eo
The Future Land Use Element and Map;
The Countfs Hutchinson Island Residential Development
Ordinance;
Vested development rights;
The County's Hutchinson Island CoaStal Area Protection
Ordinance,
Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance; and
The goals, objective and policies of this element and the
Conservation Element concerning the protection,
appropriate use, and conservation of natural resources.
Policy 7.1.1.3:
Erosion control measures shall be limited to those that do not interfere
· with the natural resources and processes of the coastal area.
tlIU
Policy 7.1.1.5 ~'
Future developmem or redevelopmem within the coastal area shall provide
infrastructure to service the development or redevelopment at the Level of
Service standards adopted in the appropriate elements of this
ComprehenSive Plan, and Which is consistent with the coastal 'resource
protection, access, and safe evacuation requirements of this
Comprehensive Plan, and as further provided for in the Capital
Improvements Element.
Policy 7.1.1.6 ]]'
The County shall continue to coordinate with appropriate state agencies in
meeting the goals and policies of the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic
Preserves Management Plan, the North Fork of the St. Lucie River
Aquatic Preserve Management Plan, the Indian River Lag oon Surface
Water ImProvement and Management P1an and the ~
' · ' ~ . . ,,~: = .x :: .-.:. :: ~ ~, :--- . . -. -.~
Coordination will
consist of, at a minimum, continual participation on applicable committees
and task forces as well as the provision of administrative and fiscal
support.
January 21, 1999
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Objective 7.1.2:
PrOtecting Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat.' The County shall support
he~protection, conservation, or enhancement of coastal uplands ~
· The COunty shall include Within its Land Developmen~
Regnlations criteria and .standards for the protection and creation of
the remaining native plant communities in the County.- For the
Policy 7.1.2.1'
Policy 7.1.2.2:
'Policy 7.1.2.~:
Shall be no
The land d
requirements
wetlands.
There
of, existing wetlands which are regulated by federal
r development proposals in C°astal wetland areas.
ent regulations shall include open space
g of units as means to protect existing
By ~, County Shall ~'naet land
development'regulations that require the use of native or drought tolerant
vegetation adapted to existing soil and climatic conditions in landscaping
in the coastal area.
., County ..... ' -.- -1 J .... 1
..... 1 _a.: ....... .1_ _'
~,,,,,,,1,~ ,~,,,,,, require the removal the all nuisance and exotic
vegetation such as Australian pine, Brazilian pepper, and Melaleuca during
construction of new development and replacement with plant species that
are consistent with PolicY 7.1.2-1.
~,y ~-~-~, ,, ,~, ,,c County shall land
development regulations which require a minimum fifty (50) foot buffer
zone of native upland and transitional vegetation along rivers, creeks, and
estuaries, to be maintained from the landward extent of state waters or
from mean high water of the rivers, creeks, and estuaries, whichever is
.January 21, 1999
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
greater, owever, setbacks for the North Fork of the St. Lucie River shall
~be governed by those set out in the Land Use Element to the extent that
those requirements may be.more restrictive.
Policy 7.1.2..~
By December 31, 1994, The County shall continue to assess all mosquito
impoundments -~-" '- ........
~-,,, o~ ,~,~, to determine if they provide multiple
fimctions of marine fisheries habitat, water quality enhancement, and
adequate mosquito control
· -m,,,~,,,,~ -,,~-,,,,~.. ~.,~.~ ,,~ given to the
~.1111~;:1 ti;;;ll[.,ti;7,,.~ U[7 L ~ ~;~;;;11 IIIIIJU LIIILIIII~IIL3 LII(;I,L Cfi ~; IIICIJ. IC[~;~I ¥ [71 ~ MD LIIU E>[;;; tlICtL ai'e
1.,. .... 1__ __ .J ..............
Policy 7.1.2.~j:
January 21, 1999
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Objective 7.1.3:
Protection of Living Marine Resources. St. Lucie County shall
protect, conserve, or enhance living marine resources and
eaac~ regulations to reduce adverse impacts caused by
p~--- ~ g~ ~ .......... I_ ~_~ _!___
Policy 7.1.3.1'
The County, shall continue to implement the ~ County's Sea Turtle
Protecti Ordin e-~-" ~ ...... ':~--~ '- ':---:" .... ' ........... -'-, ........ :--
on ant E)II~:TII U~ IIIUUIII~;U tU 111111~ L/~CI,L,,II I~;IIUUII~IUII~;IIL 111
-- -- ~-...-,1 _ __ ._ _,:_, ..... , ~.1 .........,1_ _ ~"'k T ....... 1 .... I a.1 ....... 1_ & ----; 1 ~/~
~/ IIII]-~i~IiI~;IILIII{~ ~%J./JJi U ¥ ~ti i' IUi iU~ I~'~JYJ:%I~ tlII~IIL Ui IN aLtil al I%.~OU ti/~U;~
January 21, 1999
.
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
i- uix~.y ~ · i .j.j. o.[Ju~ill~ aiiu ~.,uixxuxo..ti ¥ u iiiilJa~.,t~ ul ~u ¥ ~;xuljiiiuxiL ui x uuu v uiu.[jxxiuixt ulJuii
.... zl___ j_ _1,_11 L_ 1.' ___ _' ~. _ _1 1__. : .... 1 ........ ~. ~.-' .... .c~.1_ - __ _1' -!
UUJ~I ¥~ I · JL ./~.
Policy 7.1.3..5~:
The County shall assist the FDEP upon request in establishing well
marked stacking and mooring areas for ships and boats in order to protect
reefs and seagrass beds.
............ : -- -- ' : A '-- : ..................... '----
O.[.,PliZ;t,~lllt.~ Ctlll,l t,, ~lll~la[l V ~ llll~fl~L~ UI lla V I~LIUII llllpl U V ~lll~llt~ LU LII~
I 1~1~ 1111~ ~UII tll~ ~U~Ii~III~ ~UIII1 1~1~ ~11~11 ~IIU~ IUI tll~
Co~~ shall ma~hc nat~a] reefs
abuUing
thc
At]antic
Occ~ shoreline ~~ cstab]is~ of appropriate protective measles
for these reefs.
Remove the portion referring to the Sabellariid worm reef'
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comment: Agreed
Policy 7.1.3.q~:
Spoil islands shall be retained in public ownership and modified to serve
as green areas, .bird roosting, nesting, and feeding areas and, when
appropriate, water-dependent recreation areas. ~In" ............... '-'-- ~--.
LII~ ~ Y ~11~ 11~ ~
January 21, 1999
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.1.3.~'
Policy 7.1.3.8
on all spoil islands ,will utilize 100 percent native vegetation adapted to
existing soil and .climatic conditions and will include the elimination of
exotic species if~required by the appropriate State agency. The disposal of
spoil material shall be consistent with Policy 7.1,4.5.
Efforts between the County and local interest groups shall be made to
designate the St. Lucie Nearshore and 0culina Reefs federal marine
sanctuaries in accordance with the Federal Marine Sanctuary Program.
St. Lucie County and local interest .groups shah by December 1, 2000,
actively pursue designation of the St. Lucie nearshore and Oculina Reefs
federal marine sanctuaries in accordance with the Federal Marine
Sanctuary Program with the intent of reaching this designation by
January 1, 2000.
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comment: recommended dates are inconsistent.
Policy 7.1.3.9:
Policy 7.1.3.1'0:
The County shall identify coastal a?as that provide habitat for known
endangered and threatened species
~ B~'_.,.__.,! ................ 1__11 ---,--1_1'_1_ __1 .1__~. __ .... ,_:_.~._.~. _
]"l_1;_:__ 0 I 0 "~ ----.,1 0 I 0 O ;._ zL... /'I, ........ a.'___ T?,I .....
I UIIL,,Ig~ O, 1,0,/.,'. ~I,IIL/L O. 1,0,../ 111 L,IIK; ~,,UIIi~KSI ¥O.L,IUII
.Alterative sources for borrow material for the Ft. Pierce Feeder Beach
Restoration Project shall be evaluated, including the use of thc inlet
GIILIIJJ. IL, G 0,3 O., UUIIU~V
January 21, 1999
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Objective 7.1.4
~,,a...~ ~,, a,~. xtua-,y. St. Lucie County shall strive to obtain or
maintain 'water quality and trophic state index classifications of
"good" for the Indian River Lagoon, Five Mile Creek, Ten Mile
Creek,'and the North FOrk of the St. Ln¢ie River. The Connty shall
enact appropriate regulations which provide for the maintenance or
improvement of Water quality.
Policy 7.1.4.2:
In order to r~_. impact of effiue~,t from sewage treatment plants on
{ LZ__l___a. .... -'----'.d-_. '1__11
a. ......... .L .... a. .... ,--a. ,--1 -----a.-- a.l_ --a. --____ 1 .....1-- .... : .... : --: I --a.,' .... ._0 T~.I -- ,,:
LU '~VY~L,I~tg;; I, llg;;O.,Llllti;;ll~ _{JlO.,lltb LIlCLL CLII;;; ~JlII~LVU UUt;;;II 111 ¥1UIO.,LII../II UI I'IUIIUi:J,
--,_ a. - _,_a. a. -1 __._1_ _a.l_ 1_
a. ....... __.2 _,t.' ..... ,,,1_ 1_' .... ; ....... a. - a.___ 11___ _1 ........ .L .... a. ...... a. ---1
gU II~Y ~.Ji~ ~z~l~tlll~ ~LiUII~ Ul .~;11¥c1L~ ~11LXc;XXXZ,,~;U D~Y~:I,~ Li~E:XLIII~;J. IL
--J .......~1_ __1__..~ ........~' ............. .: .J~..1 __ 2 J.1_ .' ._ :1 ....... 1.' ~_1..! .......
Policy 7.1.4.3:
New causeways across the Indian River Lagoon shall be prohibited in
order to reduce fi~rther constriction of water circulation.
Add "New infrastructure must be demonstrated to meet all of the
measures spelled out in Goal 7.1"
January 21, 1999
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Source: SLC ComprehenSive Plan Study Group
Comment: Agreed
Policy 7.1.4.4:
In order to reduce non-point source pollutant loadings and improve the
fimctioning of the CountY's drainage system, the
='--z_ _1~__' .... - -J:~.--l_ -- _a. ..........
IIILU L[IO.,lllO.,~i~ LLILblIU3:~ 3LUIIII1/VKgLUI ~,~UIILI UI
I-~(;/i~UUII~ I~IUILII I'UI.L~ UI LIIU Og. J..tLM,,,I~;;; I%.IVqi;;;I~ I'IVqi;;; IVIIIIi;; 1~,lqi;;~;;I~ I qi;;;ll IVIIIC;
%.~,1GgI~ CI/IL~ ti 1U Id. ti lqg;3 311(:111
Policy 7.1.4.5:
All spoil from the dredging of the lagoon shall be placed on uplands
except as otherwise authorized by all appropriate Federal and State
agencies.
___ _1 .J: ...... 1 __t" _ Ot"l ..... .a. 1'__.., .... 11 _1 .... 1 ......... , .... ~.1_ _ 1.. .....
cuiu uiapuacu ui ~lilu~lit iiuni ctii u~v~lupiil~lita uii ul¢ ucuil~l l~lculu~ ual;
are not ........... ' ....... : -- ~ ' ...... '- -~- -'"--'--
Policy 7.1.4.8~'
I'}ST~-' 2'~Ll~Ll~) LA ....... 1,, ,' ~,m==,, The County shall
__.L: -1 ........ : J- ~ zl. _
~-,~- ~,~,~ ~, ,.~ prohibit~ shoreline alteration ~d construction
which degrades existing estuarine productivi~ with exceptions such as
necess~ access to m~ine reso~ces, ~d the abatement of serious and
signific~t erosion, '-- ~ ..... : ......
. miu ptuj~t~ wilson are not expected
to result in long-tern or pe~~ent degradation of water qualiW or habitat
value.
Policy '7.1.4.9~:
1.. ....._1 ..... .a.--l_. _ .J 21 ..... -.1 -_ _'.a.l_ .a.l_ _ ·
u~i, ctu~tit,_atwiy auui~awu~ w,tu t,l~ &$$iSt&iiC~ _e a.l__ t'~ .... 1_ l?l _.! .j_ IxT
UI tll~ OUtiUl l'iUliUO., ¥¥
January 21, 1999
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
· -~,..~., .... The Coun~ shall request asslst~ce from appropnate
agencies, in addressing higlt pfiofi~ problems t~ough
Policy 7.1.4.-1-0'.~:
The County shall continue to
aoores~ v~,',--~,- problems
identified in the data and analysis section of this element through:
a,
c,
d.
continual cooperation in SWIM programs;
the adoption
a storiiiw-&ter iiiaii&geiiieiit progi-ani ordinance by
A ..... -_z I I (~k('t/%.
-~m,-~,,, of regUlations to improve control of illegal
dumping into canals, ditches and waterways, and increase
implementation of urban and agricultural best management
practices;
support of a western reservoir~ that is are economically and
environmentally rfeasible to reduce freshwater flows into the
lagoon.
Amend 7.1.4. lO(d) to "By January 1, 2005, the county shall complete construction of no less
than two water attenuation facilities in the west county. Facilities will be
built in 'order to eliminate agricultural freshwater pollutants and resulting
stormwater discharge into the St. Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon
National Estuary, in accordance with the Coastal Element.
Source: SLC ComprehenSive Plan Study Group
Comment:
While support for the proposed attenuation areas is critical, the cOunty cannot
construct these facilities on its own. Policies which require such construction
cannot :be complied with.
Policy 7.1.4.9
January 21, 1999
10
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.1.4.11
Update the Stormwater Master Plan to address water quality issues.
Objective 7'1.5:
Beaches and Dunes. St. Lucie County shall provide for the pro'tection
and restoration of beaches and dunes. A comprehensive beach and
dune management program shall be adopted which enhances the
natural filnctioning of the'beach-dune system while reducing
unnatural disturbances of the primary dune.
Policy 7.1.5.1'
ounty _ _~. 1~._ J -1 .... 1 ......... ~. ..... 1--.,[; ...... .1_! ,,.1_
The C shall ~,.,~ ,~.,~ ,,~v~,,v..~.~ ~~,,,,,.~ ,~,,,~,, prohibit
construction seaward of the COastal Construction Control Line including
construction of coastal or shore protection structures, except where the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection has issued the applicable
permit authorizing that construction.
Policy 7.1.5.2'
Techniques for inlet maintenance which provide for long-term beach
stability through facilitation of normal littoral processes shall be
supported.
Policy 7.1.5.3-
The beach renourishmem projects currently recommended by the U.S.
2-11111J ~..~UI~3 Ui 1.3ii[lllvki~ ~IU I'IUIIU~ I-Y~.~tl LIIIUII[ UI l~li¥ilUlllil~ii.L~ll
· i'O[eC~[iOii shall be supported and the
County shall act as local sponsor if necessary.
Amend to
"The Beach renourishmentprojects currently recommended by the U.S:
Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental
Protection shall be supported if shown to comply with the measures of
Goal 7.1. The county shall act as sponsor if necessary. Mitigation must be
in kind acre for acre or greater."
Source' SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comment:
January 21, 1999
11
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
:Policy 7.1.5.4:
Policy 7.1.5.5'
The ~oumy shall ~,,,,,[ m,,~ .... ' ................ '-': ...... -'-:-' ........ ;~
,~,,~ ~,,,,,,,~ ~,,~,,~ require ~ provis.~~~, vublic access to
beaches .reno~ished m the public's expense.
The County shall emet ~ regulations which prohibit motor vehicles
on public lands ~ within the coastal strand and scrub upland habitats that lie
east of the Coastal Construction Control Line, unless authorized by the
priate State, or local agency.
Federal, ·
appro
lllO.,)t UU (I-!IXUXILIIi~t,J., i iii;; lg>[LllilJ&lUll/~ ~llO..ll t,~UIIiI)IUi;>I III~;;~L3UXK>3. L~4J IIIIpXUVU
IGIIIUX~,,~IXI~XIL O-_IItA I~i~LXI~L O.,g~3i~ u.y tJIUIIIUILgTLI
¥ ~III~.~I~G3 LU 3 L[~II
aS w~u a.:, ,,,,~,~i. LX v~c, xu. p,i vaL~ piup~i qy' uwnw~, ..................
illUL~I ¥ UIIX~.~IUi~ UI1 LIIXLIU ¥ UIK/IJUL[ IO. IlLI3
Objective 7.1.6:
Policy 7.1.6.1'
Policy 7.1.6.2:
Policy 7.1.6.3'
Policy 7.1.6.4 ·
Policy 7.1.6.5:
The County shall eaaet regulations that
provide for the protection, preservation, or sensitive reuse of historic
resources in the coastal area, including the adoption of a historic
preservation ordinance by December 31, 2001.
As an altemative to preserving historic or archaeological sites, excavation
of a site conducted by the Florida Division of Historic Resources or their
approved alternate prior to development shall be allowed. Should a site be
scientifically excavated then development may proceed without preserving
the site.
In the case of historic or archaeological sites, vegetation removal shall be
prohibited unless the vegetation to be removed is a part of a bona fide
scientific excavation or is a part of an approved development plan.
Donations of historic or archaeological sites shall be accepted,
~ .,-,=~u~, ,, .~., ,,,~ criteria for the identification of historic
resources shall be developed for incorporation into the Historic
Preservation Ordinance required pursuant to the Future Land Use Element.
,o~ ~,~;,~, ,, .~, .,. following shall be accomplished:
January 21, 1999
12
COASTAL 'MANAGEMENT
The identification, designation, and mapping of any structures or
sites that meet the criteria developed pursuant to Policy 7.1.6.4, for
inco~oration int° the Historic Preservation Ordinance required
pursuant to the Future Land Use Element; and
b.
The submission of a list of any such designated historic resources
to the U.S. Department of the Interior' for inclusion of the National.
Register of HiStoric Places.
Policy '7.1.6.6:
A list of hiStoric resources shall be continually updated as apprOpriate.
January 21, 1999
13
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
January 21, 1.999
14
.COASTAL MANAGEMENT
January 21,' 1999
15
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
January 21, 1999
16
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
GOAL 7.2'
~DUCING VULNERABILITY TO HURRICANES. ST. LUCIE
COUNTY SHALL STRIVE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE AND
PROPERTY IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY FROM THE EFFECTS OF
HURRICANE STORM DAMAGE.
Goal 7. 2 - Reducing vulnerability to hurricanes
St. Lucie County shah protect the people and property in St. £ucie County
from the effects of hurricane storm damage.
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comment: "Strive to" deleted from original wording - probably notpossible to provide 100%
protection, strive or other wording is appropriate.
Objective 7.2.1'
The County elopment in the
coastal area .
L ...... -' ........ -] ~1.. _ .]_
lltl! · l~;~lllI;~ i~llU IIUUU~9
Policy 7.2.1.1'
Policy 7.2.1.2:
New sanitary sewer facilities in the hurricane vulnerability zone shall be
flood- proOfed to prevent inflow and insure that raw sewage does not leak
from them during flood events.
policy 7.2.1.3.
The construction of County-funded Public facilities in the coastal high
hazard area shall be prOhibited, unless the facility is necessary for public
January 21, 1999
17
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
access, natural resource restoration or enhancement, or to provide for
recreational facilities and other appropriate 'water dependent facilities.
Policy 7.2.1.4'
New development and redevelopment within V or A flood zones as
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall employ
building construction techniques which are consistent with the
requirements of the_F_~.deral Emergency Managemem Agency Flood
Insurance Program ................................................................... .
Policy 7.2.1.7:
The County shall ......... :='-" ..... '--'
~.,-,., ,~,-..,,.~ ,.,., prohibit the use of public funds for
infrastructure expansion or'improvements in coastal high hazard areas
unless suCh funds are necessary to'
a,
Provide services to existing development (structures
approved for development prior to the adoPtion of this
Comprehensive Plan);
b,
Provide adequate evacuation in the event of emergency; or
C,
Provide for recreational needs and other appropriate water
.dependent uses including the restoration or enhancement of
natural resources within the coastal area.
Policy 7. 2.1.7
County will permit infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas only if it is
demonstrated to be consistent with all of the goals and objectives in this
Comprehensive Plan.
Source: SZC Comprehensive Plan 'Study Group
Comment: Existing policy is more specific.
i UIII;~ I,~'i,O. Alii; ~uUIl.ll{~ ~IliIll tll;¥1;JU[I ...... '-- za__ : .... · ....... z_z: .... fza_
January 21,. 1999
18
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Objective 7.2.2
Policy 7.2.2.1'
Policy 7.2.2,2:
Policy 7.2.2.3:
Policy 7.2.2.4:
Objective 7.2.3:
Policy ~7.2.3.1'
Policy 7.2.3.2:
The County shall promote the construction of publicly owned
bUildings that can be safely utilized as public hurricane shelters.
County-funded buildings shall include the fimction of public hurricane
shelter in their design. Some of the elements'to be considered in the
design are:
ao
Flooding potential;
Accessibility;
Rain surcharge on roofs;
Window/door glass exposures;
The use of dedicated roll up/down hurricane shutters;
Adequate sanitary facilities;
Emergency power supply; and
Emergency water supply.
Request in writing that other governmental entities in the County use
Policy 7.2.2.1 in the design of new buildings when practicable and that
they ask the County's Emergency Management Director to review and
comment on proposals for new public buildings.
Structural and fimctional designs of County buildings shall be reviewed
and retrofitted for public shelters where it is cost effective and/or practical.
All neTM residential development in excess of fifty (50) units in areas
subject to coastal flooding shall provide shelter space for twenty (20)
percent of the residents at a spacing requirement of forty (40) square feet
per person, or demonstrate the availability of the shelter space.
The County shall maintain the worst case 22.5 hour hurricane
evacuation time.
Midway ROad, Port St, Lucie Boulevard, and Prima Vista Boulevard shall
be improved by-P995 so as to achieve and maintain a Level of Service D.
Prior_. _t° the completion of the improvemems described in Policy 7.2.3.1,
the
d~rection of traffic flOw for one eastbound lane of each of these
roadways (Midway Road, Port St. Lucie Boulevard, and Prima Vista
Boulevard) shall be reversed;-if n¢ccssa,-y, during periods of emergency
evacuation.
January 21, 1999
19
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.2.3.4:
The County shall continue to support studies .... ~ ......... ,_. 1__. ,~._
~,,,,,, u, determine the feasibility and location of a bridge across the Indian
River Lagoon in the general vicinity of Walton Road. The study shall
include economic, environmental impact, and justification statements.
Policy 7.2.3.5'
All hurricane evacuation studies and plans conducted by or for the County
shall be provided to the Treasure Coast Regional planning Council, nearby
counties, and all municipalities within St. Lucie County for review for
consistency with regional and local plans. Conversely, St.. Lucie County
shall request for purposes of review, all hurricane evacuation studies and
plans for nearby counties, municipalities within St. Lucie County, and the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
Policy 7.2.3.6:
.... __ ,_J?_ ...... .' _,_ ,. ...... j ~?. _. ..... .j
.........
L_. il_ ..
l____J ___ ,,1 ....... ..,_i_.l Tg._..a. ..... T
1'~1_=. "T~I
...11
Policy
Policy 7.2.3.7:
Policy 7.:2.3.8-
Policy 7.2.3.9:
If the Florida Department of Transportation, in conjunction with Martin
County, decides to widen the Jensen Beach Bridge to South Hutchinson
Island, discuss possible St. Lucie County participation in the project with
the appropriate parties.
January 21, 1999
2O
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
.2.4.
Objective 7 ·
Policy 7.2.4.1:
Policy 7.2.422:
PoliCy 7.2.4.3:
Policy 7.2.4.4:
Policy 7.2.4.5:
POlicy 7.2,4.6:
The County shall provide immediate response t° post-hurricane
sitUations through the'implementation of post-disaster response and
redevelopment plans as set forth in the Treasure Coast Hurricane
Evacuation Plan..~ o~ },,~},o~,~ ,,~,, ~,~t,,~,, o~ ~,~.,o~. ~1, 1~1.
rl~l ............ .{. I ___! Ti_-_ _z: .... ~ .............Ti1 ....1__11 1 ......21:.iYZ. _ 21 a. ........ 1
I IIU ~,,,I~IIUIIL I~U%~LI I ~;;(1L, ULIIIIU .LitlII~;JI~UIIL,,y I 10.ii 311t::LII I, JC; ItlUU. IIIUU LU t,.,unll, Jly
__2z1_ zl .... .~1;-~'_- .... J il.:_ -1_1.._,1_, ......1 .,. ..... a.-l__ _.,.___ 1-_. _~.___ J-~--'l,-.
W i kix _LI!U pUli%,dUD UllUUi LiliD U tJJ ~,~ ti V U~ a/lU LU %,~UiitGili ~ tUp- tY~ -~ tUp UU L~LII5
After a hurricane, but prior to re-entry of the population into evacuated
areas, a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners shall be
convened to hear preliminary damage assessments, appoint a Recovery
Task Force, and consider a'temporary moratorium on building activities
not necessary for the public health, safety, and general welfare.
A Recovery Task Force shall be named to include the Community
Development Director, Emergency Management Director, County
Engineer, and Sheriff, and other members as directed by the Chairman of
the County CommiSsion. Staff shall be provided by the ~departments
whose directors sit on the Task Force. The Task Force Shall be disbanded
after implememing its responsibility.
The responsibilities of the Recovery Task Force shall include: review and
issuance of emergency building permits; coordination with state and
federal officials to prepare disaster assistance applications; analysis and
recommendation of hazard mitigation options to the County Commission,
inClUding reconstructiOn or relocation of damaged public f~cilities;
development of a redevelopment plan; and recommendation of
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Local Peacetime Emergency
Plan, and other appropriate policies and procedures.
The following post-emergency activities shall be pursued: immediate
repairs to potable water, wastewater, and power facilities.; removal of
debris; stabilization or removal of structures about to collapse; and
minimal repairs to make dwellings habitable. These actions shall receive
first priority in permitting decisions. Long-term redevelopment activities
shall be postponed until the Recovery Task Force has completed its tasks.
If appropriate to rebuild structures which suffer damage in excess of fifty
(50) percent of their appraiSed value, current requirements shall 'be met
including those enacted since construction of the structure including the
Coastal Construction Control. Line.
January 14, 1999
21
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.2.4.7'
Policy 7.2.4.8:
Policy 7.2.4.9
Policy 7.2.4.10:
GOAL 7.2.
Objective 7.2.1:
Policy 7.2.1.1'
Policy 7.2.1.2:
Structures which suffer repeated damage to pilings, foundations, or load
bearing walls and are proposed to be rebuilt shall be required to rebuild
landward of their current location or modify the structure to delete the
areas most prone to damage.
Repair or reconstruction of seawalls shall be accompanied by beach fill or
other appropriate material authorized by the appropriate Federal or State
permitting agencies.
The County shall assess the value of all structures in the coastal high
hazard area and the utility of the land for public assess, and evaluate the
potential for acquisition, relocation, or other appropriate measures in line
with fiscal constraints when post disaster opportunities arise.
The Recovery Task Force shall review all interagency hazard mitigation
reports as they are produced and make recommendations for amendments
to the comprehensive plan accordingly.
THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO OCEANIC,
ESTUARINE, AND RIVERINE COASTAL RESOURCES SHALL
BE INCREASED.
The County shall not experience a net loss of public beach, lagoon,
· ~ · · . · · · ·
· in parking spaces, improved
lagoonai shoreline access, boat ramps, and non-boat fishing access
points '---~' ........ """-
~,y ,-~ y~-, -~,,~. Programs for the acquisition of public access
facilities shall be consistent with the financing ability of the County.
The County shall enact regulations which provide for the maintenance
of existing legally used public access to the beach and lagoon shoreline by
new development, and require that existing legally used public beach
access ways be identified on the site plans for new beachfront
development with continuation of the access way, relocation of it on the
site, or donation of it to the County.
A ...... ~- I I (i('t~"t ~,1_ ~
By ~,~,~., ~,,, ,,~~ County shall enact land development
regUlations which require a fishing catwalk for each new or replacement
bridge over the lagoon. By December 31, ~ 2000, a study shall be
conducted which identifies areas for other non-boat fishing access points
such as piers or improved mosquito control dikes.
i AA~G ~tLAU~V
January 14, 1999
22
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.2.1.3:
ilIIJJIUIII-UII~I~IUII iii (1 ~UO.I tlU~IUUkl tlJYUii U~ [iIU t.,UIIIIIII~IUII,
-,~,.,,~.~ w.,~. ~ reqmre p~k~ng and access to
; ' : · ·
all pubhc ~ ~ facflmes.
Policy 7.2.1.4:
By December 31, ~, a study of those areas along State Road A1A
where paved parking could be provided for access to either the beach or
lagoon shall be completed. The study shall be presemed to the County
Commission for inclusion in the Capital Improvements Element of this
COmprehensive Plan and subsequent implementation in a year decided
upon by the Commission.
Policy 7,2.1.5'
By December 31 ~-}99~, a study of those .areas most appropriate for
the location of additional boat ramps for access to coastal waters shall be
111~1 tiDlk)ll 111 LIIU %.,,~lJJItO. l lillJJl U Y UIII~III,;) 1Stl[Jlll~llL U1 LIIID
T~I ........1 _._1 ......... & '- .... -1 -, ..... i_~: .... '- .........,~ _ _; J .. _1 ....... 1 ~.1_ _
l-l~Lli ~LIiU 3tlO3UHtlUii[ IiilpIUiIIUIiL~LLIOIi iii ~L yum
%..~Uillllll3~iUil,
I UIIU,y I .J. I · ·
January 14, 1999
23
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Goal 7..~:
PUBLIC FACILITIES SHALL BE ADEQUATE AND AVAILABLE
TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF AND VISITORS TO THE
COUNTY'S COASTAL AREA.
Objective 7.3.1
The appropriate Level of Service standards within this
Comprehensive Plan (including those in the Capital Improvement
Element and Traffic Circulation Element) and the standards under
this objective shall be applied to infrastructure facilities during the
development approval process. The service area and phasing of such
facilities shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
this and ~all other elements of this Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 7.3.1.1'
The County Shall .......... '-" ....'--'
~...,~[ .~...,,..~ il..[ prohibit the use of public funds for
infrastructure expansion or improvements in coastal high hazard areas
unless such funds are necessary to:
ao
b,
Provide services to existing development (structures
approved fo~ development prior to the adoption of this
COmprehensiVe Plan);
Provide adequate evacuation in the event of emergency; or
Provide for recreational 'needs and other appropriate water
dependent uses including the restoration or enhancement of
'natural resources within the Coastal area.
Policy 7.3.1.2'
Policy 7.3.1.3'
which prohibit deVelopment proposals that would reduce the level of
service provided~ by an adjacent renourished beach ~-'
U~IU ltv IO~Clll~
.l _.a. .... 2 -1 _.2.a---__! _
By August 1 1990. the County shall ...... ,___,_1 .... l ................ l_a.: ....
~ ~llCl~t l~tlli/ I.L~ V ~IU}JIII~IIL l ~;;~ LAICLLIUII~
January 14, 1999
24
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.3.1.4'
Policy 7.3.1.5'
GOAL 7.4:
Objective 7.4.1:
Policy 7.4.1.1'
which limit future development within water and sewer service areas to
the capacity of the facilities to supply the appropriate Level of Service
standards.established in this Comprehensive Plan.
~-' ~ ....... ~ '""^ the County shall enact land development regulations
which require mm lanes, parking lanes, or other paved areas, particularly
at appropriate intersections, for new or improved roads, which can be used
to increase the nUmber of traffic lanes for hurricane evacuation..
,.,: ~,~,~,,o~. ~ I,,~,,.,, drainage systems within the coastal area~rt-are
.~,..,,~ o~,.~ .,~ ~~ .. o~, ~,~ ~,~~ shall be maintained in
accordance with the Drainage Sub-Element of this Comprehensive PI~.
PUBLIC FACILITIES SHALL BE ADEQUATE AND AVAILABLE
TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF AND VISITORS TO THE
COUNTY'S COASTAL AREA.
The appropriate Level of.Service standards within this
Comprehensive Plan (including those in the Capital 'Improvements
Element and Traffic Circulation Element) and the standards under
this objective shall be applied to infrastructure facilities during the
development approval process. The service area and phasing of such
facilities shall .be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
this and all other elements of this Comprehensive Plan.
The County shall ciiact regulations that prohibit the use of public funds for
infrastructure expansion or improvements in coastal high hazard areas
unless such funds are necessary to'
a.
Provide services to existing development (structures
approved for development prior to the adoption of this
January 14, 1999
25
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.4.1.2'
Policy 7.4.1.3'
Comprehensive Plan);
.b.
Provide adequate evacuation in the event of emergency; or
C,
Provide for recreational needs and other appropriate water
dependent uses 'including the restoration or enhancement of
natural resources within the coastal area.
The County shall develop criteria for use in the implementation of the
regulations required in Policy 7.4.1.1 above.
The County shall ~,.,~,. ,~. ~l.....~
.... .~_._.'_1 ....... , ....-' - --~.- '._ _1._ .J.'__ _ ~.1.. _
r ~ ' r J'''~;'g~'~'~il 1111 IIIU*~L III~lU'U'Ii~ Ct I*.'/i~.)L~'''LJ*¥~ U~III1 111~11~llUl''t~ll LU
........ .a. .......... 1_ 1..__ _ __1
I __ -.~..El,_._
Policy 7..4.1.4:
Policy 7,4.1.5'
Policy 7..4.1.6'
Policy'7.4,1.7'
By ~,,b,~, ,, ~,,, he County shall ...... 1___ ..1 _1
~ll,Cl,k,,,~ IO,/IU -U.~;VtDIUplll~ll[ I~,~U..ICLLIUII~
__.1_,'
,~,,,~,, prohibit development proposals that would reduce the level of
service provided by an adjacent renourished beach below locally
determined criteria.
wttieh limit furore development within water and sewer service areas to
the capacity of the facilities to supply the appropriate Level of Service
standards established in this Comprehensive Plan'
which require mm lanes, parking lanes, or other paved areas, particularly
at appropriate intersections, for new or improved roads, which can be used
to. increase the number of traffic lanes for hurricane evacuation.
~,y ~,~,~,.,o~, .,,,-. ~.,; drainage systems within the coastal area that are
operating below the Level of Service standards established in .this
Comprehensive Plan shall be identified, programs in line with the
administrative and fiscal constraints of the County to restore or enhance
the drainage systems shall be implemented, and programs to mitigate
January 1.4, .1999
26
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
future disruptions or degradations shall be cstab":,shcd ~.
January 14, 1999
27
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
·
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The following Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies are modifications of the
portions of the Element as adopted in 1990. The numbering system 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. °'---'-" .......' ......... -'~ is recommended for
O t.J. I1.%,,1%. LIJ1 UU.~:~II IIICtL~I lC:ti
deletion.
Material indicated by italics has been recommended by a member of the public. These
recommendations are included verbatim. Each will be notated with its source and staff
comments.
GOAL 8.1:
Objective 8.1.1:
Objective 8.1.1'
THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHALL
BE PROTECTED, ENHANCED AND CONSERVED IN A
MANNER WHICH MAXIMIZES THEIR FUNCTIONS, AND
VALUES'
By Aiigust I, 1990, the County shall enact land development
regulations which require the protection of air quality including
measures to reverse the upward trend in total suspended particles.
Air quality within St. Lucie County shall meet or surpass National Air
Quality Standards (NAA QS) for all pollutants measured by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Air pollutant levels shall be monitored by the FDEP and shall not
exceed the levels established by state and federal laws and
regulations.
,
Annually compare air quality with FDEP standards, and assist
FDEP in addressing and abating any and all violations.
,
Standards from the County Land Development Regulations with
regard to site clearing and stabilization, vegetation removal, and
other factors associated with construction should be specifically
written into the comp plan in order to address excessive dust and
suspended particulates.
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
.
During construction and excavation activities, existing native
vegetation shall be retained to act as buffers between adjacent
land uses, and to minimize nuisance dust, noise and air pollution.
Barricades shall be used on site to preserve the vegetation to be
retained.
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comments: The Comprehensive Plan is intended to detpolicy which is to be implemented
through the Land. Development Regulations. Standards should not be moved from the Land
Development Regulations to the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 8.1.1.1 ·
Annually compare existing air quality with FDER standards and confer
with the FDER on the source(s)of air quality violations and the proper
Policy 8.1.1.2:
The ~ .... ' ...........
,~~*m,-~-[ ~,~ County land development regulations shall address
requirements for fuel-saving or fuel-reduction techniques such. as
providing retail land uses near residential areas,
residential dcv¢lopnicnts, and promoting car-pooling, public transit,
bicycling, and walking.
Policy 8.1.1.3:
~,,~ ~,~,~,Vl.~.[ ~,~ ,.,~,~[y land development regulations shall address
requirements to reduce the amount of total suspended particulates from
construction activities. At a minimum, construction practices sUch as
seeding, wetting, and mulching which minimize airborne dust and
PartiCulate emission generated by construction activities shall be
undertaken within five (5) working days of completiOn of clearing work.
Objective 8.1.2:
By Augast I, 1.990, The County shall vnaet
land development regulations which require the conservation,
appropriate use, and protection of surface waters.
Objective 8.1.2'
Maintain, and where unacceptable, improve surface water quality within
St. Lucie County according'to South Florida Water Management and
FDEP regulations and standards.
Add the follOWing objectives:
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
lJ
,
By January 1, 2005, .the county shall complete construction of no
less than~two water attenuation facilities in the west county in
order to eliminate freshwater discharge from Lake Okeechobee
and resulting stormwater pollutants into the Indian River Lagoon
National Estuary, and the St. Lucie River.
St. Lucie County shall restrict the construction of artificial
waterways (canals) providing access to waters of the State or to
any of the rivers, streams, creeks, canals, or other waters of the
State or their tributary systems for the purposes of navigation,
aesthetics, recreation, and or enhancement of property.
Rationale: Canals damage natural habitat, alter existing
ecosystems and hydrology, can cause saltwater intrusion, and
lower water quality. They have been shown to contribute to the
long range degradation of the estuary.
Exceptions: Canals required for agricultural drainage and
irrigation, for example.
Write policies that 'address comprehensive stormwater
management, rather than defer to Land Development Regulations.
These shouM include items a. through e. of Policy 8.1.2.1.
Source: SLc Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comments: 1, St. Lucie CoUnty cannot construct these facilities on its own. A policy which'
requires County construction is not realistic. County should encourage and support efforts. 2.
Most if not all canals are required for drainage and/or irrigation.
Policy 8.1.2.1 ·
The dcv¢lopnient:of County land development regulations shall address
comprehensive stormwater management including the following'
ae
d~
eo
The use of stormwater detention and/or retention;
streambank and shoreline buffer zones;
general design and construction standards for on-site stormwater
management;
best management practices for urban and agricultural development;
and
standards for new discharges to Outstanding Florida Waters.
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.2.3-
St. Lucie COunty shall evaluate the use of the following mosquito control
techniques during the development of the new stormwater regulations:
a.
c,
maintenance of any required littoral areas and upland buffers;
a one (1) foot, or other appropriate buffer between the bottom of
stormwater ponds and the water table; and
fish ponds for use during low water periods.
{
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
Objective 8.1.3:
Policy 8.1.3.1'
Policy 8.1.3.2:
Policy 8.1.3.3:
Policy 8.1.3.4-
oy ~u~;.~, x, ~u, a.,: County shall enact land
develo ich require the protection and
maintenance of the (flow and storage) of the
100.year floodplain.
The land developmem regulation shall include the use of programs to
protect or maintain floodplains, such as reduced parking, conservation
easements, cluster site planning and micrositing of buildings.
,_,y ,.,~,,,o~, ~ ~, ~ ~, The County shall develop a floodplain
management handbook to improve implementation, monitoring and
enforcement within floodplains.
I'~_. 1'~ ...... 1____ ,'~ I 1~= The ~' ~-- shall - J -~ -~ J ~~'~'
2__1__-1 .... ~---~&.'_l 1___1 -~.--~. .... ..1 ~"--J-.----1 ..... 2_-'.; .......1 .... .' ..... ;.__1__..1;__-
111%~,1 ti. U5 }JO LIGIIKI(:%I IUt~,CtI~ /~ tO..t~ OIIU I~U~I al t:lSt.l. Mli~l [lUll 1115%,,111J11131113 lllt~,l UUIIIg
_r2.___1 ..... 1 .... .' 'T'L_ -~.._..1.. _1_ 11 1 ........... ~.--J .-- .1__ t'~ . __r
ll~g,,O..l IIIK;L,,,IICU. II~III;::). 1'11~ ~LU.U.,y ,~llC{,ll I, JK> IJI~IILUU. t,U LIIU %..,,UU.IIL,,,,V
g'm ....... :__' .... ~.- --~ .............. .1_ ~. '. .... .fi' -- . . 2 _ ; ~ ! .... ..1
programs --
I~LILI.KZ;Z)L IC;¥1GVVi:) O, IIU L,,UIIUIIg;IILb 11U111 I, llg: 1' I,. I 15lg,5 ¥¥ fl, LGI:)IIGU /*1L,,LIUII
%,..,UIIUIIILL~b O.J. IU Lll~;;; g.lL. l..~U.t.,,lg> ¥¥ O..LGIZ)IIg>U Z'~%,,,LIUII %.,,UIIUIIILLGK;; UII
floodplain management initiatives for unincorporated areas which may
~ e beneficial to other areas within the watersheds ~
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
Objective 8.1.4:
Objective 8.1.4:
B~.-Aiigiist I, 1990~ The~County shall
lai~'d develOpment
.
St. Lucie County shall conserve and protect all wetlands.
Policies should include:
.
o
.
5,
A definition of wetland~wetland area.
Identification of wetlands on site of all new applications for
development.
Requirement that all on site wetland areas must be preserved, or
acre-for-acre mitigation of in-kind wetland area provided
Restoration requirements where evidence indicates that drainage,
clearing, or other development of man-made impact has taken
place. When it is determined that a violation has occurred,
restoration shall be required before any development permits are
issued or within specified amounts of time (e.g. 90 days).
Listing of all wetland areas of special concern, and special
protective measures to ensure that the biological, scenic and
navigational qualities of these special wetland areas are
maintained.
6.
All policies in the existing comp plan that defer to Land
Development Regulations must be written in order to require that
those regulations remain in place and are strengthened
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comments:
Policy 8.1.4,1'
The land development regulations shall require the following information
on site plans for new development:
ae
The location and extent of wetlands located on the property; and
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.4.2:
Policy 8.. 1.4.3:
Policy 8.1.4.4:
Policy 8.1.4.5
b.
Measures to assure that normal flows and quality of water will be
provided to maintain wetlands after development;
The COunty land development regulations shall provide criteria for:
the evaluation of proposed wetland alteration for permitted uses;
the mitigation of wetlands alteration which include, but are not
'limited to, the restoration of disturbed wetlands, creation of
additional wetlands, or the enhancement of functions and values
provided by existing habitats.
The County '--~ ] .... ' ............... '-"---
~,~,~ ,*~~,v-'~-~ ~~.,~,,.s shall require a
minimum fifty (50) foot buffer zone of native upland and transitional
vegetation along rivers, creeks, and estuaries, to be maintained from the
landward extent of state waters or from Mean High Water of the rivers,
creeks, and estuaries; whichever is greater. However, setbacks for the
North F°rk of the St. Lucie River shall be governed by those set out in the
Land Use Element.
The land development regulations shall require a buffer zone of native
upland edge (i.e, transitional) vegetation to be provided and maintained
around wetland and deepwater habitats which are constructed or preserved
on new development sites. The buffer zone may consist of preserved or
planted vegetation bm shall include canopy, understory, and ground cover
of native species only. The edge habitat shall begin at the upland limit of
any wetland or deepwater habitat. As a minimum, ten square feet of such
buffer shall be provided for each linear foot of wetland or deepwater
habitat perimeter that lies adjacent to uplands. This upland edge habitat
shall be located such that no less than 50 percent of the total shoreline is
buffered by a minimum width of ten..feet of upland habitat.
The County shall cooperate with the Florida Department of Environmental
FlOrida Water Management District (SFWMD), and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers on their dredge and fill permitting responsibilities by
providing comments where appropriate on any applicable County wetland
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.4.6:
Policy 8.1.4.7:
Policy 8.1.4,8'
Policy 8.1.4.9'
regulation.
The land development regulations shall include the use of programs to
protect or maintain wetlands, such as reduced paving, conservation
easements, cluster site planning and micrositing of buildings.
The County shall provide appropriate administrative support in the
acquisition of additional wetlands as part of the Savannas State Preserve.
The County shall continue to identify and analyze wetland areas which
ally ~-~: .......... l .... 1_1
should be considered environment sensitive. ~,,,~ l~,,,~ ~,,~,~,~ be
...... 1_~.__1 1__. ~ ......1_.~.. ~1 I ('%{"~{'% T~_. '!-% ...... 1-~-.. ")1 I {'~irW''') -- .-'~-----1 --~,__-1__
_1-.~11
l. ll ~l./~Ll ~U 111~.~1UUliI[ 1 ~.tUilllll~llU~LI, iUll~)-
for the protection, appropriate use and conservation of these areas based
on criteria which consider the administrative and fiscal constraints of the
County. Potential mechanisms shall include acquisition, restriction or
of
~--'ies --'~ ii] ...... ' ......... _.._._~ ,___ n_,..__ o
-rl"l-- _~.._ _1__ _1_ -11 2
111~ 3~UU~ ~)IItZLII IU~IILIIJ [llU3U
....... _1 ......... -~-"-_.1 ....... 1 .... 2 ..... ;-----.1.1 1_ ...... ~, - ........... Z_~.
CtI~i;;~3 VYllti;;ii;; IJ(I&LIk~UIO& Iilli;;~lllllll31ii3 IrVUtlIU Uii;> illU3L IZtIdi./IUI. YlllZttli;;j {13 Wi;;;ll 1:13
2____1 ....... i_.cZ .....L'~.J_.' .... 1.'__. r-g-,l__ _~..._1_. -1..-11 1 ........... I_..1 ~._ 11__ ~ ..... ~,_
~.~UIIIIIII331UII IUI ~UIi~)IU~IiZLtlUII UI tlIU I~UIIIIII[IIU~L[IUIi~ YVIII%,,II~
311~11 UU III%~UL~UI l;:ltt;;;;t,~ ilILU till~ ~Uili~i UII~iI~I ¥~;;; i- l~til (13 Oil Olll~llUlll~ilt,
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
Objective 8.1'5:
· ,~ n,.~, ~, ~~, ane County shall euact land
development regulations r which require the conservation, appropriate
'use, and protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater.
Policy 8.1.5.1'
St. Lucie County shall continue to '--: ....
,~,~,, ~ ~ wellfield protection
program based on the following policies which were approved in concept
by the County Commission in 1988 and the "Draft Objective, Policies, and
Principles of the St. Lucie County Public Wellfield ProtectiOn Program"
incorporated by reference·
a,
b,
c,
d.
e,
Assure adequate and safe water supplies to present and future
citizens of the County;
Comply with Federal and State regulations in the best imerests of
the County and its future growth and development;
Avoid crisis water supply situations through careful groundwater
resources planning and conservation;
Identify and protect the functions of public wellfield areas,
including recharge of those areas, and provide incentives to keep
the presem and future public wellfields compatible with the needs
expressed in a. above;
Ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and
regional water supply capabilities; and
Protect present and future public wellfields against depletion and
contamination through appropriate regulation, incentives, and
cooperative agreements.
Policy 8.1.5,3:
St' Lucie shall cooperate with federal and state agencies in monitoring
groundwater levels and quality.
Policy 8.1.5.4-
St. Lucie County shall request from SFWMD, with appropriate
administrative and financial support, a project to identify recharge areas.
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.5.5:
Upon completion of such a study, identified recharge areas shall be
presented:to the County Commission to be adopted as an amendment to
'~':' "---'-'"-' ..... : "'-- ~'-~ along with policies
to protect the.functions of these areas, such as maximizing stormwater
retention to minimize drainage from recharge areas.
St. Lucie County shall continue to utilize the'St. Lucie County Wellfield
Protection Committee in the development of the public wellfield
protection program, as well as in water conservation efforts.
Policy 8.1.5.6'
St. Lucie County shall continue to cooperate with SFWMD to properly
seal unpermitted active drainage wells and abandoned free- flowing
artesian wells.
Policy 8.1.5.7:
St. Lucie County shall request from the SFWMD, with appropriate
administrative and financial support, a project to identify pOtential potable
water supply areas. Upon completion of such a studY, identified areas shall
be presented to the County Commissi0n to be ad_o_pted as an amendment to
the '"-....... 1 ..... !-.- 1'~1___ · · ·
~,,,,,},,~-~,,~, ~ ~,,~,, along w~th pohc~es to
protect the functions of these areas, including the existing wellfield
protection regulations.
Objective 8.1.6:
oy ~o, The County shall--' ............ ' .... ' ................... '---
·
that willprotect and conserve the natural functions of soils which
includes at a minimum, the following policies and regulations.
Objective 8.1.6:
Addresses comprehensive management plan that protects and conserves
the natural functions of soils.
Recommended policy:
Clearing of native vegetation on subdivision 'lots prior to the issuance of a
buildingpermit for construction on' the single family lot shall be limited to
that which is necessary for roads, utilities installation and drainage.
Source: SLC Comprehensive Plan Study Group
Comments: Agreed
Policy 8.1.6.1'
development regulations the consideration of hydrologic, topographic, and
January 21, 1999
10
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.6.2:
Policy 8.1.6.3:
Policy 8.1.6.5:
Objective 8.1.7:
Policy 8.1.7.1'
Policy 8.1.7.2:
Policy 8.1.7.3'
vegetative cover factors in the site plan review process of proposed
developments.
· .~ ~.~.~[ ,, ,~0, The County shall~emet regulations
which Prohibit the use of off-road vehicles in areas identified as
environmentally.sensitive to soil erosion pursuant to Objective 8.1.12. For
the purposes of this policy, the Savannas State Reserve, Atlantic Coastal
Ridge, and dunes on Hutchinson Island shall be considered
environmentally sensitive.
ASsist the St. Lucie County Soil and Water Conservation District in those
activities, directed at minimizing soil erosion.
By 1993~ The. County ~ ~ initiate a data collectiOn program to
acquire water quality and turbidity information at five year intervals, as it
relates to soil erosion.
· ,y ~.~;.~.. x, ~~, The County shall continue to regulate mining to
ensure the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of minerals.
T"I_. n __ --. I I t"tt'l[I
~-,y ~-~.~ ,, · ~,-*,,~ land development regulations shall include
criteria developed as a result of a continuing monitoring ~d evaluation
p ogram of the Coun~ s drmnage systems, wetlands, and other s~face
chrisms
to
maintain
the
~ctioning of drainage systems, wetlands, and surface waters thru existed
prior to resomce eXtraction
The land developmem regulations shall include locally determined criteria
for buffers which address sight, sound, and airborne particulate matter
between resource extraction activities and adjacent existing and future
land uses. The airborne particulate matter criteria shall also address
trucking operations offsite.
The land development regulations shall include locally determined criteria
January 21, 1999
11
CONSERVATION
which .specifies suitable conditions for reclamation. This criteria shall
address the potential for landforms whiCh lare capable of supporting
diverse and beneficial land uses, time.limits on implementation of
reclamation, revegetation to minimize Wildlife habitat lost as a result of
reso~ce extraction, shoreline treatment for water bodies created by the
reso~ce extraction which address appropriate safety and environmental
considerations.
Policy 8.1.7.4:
I UI. XL~ {.1 o I o ! o ~J o
Objective 8.1.8:
The land development regulations shall encourage the use of roadway
recycled materials where practicable to conserve sand and other extraction
materials.
.1'11[; ilIIIU UA~ ¥C;IU_IJIIi~iil, I C;[LIIilLIUIi3 31,10.11
.zl ....... : ..........:.a. ___! ...... J ....l___.a._' ................
.... : ........... ,,t_ 11_. ..... :-' -'--- a. ..... 2__.' ..... .~._.'_ .='.~..'
0 1 1,~ T~._..~,I. .............. ~?,1_:_
.... J -' ........1_ 1_....1_~, _.,._ -1_--11 1.. ...... -' J
30.IIU IJlllU 3bi MU IIIJ, UI LIJ, L~ 3110.11 UI;;> bUIIDIUUI
/iL ......1_ ___.~___i ..........1-~__] ,_ _z ..... 1 ----1---- J L --L2z_z
~H~I 3Hi~J Hl}~i li ~1 [~1 {~ IIH~ Iii tll~ ~O~lit~ ~lilli [~ll{IH~$
IH[:I ~~ Iii I ~[~ili IH[I ~HIUH}~ ~i i ~iHIlHIH[ HltI{~ HIUItltB Iii
[Uala Iii 'tH~ I I Caa~Ul C LUnar iXC[IUflal i UII[~ I l~li. I ftc LUUflt~
3fl~ll
January 21, 1999
13
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.8.1:
Policy 8.1.8.2'
Policy 8.1.8.3:
require
all
nuisance
and
invasive .exotic vegetation (e.g. Brazilian pepper, 'Australian pine and
Melaleuca) be removed at the time of development or redevelopment of a
site and, where appropriate, replaced with native or drought tolerant
sPecies that are :adapted to existing soil and climatic conditions.
the protection of endangered and threatened plant and animal populations
and the conservation of the native habitat, including intact canopy,
understou and ground cover; upon which these populations depend for
survival. Possible mechanism would include'
a,
Assisting in the application of and compliance with federal
and state regulations;
b,
Consulting with appropriate federal and state agencies
during development reviews when endangered or
threatened species may be onsite;
C,
Establishing management programs with incentives for
private landowners to protect or conserve habitats, such as
reduced :parking, landscaping, or credit for park and
recreation impact fees;
do
Using conservation easements, cluster site planning and
micrositing of.buildings.
e.
Assisting the state in developing a.n education program tO
promote the preservation of endangered and threatened
species.
-rl~l'l llU-- ICtlltl ! --'- _1 tlU'l .... ¥ ~iU~III~Iltl _ .... ..:__.a. 1 ..... ~LII(ZLIUIID"I _. ~.l .... 31lCfII
2 ......~ r-,--.a. ...... - ....... ,-- --.1..:-1 ............
llll.[,J<l&,,,t ~ I..dLi;;;IIIi;JIIL [Ji U~,~J~D YVIII~,,II L,,UII~,,UIII~ IUI IIO.,UIL<IL*a' ,t..[.11 Ub~;;;l ¥ I:J. LIUII CLI. IL/"I
.... : ...... a. _. _..,c..' ....... .a. 1 ]_1 .....
~p~L~l~ pIUL~L~LIUII CLl~ LU :U~ CELIUI~U IUI
Janua~ 21, 1999
13
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.8.5:
Policy 8.1.8.6:
Policy 8.1.8.7'
Policy 8.1.8.8'
Policy 8.1.8.9
Th- '---: ~ .... "'! ................ l_i:___ ~ s---~-nc.u-¢ criteria
haiti i d
__.1_: -1_
~,a~.~all development, :--'--~:--.1__ ' --~l___]
III¢IUUlII[ tIIW ¢OiiV~ZSiOiiul lmlU"fOi
~,~,~: ,Fmw~, [-~[ ~ proceeds in a m~er compatible with the
conse~ation of wildlife ~d natural systems.
The 1--._ J J .... ! ................ 'l_.a.: .... ~shall require
the
of native
ICI/IU UG ¥ glUIJIIIglIL I g[ I~ICtLIUIIi)
use
or
drought tolerant vegetation adapted to existing soil and climatic conditions
in landscaping.
MVILJ. IIII
its 1.~O./Ikl 1.~¥~IUJJIII~IIL I%.~LIIgtLIUII3
~criteria and standards for the protection of the remaining native
plant communities within the County. For the purpose of this plan, native
plant communities shall be preserveda~ a¢,,~,~ '- "-- ~'' ......... " ....
condition with intact ground cover, understory and canopy."
_1]_~ lO. tiLl LIC;¥C;IUJJIIIgIil. II;~UIJlI. IUII~
shah
prohibit
the
US~
of
off-road
vehicles in environmentally sensitive wetland and upland areas identified
pursuant to Objective 8.1.12.
IJ,y dd,iiUal.,Y i j i .7.7 i :~ LIIC; k.~UUIIL./v ;:)ii/Iii k, UiititlL, I, /1 {Jili>XiilXiil/li,,,V
: J___z:j~L..__:_ir ...... z: .... 1_._1__'z_* ..'__ _1__ Jr__. I - --:_ 1
IUgli~llJ gllbtlll~ IICELI¥~ ll~LUItCtt lilblLtLllll~ ~%~UiU~IL~Ctl %~UllllilLlliltlg~
aL __.1 J 1_ _ _1 __'_ .... ~ _ ..1 _ .... : ........... .a._11 ....... ~' ! .... * .- ...1
'-..1___~2_o2___1 :__ ~.1_'__ ~ ........ 1 ..... :-.-. 1'~1 1'1_. i ..... --a. 1
--L_11 L ......... _1 _'._ _1.. Jr; .... ............ J--a.: .... .L~-.. .a.1
i:)llgtll IJ~ JJl ~;IJO./~U IIIL~I t1~/111~ 1 ~L~UIIUII~IILIO. LIUIIZ) IUI LII~ JJl
......... :_.a.. ....____1 ......... .a..' __.. _.L" a.1 ............ _1
Ctldpiuldiictt~ u~ o. iiu bUii:)Gl YaLIUil Ui tli~>~G al~a~, cUlU Ui~
January 21, 1999
14
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.8.1 O:
Clearing of a specific development or redevelopmem site or.sites shall not
commence Umil a construction permit has been issued for the
improvements to be located on the site, unless approved by the
COmmunity Development Department.
Policy 8.1.8.11-
T .........I I tlfll
By .,,~,,,~y ~, ,:,:,,, The County shall ~.o,,~. a
County Land Acquisition Selection Committee
to utilize the work products identified in Policy 8.1.8.9 to formulate a ·
master acquisition list of lands haVing native habitat including those sites
comprised of ecological communities that are environmentally unique with
the objective.of dve~oping a program to ensure the preservation of a
minimum of cwcn~y-fiv¢ percent of the remaining native
upland habitat with the highest priority being, those classified as
endangered or threatened as well as those properties having habitats that
are facing destruction as a result of urban development and which
recognizes relationships to those areas of native habitat already under
public and/or private .....
apIJUUlU,,~li~.
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
15
]5_1; .... 0 I 0 I "~. q'"t _ 1' _._ J A .... !_;.i! _._ ]?__..~ J~'.__ q-,__l. T3, ...... 1_ _11 .....' J--- ~1_ --r'_11 ....
I- Ull%~y O. I '0.1J 111~ b~Lll~ A%~UI~ILIUII
· 1' L~IIUIII~ I ~L~l~ 1' UI ~ ~il~ll %~UII~IU~I tll~IUIIU W 111~
Policy 8.1.8.14'
January 21, 1999
16
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.8.15'
Objective 8.1'9:
Policy 8.1.9.1'
Policy 8.1.9.2:
Policy 8.1.9.3'
The land :development regulations shall provide that existing on-site native
upland habitat be incorporated into required site plans as a part of open
space areas, required landscaping or as a part of minimum yard areas so
that as mUch of the identified habitat as is practicable is maintained.
oy ~,~...o~. o~, ~o, ,.ac ~ County shall develop a hazardous
waste management program for the proper recycling, storage,
collection, and disposal or transfer of hazardous materials and wastes.
The County shall establish a storage transfer facility for household and
small quantity generators of hazardous wastes.
The County shall develop emergency response plans to handle accidents
involving hazardous materials or wastes.
The County shall institute a continue the recycling program which includes
public education on the beneficial use of hazardous wastes using
publicized lists of approved recyclers and by subscription to the Southern
January 21, 1999
17
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.9.4-
Policy 8.1.9.5'
Policy 8.1.9.6'
Policy 8.1.9.7:
Policy 8.1.9.8'
Policy 8.1.9.9:
Objective 8.1.10:
Policy 8.1.10.1'
Policy 8.1.10.2:
Policy 8.1.10.3'
Waste Information Exchange.
The County shall continue to support State sponsored Amnesty Days to
collect hazardous wastes in the County; and shall evaluate the need for
scheduling local Amnesty days.
·
The County shall implement an employee training program to properly
identify and inSpect wastes before they enter the landfill and implement an
inspection or screening program to exclude hazardous items such as
dnm~s, tanks from ~own sources, waste pesticides, or chemicals from
spill cleanups.
The County shall participate with the ~ FDER and other local
governments in the region to develop a regional hazardous waste transfer
and'storage facility and collection network, if appropriate.
The County shall seek fimding from ~.WDER's Local Hazardous
Waste Collection Grants Program to manage hazardous wastes.
The County shall conduct a Countywide underground storage tank
assessment and assist any owner in seeking funding to respond to any
groundwater contamination resulting from leaking tanks.
The County shall continue a public education program regarding
household hazardous wastes, the proper methods of their disposal and
alternative non-hazardous substitutes, in cooperation with schools, news
media, and civic organizations, and in conjunction with Amnesty Day
awareness programs.
P,y ,,~u~.~, I, ~~,, ,,~ County land deVelopment regulations
shall require the conservation, appropriate use and protection of
current and projected water sources.
The County shall prepare and adopt an emergency water management
conservation plan in cooperation with SFWMD.
The land development regulations shall require wastewater reuse plans for
new sewage treatment plants operating above 250,000 gallons per day.
Any new reuse plan shall be approved by
The County shall implement a public education program regarding various
January 21, 1999
18
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.10.4:
Policy 8.1.10.5:
Objective 8.1.11:
Policy 8.1.11.1'
Policy 8.1.11.2:
Objective 8.1.12:
methods of water conservation at the household and small business level.
The County shall continue to cooperate with the SFWMD in the
free-flowing well plugging program.
The County shall request from the South Florida Water Management
District with appropriate administrative and/or fiscal support, a project
which evaluates the economic and environmental feasibility of a reservoir
in the western parts of the County for the purposes of water conservation,
as well as stormwater management and improved surface water quality.
St. Lucie County shall promote the protection of natural ~
· ~;:, .~,,o,,~ to lessen the. adverse effects which adjacent developments
might have on the managed conservation areas, such as the Savannas
State Preserve, Ft. Pierce Inlet State Park, beach and river purchases,
and Outstanding Florida Waters.
St. Lucie County shall cooperate with the FDEP in their managemem
programs that provide for the protection of native habitats within the
County.
All appropriate land development regulations required by this
Comprehensive Plan shall include the protection of native habitats,
including those identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element.
· 'y ~',t;,,~, ~,' ~~, The County shall ~'--' .....
environmentally sensitive upland and wetland areas for conservation,
appropriate .use and protection which furthers the goals, objectives
and policies of this element.
January 21, 1999
19
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.12.1'
Policy 8.1.12.2'
Policy 8.1.12.3'
The idemification of environmentally sensitive upland and wetland areas
shall be based onthe results of podcies" ' o.° ~' .-,.v.~'~ aiid o , o o
O. 1 O.O,
and information provided by various
agencies such as the Florida Natural Area Inventory, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Florida Game & Fresh Water FiSh Commission and the South
Florida Water Management District, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil
: ~._.. ~c.., ,.,nlversl.les, and
onservatlon
,qerv a
State
IT,
All appropriate land development regulations required by this
Comprehensive Plan Shall include the protection of environmentally
sensitive upland and wetland areas.
St. Lucie County will continue to cooperate with adjacent local
government.to conserve, appropriately use, or protect unique vegetative
communities located 'within more than one local jurisdiction.
January 21, 1999
20
CONSERVATION
January 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
21
january 21, 1999
CONSERVATION
22
Objective 8.1.13:
Policy 8.1.13.1'
Policy 8.1.13.2:
Policy 8.1.13.3-
Policy 8.1.13.4:
Policy 8.1.13.5:
Policy 8.1.13.6:
~'--~' ...... '-~-' ~ ~""" ~"'~~ County shall develop a greenw--ay
plan
to facilitate the implementation of greenways within its jurisdiction.
At a minimum the plan shall include a map of existing and proposed
greenways,~ridentify gaps in the greenway network, and set forth
strategies for the maintenance and expansion of the existing network.
The county shall coordinate with the state and federal land acquisition
programs .to encourage, where appropriate, the connection of existing
publicly owned parcels of land into a greenway network.
The county shall pursue grants from local, state, federal, and private
organizations to plan and assemble the greenway network..
The county shall encourage multi-use of greenways, as appropriate, to
facilitate the development of shared recreation greenwaYs and
conservation wildlife corridor greenways.
The county shall establish guidelines within the Land Development Code
that facilitate usable open space that is accessible to cyclists and
pedestrians. ~Non-paved bicycle and pedestrian access shall be encouraged
between.uses where paved access would negatively impact existing
habitats.
The county shall develop a beautification and improvemem program for
areas used by the general public (e.g. roads, sidewalks, bicycle paths,
pedestrian walkways, parks and open space areas) to enhance vehicular
and non-vehicular movements. The program shall encourage planting
standards that promote the use of appropriate native plants in road and
utility fights-of-way to restore the original native plant community to the
extent practicable.
The county shall utilize, where possible, existing rights-of-way as wildlife
corridors and pedestrian areas.
January 21, 1999
23
CONSERVATION
Policy 8.1.13.7:
Policy 8.1.13.8:
Policy 8.1.13.9:
Policy 8.1.13.10:
The .county shall encourage the development of a greenway network
through connecting privately and publicly owned recreational 'and
conservation lands.
~------~.'_.L~ _.,_ --.;.~1-- __.._~".....~. .......... , . ......... rT"l- -- ~ ..... a.-. :--1---11 ._ --.,,. ...... ~'__
.L _ _1 -- .1: _ _~..' .... Y - --
~uiluiuuli
The County shall consider incentives that encourage the granting of
conservation easements for natural linear greenways and/or scenic drives.
The County shall support the reconnection of impounded wetlands to the
Indian River Lagoon to improve the productivity of estuaries; and the
implementation of adaptive management strategies for saltwater marshes
and mangrove systems which are consistent with Best Management
Practices for mosquito control.
Native plant communities should be preserved in a contiguous manner to
proVide wildlife corridors and pedestrian pathways.
January 21, 1999
24
CONSERVATION
7.05.05
USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS
A.
B,
C,
c!assifiedstreet or zoned property, excludin.cl -,,, ..............' ' .........
arterial or major colloctor roadways, shall bo used for driveWay, walkway, or any
other access purpose to any non-residentially zoned land, or to any land used for a purpose not
permitted in a residentially zoned district exceot as prov~do for ~n oara~raoh B below.
.Except as may be specifically authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, no street or road
.c.0nsidered to be a local residential street or roadway shall be used for access to commerciallY or
industrially zoned property.
For the County commission to authorize the use of a street considered to be a local residential
.street or roadway for access to commercially or industrially zoned property, any applicant for such
access.must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Commission that:
..No other alternative access route or driveway connection point is available to the property.
That the dominate use of property within the area of the proposed driveway connection, to
the proPOsed or exiSting commerCial or industrial development activity is located, is Vacant
.or other otherwise occupied by nonresidential uses.
3.).
The.requested driveway connection to a street considered to be a local residential street
.or roadway arises from a condition that is unique and peculiar to the land, structures and
buildings involved; that the particular physical surroundings, the shape, or topographical
condition of the specific property involved, would result in unnecessarg hardship for the
...owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions
.of this Section are literally enforced; and the condition is created by the regulations of this
Code, and not by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant.
All Driveway Construction shall conform to the requirements of this code except that, in those
.instances where the Board of County Commissioners has authorized the placement of a driveway
connection from a commercially or industrially zoned property to a street considered to be a local
residential street or~ roadway, no such driveway, connection shall be permitted to have its nearest
perpendicular edges more than 350 feet from the feet from the parallel base building line, and in the
event that the authorized driveway connection is to a substandard public right-of-way, it shall be
the obligation of the property owner or the applicant for the requested driveway relief to improve the
right-of-way to the requirements of the County Engineer in order to provide for the safe and efficient
operation of the roadway.
In a Residential Land Use category, no street or road considered to be a local residential street or
roadway shall be used for access to commercially zoned property. Driveway access to any
commercial property in a Residential Land Use category shall be from a roadway considered to be
an Arterial or.Major Collector.
The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County, Inc.
P. O. Box 12515
Fort Piorce, Florida 349 7~-2515
internet Home Page: www.biosvs.net/indianriver
£mafl: conservatiOnalli~,hotmail.co~
St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission
Dear Commissioners:
January 21, 1999
I hereby submit to the record the position of the St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance with
respect to ~Draft Ordinance 99-002, which provides for a series of General Amendments to the St.
Lucie County Land Development Code (LDC). We have concerns with certain provisions of this
proposed ordinance as .stated below-
1.06.02 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
7.05.05 USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS
The proposed amendments to these sections, as written, clearly violate the intent of the Land
Development Code and are .inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. Section 1.-06.02
(page 3) clearly states that., where indicated on the zoning map, the zoning district boundaries are
the centerlines of the streets and roads, if the intention had been to exclude the streets from the
zoning regulatiOns, the zoning atlas boundaries would have been drawn as such. These
amendments, as written, directly violate Policy 1.1.8.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, which
explicitly requires that any commercial/non-residential use in residential areas must meet the
following standards-
2.) The'.property for which the commercial designation is sought is located on an
Arterial or Major Collector; and
5) The site does not have direct driveway access onto any local or Minor
Collector stroet. (See attachment A)
Policy, 1.1.8.4 does not allow for exemptions of this rule. Our suggestions for remedying the
problems brought forth by Community-Development Staff while still remaining consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan is to amend the LDC as follows:
1.06.02:
7.05.05
it is unnecessary to amend this section.
No residentially zoned property, excluding Arterial or Major Collector street or road
'rights.of-way, .shall be used for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to
any other non-residentially zoned: land, or to any land used for a purpose not
permitted in a residentially zoned district.
We have a beautiful county with well-written Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code
provisions that allow for reasonable development. The propOsed amendments cited would
only serve to degrade our property values and quality of life. In addition, these
amendments are inconsistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan! This is in
direct violation of section 163, Florida Statutes and can be appealed to the department of
Community Affairs pursuant to FS section 163.3213. We request that these offending
amendments be. deleted.
Respectfully submitted,
The Conservation'Alliance of St. Lucie County, Inc.
K. Brian .Killday, Vice President
The terminology used in the Specific Use designation
identifies the type of permitted activity, maximum zoning
density or maximum zoning intensity. Each Mixed Use
Activity area will identify the type of Special Use
areas in the lege'nds of each area. '
Policy 1.1.7.6
S%. Lucie County shall review on an annual
basis, beginning one year from the adoption
of this plan, all mixed use activity areas
for consistency with the other elements of
this plan and to determine if any amendments
or further definition of intensity
designation is warranted.
OBJECTIVE 1.1.8
Policy 1.1.8.1
The protection of the single
I neighborhood as a defined residential area
~from the encroachment of commercial __and/or
] othe .r inappropriate land uses Will be
/ provided for through ~he Land Development
Regulation~ ~~~J
Ail new subdivisions, planned unit
developments and site development plans shall
be designed to include an efficient system of
internal traffic circulation, that does not
require internal trips or trips o~ shOrt
duration from being forced onto the major
roadway network.
Policy 1.1.8.2
All new subdivisions shall be designed so
that all individual lots have direct access
to the internal street system, and that any
lot or property along the periphery of the
development is to be buffered from any major
roadway and incompatible land uses.
Policy 1.1.8.3
In conjunction with. the Objectives and
Policies of the Traffic Circulation Element,
St. Lucie County shall develop and implement
by August 1990 a county-wide right-of-way
protection regulation and Right-of-Way
Dedication Ordinance.
Policy 1.1.8.4
LLmited development of commercial/non-
residential 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-
1) The intent of the commercial use is to
provide easily accessible, convenience-type
uses to immediately surrounding residents;
May 14, 1991
1 - 78 LANDUSE
Policy 1.1.8 5
2) The property for which
designation is sought is
Arterial or Major Collector;
the commercial
located on an
3 ) Conversion of the petitioned property~
would not promote any strip commercial use of
l~nd;
4) The use is compatible
land uses and
screening and
residential property;
5) The site does not have
access.
~'-~reet'~ onto any local .... or
wi th surrounding
is provided with adequate
buffering of any adjacent
direct
Minor
Collector
6) The property for
designation is sought
acres; and,
which the commercial
does not exceed 10
7) Within any area designated as PREFERRED
RESIDENTIAL (PFR), (Figure 1-11), the
following restrictions shall apply to the
establishment of any congregate living, group
care, or foster care home as defined in the
St. Lucie County Land Development
Regulations;
No Congregate Care, Group Care or Foster Care
Facility shall be authorized that would
pe~t more than six unrelated individuals to
be housed in that facility.
Any request for a change in zoning or land
use to an Industrial, Commercial,
Institutional or other non-residential land
use designation for property located within
any area designated as PREFERRED RESIDENTIAL
(PRF), must be accompanied by an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan to remove the
Preferred Residential Designation from the
petitioned property. Such application for
amendment is to be pr6cessed in accordance
with the provisions of Section 163.3187,
Florida Statutes.
Require effective visual and light diffusion
barriers between residential and
non-residential uses. Standards and
requirements for such barriers are to be
i.ncluded in the landscaping and screening
regulations of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Regulations.
May 14, 1991
1 - 79 LANDUSE
CO .RAL COVE BEACH OWNERS-ASSOCIATION
2'1t Marina Drive'
Fort- Pierce. Florida. 34949
561-,465,5826-
Fax.'
,_
DATE~ . January' 1-9; 1999'
MEMO. TO:
St: Lueie County Planning. and Zoning Board'Commissioners
UB.JECT.
Draa.. of Ordinance_ No.:. 99...,002,. Spe¢ifi calty 1., 06; 00.. and. 7.0.5; 0:.5.
As you-~are-aware- from. previous correspondence-and-meetings, the-warehouse proposed-for
North Hutchinson Island_ is. not permitted, under the presem St, Lu¢ie County. L.and DeveloPment
Code. As soon. as thi's was pointed out- to-Planning, and-Zoning staff, they have been-doing their
best to. change the code so ~ it~ould perm~ the building of a warehouse in.. a residential_
neighborhood: The. draft before you for the January 2Ist meeting is a case in point.
At the October 1'5,. 1998; meeting of the Planning andZoning Commissioners, Mr. Killday, of
Noah. Hutchi'nson Island, proposeda cOmpromise Which would-read-as follows: '~o-
residentially zoned ~operty~ eX~Cludina_ ..~erial. or major Collector street, or mad. ri~hts.-o£-way.
t-' · - -_- -- ~.... .._ ..--. ~ . ,, ,,.. . _ ._.~_.._ __-. . .,~, . . _ _ ~ ,~, _ J
shallbe used' for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to any other non-residentially
zoned, land, or to-any-land'used for'a purpose-not-permitted, in. a-residentially zoned district".
The dr.-aa-(Ordinance No: 99-002).of 7.05:05-is-so-convoluted and. contradictory that- in. the
opinion, of: one lawyer, it.is a lega[ nightmare._
t.06: 00-has been. changed, specifically, to-permit warehouses in-residential districts.
7.05:05. has so-many contradictions that. we must. go-through them paragraph by. paragraph:
&.. This specifically permits tt~e building of a warehouse in a residential district;, residential
streets WILL NOT be. considered'residemiaI' for access pu~ses to commercial'property as they
ar~ now;
~.k Residential'streets WILL BE considered residential' for access purposes to commercial'
property; unless-the County' Commissioners' change' it.
Memo to P&Z CommissiOners
Page 2
January I9, I'99'9
B: !',2,3);_ After many Words, read-carefully., the warehouse proposed would-have-to-be permitted-
by the County Commission. if the driveway w~e to. open. up. to. Flotilla.Terrace,. a. residential_
street, rather than Marina DriVe, leaving our residential' area still' encumbered by a warehouse.
7:05.05 ~' "' ·
~ This para.graph reads similarly to-the wording- pmposedby Mr.-~llday, except, they use the
phrase "Ina Residential Land Use category." insteadof ref~ng to. residentially zonedpro.perty..
At first reading it WOULD NOT' ~.pe~it the warehouse on the property proposed; unless the
wording quoted-means 'something m staff not-readily-obvious to-us.
As- you-can-see, the proposed-draft.., tS convoluted and. contradictory,
We would propose that 1'.06.00' remain as it is, andthat 7.0'5.05 remain as it is. Or, that 7.05.05
consist of Mr. Killday's compromise' only, and-the-Commission- consider zoning-North
Hutchinson Island'"Residential" and. any commercial, enterprises.wishing to. enter, our.. Island.
apply for a variance to-do-so:
Sincerely,
Nancy Spalding, Secretary
P. O. Box 3573
Fort Pierce. Florida 34948
January 21, 1999
To: the Planning & ZOning Commission of St. Lucie County, Fl.
From: John P. Doran, Director, North Beach Assoc., of St. Lucie Co., Fi.
Re:
Ordinance t 99-002.
In the summer of 1'998 the St. Lucie County Planning Department proposed
a number of changes to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. There
were stron~ objections to chan~es proposed in 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. This
Commission ~nstructed the Plannin~ Department to hold a "workshop', to
listen~ t.o and then~ hopefully, adjust the pr.oposed language. The "work-
shop" was held, however, our association felt we were not listened to.
In November of 1998 the proposed chan~es were again before this Commission.
A~ain, this Commission sent. the proposal back to the Plannin~ Department
and suggested a rewrite. Our Association even suggested acceptable lan-
guage fo.r section 7.05.05. A~ain, we feel, we have been i~nored by the
Pla:nnin~ Department. We ask that Ordinance ~ 99-002 be rejected by the
Plannin~ & zonin~ Commission in its tOtality.
Please look at page two (attached). That is the language of 7.05.05 as
it is today. It was adopted in August of 1990 and withstood revisions
thru August 1, 1996. One sentence ...~o lines.
Now, please look at page three (attached). 7.05.05 is revised by the
Plannin~I Department; after the "workshop,. in August 1'998. It now has a
a total of ... thirteen lines. This was rejected by this Commission in
November 1998 and sent back: to the Plannin~ Department for rewrite.
Please now look at page .four (attached).. This is now before you as the
Plan.nin~ Department's rewrite ... and now is ~h~rt~-three l~nes lon~.
Our position is leave 7.05.05 as is ... just readin~ the proposed chan~es
must lead one to believe there is no need :~o~ change 7'05.05.
Do YOU, as an advisory board, wonder why we citizens are questionin~ our
~'overnmental units? South Beach has been d-riven to their current pursuit
only because the County Plannin~ Department overstepped its authority.
Likewise, North Beach Association has spent .over $17,000.00 in legal fees
opposing the variances that the Planning Department of St. Lucie County
Government ~ave a body known as "Barts Bay".
Please listen to .us and reject this ordinance. Please, again, 1-ook and
read pages two, three and four attached.
Section 7.05.00
Transpodation Sys.tems
7.05.05
USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS
No residentially zoned property shall be used for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to any
non-.reSidentialb/zoned land, or to .any land uSed for a purpose not permitted in a residentially zoned district.
page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ordinance #99-001a
Draft #2
Underline is for addition
~tz~ika 'i%rL~ is for deletion
Page 18
PRINT DATE: 09/29/98
7.05,05
A,
a.
USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS
No .residentially zoned property~ private street or road ri hts-of w
Used fordrivewa Wal . ' '. ' ,' , - a, shall 'be
ar~, land U'sed ;°Yr'a '_! u?~; or ..any other a. ccess purpose to any non-residentially zoned land, or to
P P not pormittod in a residontialig zonod district.
~be specifically authorized by the Board of Coun"' Commissionem no stme
,~na, us~rial~~~',: zoned ' ro-ro,:e:e .-} .be. used for :access,:to commercmil or
Fo~,Commission, to authorize the use of a street classified a' local res~den
roadwa fOr add~'{5 ;j' -' ' ,' '' ' ' r ' ' ;, ' tial street-,.or
ant;for, such ·
"~~ to t'he satistacti a.,ocess.
.
---~ ,N°; other· alternative access, mute is available to the: roe _.-..
Th t~a the dominate use of DroDertv within the area of the ". ro",osed drivewa connection, to
page 3
What follows is the re-write by the St. Lucie County Planning Depart-
ment of the Ordinance now numbered 99-002a of the original part of 7.05.05.
The original part of 7.05.05 was just TWO LINES. Please, leave it as is.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
132
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
7.05.05
USE OF RESIDENTi
A.
No residentially zoned pro
for driveway, walkway, or any
land 'used for a .purpose not pe~
iR a
Bo
ESS
shall be used
Iially zoned land., or to any
·
~o street or road
used for access to commercially o~
or
route
n that:
to be a local residential stree!
for such access
t~
connection, point is available to the properly,
area of. the proposed driveway connection, to
or industrial development activity is located, is vacan/
the
a local residential street o,
to the land, structures an('
in unn~
owner, lessee, or occupant, as distin.quished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions or_
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline is for addition
Strike Thrcugh is for deletion
Page 5
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
1
2
3
,4
5
6
'7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
'15
16
17
i8
_c.
this Section. are literall enforced-, and the condition is created, b the re ulations of this Co__.~g_d_~de
a. nd not by .an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant.
All Drivewa Construction shall conform. ~ to the re uirements of this code exce t that in those
,
_operation of th; ;'(:;;~a~t ' ~ ~ x~~ ' ~
~~e ~ed for access to commerciall
an Adenal or MajOr Collector ~ · ~'r'~.
p a ge 4 ?~ ~~
e Stuart News and
Th.e Port St. Lucie' News
~*~*O
(an emu n of The Stuart NeWs)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARTIN- COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE-
Before the undersigned authority appeared KATN~-FFN PRITCHARD
who on oath says that he./sheAGGOUNTING MANAGER
.
of The Stuart 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 LUC!E CO BOARD OF CO COMM
in the matter ~'~'~'~'E
in the Court, was Published in The
Stuart News ,and The Port St. Lueie News in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said The Stuart News and The
Port St. Luoie News is a newspaper published at Stuart, in said
Martin County, Florida'with offices and paid circulation in
Martin County, Florida, and St. Lueie 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. Luoie 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. Luoie
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
A.D. 19.
(Seal)
day of MAK{..;H
Notary Publi6~
Notary PaNic, State 0fFl0rida ~i
C0n~nissi0n No, CC 584783 .. ~
My Comlmss~on E~. 10/22 20 ~
NOT~Y Fla No~ Se~iee & Bo~g Co.~
FEB-I2-1999 09:01
FORT P! ERCE NEWS
NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS
The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency proposes to
review the Future Land Use,. Coastal Management and
Conservation 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 Thun
February 25, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as
possible, in Room 101, St. Lucie County Administration
Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters
affecting your I~ersonal and property-rights may be heard
and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to at~end
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. Lucie
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. maE'er considered at the meetings or
i~earings of any boarcl, committees, commissions, agency,
council 'or advisory group, that person will need record of
the proceedings and that, for such purpose may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record should Jn~clude th~ testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon tl~e request of
any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying-during a
hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding wilt be
grated~ an opportunity to cross-examine any individual'
testifying during a I~earing upon request.
Tlqis notice dated and executed this 10th day of February
1999.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCRE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/8/Diana Westoski. Chairman
PUBLISH DATE: February 15, I'999
561 460 9588
2
P. 01×01
TOTAL P. 01
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
JoAnn Riley
I:richter@stuartnews.com
Wed, Feb10, 1999 9:06 AM
St. Lu¢ie County Comprehensive Plan
Please pass to Pat Sullivan. Please fax a proof. Publish Date: February 15, 1999. Thanks.
NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS
The St. Lu¢ie County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future Land
Use, Coastal Management and Conservation 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, February 25, 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. Ali 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. Lucie 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 record of the proceedings
and that, for such purpose 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 grated an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying
during a hearing upon request.
This notice dated and executed this 10th day of February 1999.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/SI Diana Wesloski, Chairman
PUBLISH DATE: February 15, 1999
18 pt type for heading
No smaller than 2 column inches wide by 10 inches long
Send Proof to: St. Lu¢ie County Dept. of Community Development
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
Phone - (561) 462-1586
Fax - (561) 462-1581
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
NOTICE OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY-
COrMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS
The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency proposes to review the Future Land
Use, Coastal Management and Conservation 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, February 25, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon theroaffer
as possible, in Room 101, St. Lucie 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. Lucie 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 record of the proceedings
and that, for such purpose 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 grated an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying
during a hearing upon request.
This notice dated and executed this 10th day of February 1999.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ISI Diana Wesloski, Chairman
PUBLISH DATE' February 15, 1999
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
Section 125.66
Page 1 of 4
1125.66' Ordinances; enactment procedure; emergency ordinances; rezoning or change
of land use ordinances or resolutions.--
(1) In exercising the ordinance-making powers conferred by s. 1, Art. VIII of the State
Constitution, coUnties shall adhere to the procedures prescribed herein.
(2)(a) The regular enactment procedure shall be as follows' The board of county
commissioners at any regular or special meeting may enact or amend any ordinance, except as
provided in subsection (4), if notice of intent to consider such ordinance is given at least 10
days prior to said meeting by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. A
copy of such notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business
hours of the office of the clerk of the board of county commissioners. The notice of proposed
enactment shall state the date, time, and place of the meeting; the title or titles of proposed
ordinances; and the place or places within the county where such proposed ordinances may be
inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the
meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance.
(b) Certified copies of ordinances or amendments thereto enacted under this regular
enactment procedure shall be filed with the Department of State by the clerk of the board of
county commissioners within 10 days after enactment by said board and shall take effect upon
filing with the Department of State. However, any ordinance may prescribe a later effectiv~e
date.
(c) Whenever any ordinance has heretofore been enacted and a separate book of notices of
intent was'not kept by the clerk of the board of county commissioners, but a copy of the notice
of intent was available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the clerk of
the board of county commissioners, such ordinance is hereby validated.
(3) The emergency enactment procedure shall be as follows: The board of county
commissioners at any regular or special meeting may enact or amend any ordinance with a
waiver of the notice requirements of subsection (2) by a four-fifths vote of the membership of
such board, declaring that an emergency exists and that the immediate enactment of said
ordinance is necessary. However, no emergency ordinance or resolution shall be enacted which
establishes or amends the actual zoning map designation of a parcel or parcels of land or
changes the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category.
Emergency enactment procedures for land use plans adopted pursuant to part II of chapter 163
shall be pursuant to that part. Certified copies of ordinances or amendments thereto enacted
under this emergency enactment procedure by a county shall be filed with the Department of
State by the clerk of the board of county commissioners as soon after enactment by said board
as is practicable. An emergency ordinance enacted under this procedure shall be deemed to be
filed and shall take effect when a copy has been accepted by the postal authorities of the
Government of the United States for special delivery by certified mail to the Department of
State.
(4) Ordinances or resolutions, initiated by other than the county, that change the actual
zoning map designation-of a parcel or parcels of land shall be enacted pursuant to subsection
(2). Ordinances or resolutions that change the actual list of permitted, conditional, or
prohibited uses within a zoning category, or ordinances or resolutions initiated by the county
that change the actual zoning map designation of a parcel or parcels of land shall be enacted
http ://www. leg. state, fi.us/citizen/documents/statutes/1998/ch0125/SEC66
.HTM
2/5/99
Section 125.66
Page 2 of 4
pursuant to the following procedure:
(a) In cases in which the proposed ordinance or resolution changes the actual zoning map
designation for a parcel or parcels of land involving less than 10 contiguous acres, the board of
county commissioners, in addition.to following the general notice requirements of subsection
(2), shall direct its clerk to notify by mail each real property owner whose land the
governmental agency Will redesignate by enactment of the ordinance or resolution and whose
address is known by reference to~ the latest ad valorem tax records. The .notice shall state the
substance of the proposed ordinance or resolution as it affects that property owner and shall set
a time and place for one or more public hearings on such ordinance or resolution. Such notice
shall be given at least 30 days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and a copy of such
notice shall be kept available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the
office of the clerk of the board of county commissioners. The board of county commissioners
shall hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance or resolution and may, upon the
conclusion of the hearing, immediately adopt the ordinance or resolution.
2(b) In cases in which the proposed ordinance or resolution changes the actual list of
permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category, or changes the actual
zoning map designation of a parcel or parcels of land involving 10 contiguous acres or more,
the board of county commissioners shall provide for public notice and hearings as follows:
1. The board of county commissioners shall hold two advertised public hearings on the
proposed ordinance or resolution. At least one hearing shall be held after 5 p.m. on a weekday,
unless the board of county commissioners, by a majority plus one vote, elects to conduct that
hearing at another time of day. The first public hearing shall be held at least 7 days after the
day that the first advertisement is published. The second hearing shall be held at least 10 days
after the first hearing and shall be advertised at least 5 days prior to the public hearing.
2. The required advertisements shall be no less than 2 columns wide by 10 inches long in a
standard size or a tabloid size newspaper, and the headline in the advertisement shall be in a
type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement shall not be placed in that portion of the
newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The advertisement shall
be placed in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the county and of general interest and
readership in the community pursuant to chapter 50, not one of limited subject matter. It is the
legislative intent that, whenever possible, the advertisement shall appear in a newspaper that is
published at least 5 days a week unless the only newspaper in the community is published less
than 5 days a week. The advertisement shall be in substantially the following form:
NOTICE OF (TYPE OF) CHANGE
The _(nam~~oposes by ordinance
resolut~~itle of ordinance or resolution), to adopt the following or
A public hearing on the ordinance or resolution will be held on ~date and~ at (meeting
place). ~~ -' - C-
Except for amendments which change the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited
uses within a zoning category, the advertisement shall contain a geographic location map
which clearly indicates the area within the local government covered by the proposed
http://www, leg.state.fl.us/citizen/documents/statutes/1998/chO 125/SEC66 .HTM
2/5/99
Section 125.66
Page 3 of 4
ordinance or resolution. The map shall include major street names as a means of identification
of the general area.
3. In lieu of publishing the advertisements set out in this paragraph, the board of county
commissioners may mail a notice to each person owning real property within the area covered
by the ordinance or resolution. Such notice shall clearly explain the proposed ordinance or
resolution: and shall notify the person of the time, place, and location of both public hearings
on the proposed ordinance or resolution.
(5) Five years after the adoption of any ordinance or resolution adopted after the effective
date of this act, no cause of action shall be commenced as to the validity of an ordinance or
resolution based on the failure to strictly adhere to the proviSions contained in this section.
After 5 years, substantial compliance with the provisions contained in this section shall be a
defense to an action to invalidate an ordinance or resolution for failure to comply with the
provisions contained in this section. Without limitation, the common law doctrines of laches
and waiver are valid defenses to any action challenging the validity of an ordinance or
resolution based on failure to strictly adhere to the provisions contained in this section.
Standing to initiate a challenge to the adoption of an ordinance or resolution based on a failure
to striCtly adhere to the provisions contained in this section shall be limited to a person who
was entitled to actual or constructive notice at the time the ordinance or resolution was
adopted. Nothing herein shall be construed to affect the standing requirements under part II of
chapter 163.
(6) The notice procedures required by this section are established as minimum notice
procedures.
History.--s. 1, ch. 69-32; ss. 10, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 70-422; s. 1, ch. 76-155; s. 1 ch. 77-331' s. 1 ch. 89-
267; s. 1, ch. 90-152; s. 1, ch. 95-198; s. 2, ch. 95-310. ' ' '
1Note.--Section 3, ch. 95-310, provides that "[i]f any ordinance or resolution was adopted prior to [June 15,
1995] and the appropriate subsection of s. 125.66, Florida Statutes, was not followed, but the county followed the
procedure of subsection (2), subsection (5), or subsection (6) of s. 125.66, Florida Statutes, as they existed at the
time of the adoption of such ordinance or resolution, the procedures used for such ordinance or resolution are
hereby validated and ratified. This section does not apply to any lawsuit pending on [June 15, 1995]."
2Note.--As amended by s. 2, ch. 95-310. This version is published as the last expression of legislative will (see
Journal of the Senate 1995, p. 1061, and Journal of the House of Representatives 1995, p. 1129). Paragraph (b)
was also amended by s. 1, ch. 95-198, and that version reads:
(b) In cases in which the proposed rezoning involves 5 percent or more of the total land area of the county, the
board of county commissioners shall provide for public notice and hearings as follows:
1. The board of county commissioners shall hold two advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance or
resolution. Both hearings shall be held after 5 p.m. on a weekday, unless the board of county commissioners, by a
majority plus one vote, elects to conduct one or both of these hearings at another time of day. The first public
hearing shall be held approximately 7 days after the day that the first advertisement is published. The second
hearing shall be held approximately 2 weeks after the first hearing and shall be advertised approximately 5 days
prior to the public hearing. The day, time, and place at which the second public hearing will be held shall be
announced at the first public hearing.
2. The ]required advertisements shall be no less than one-quarter page in a standard size or a tabloid size
newspaper, and the headline in the advertisement shall be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement
shall not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The
http ://www. leg. state, fi.us/citizen/documents/statutes/1998/ch0125/SEC66
.HTM
2/5/99
Section 125.66
Page 4 of 4
advertisement shall be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the county and of general interest
and readership in the community pursuant to chapter 50, not one of limited subject matter. It is the legislative
intent that, whenever Possible, the advertisement shall appear in a neWspaper that is published at least 5 days a
week unleSs the only newspaper in the community is published less than 5 days a week. The advertisement shall
be in the following form:
NOTICE OF ZONING CHANGE
The (name of local governmental unit) proposes to rezone the land within 'the area shown in the map in this
advertisement.
A public hearing on the rezoning will be held on _(date and time)_ at _(meeting place).
The advertisement shall also contain a geographic location map which clearly indicates the area covered by the
proposed ordinance or resolution.'The map shall include major street names as a means of identification of the
area.
3. In lieu of publishing the advertisements set out in this paragraph, the board of county commissioners may
mail a notice to each person owning, real property within the area covered by the ordinance or resolution. Such
notice shall clearly explain the proposed ordinance or resolution and shall notify the person of the time, place, and
location of both public hearings on the proposed ordinance or resolution.
http://www, leg.state.fl.us/citizen/documents/statutes/1998/ch0125/SEC66 .HTM
2/5/99
The St. Lucie County Local Planning Agency proposes to review elements of The St Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan. 4
A public hearing on this matter will be held on February 25, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as possible.
2-12-!999 12:01PM
FROM THE TR I BUNE B61B9~0106
should be:
granted-
NOTICE OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
HEARINGS
The St. Lucie County Locat Planning Agency pro-
poses to review the Future Land Use, Coastal
Management and Conservation 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, February 25, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon
thereafter as possible, in Room 101, St. Lucie County
Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft.
Pierce, FL. Matters affecting your personal and prop-
erty rights may be heard and acted upon. Ali interest-
ed 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.
Lucie 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 ele-
ments 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 o[ any board, committees, commissions,
agency, council or advisory group, that person will
need record of the proceedings and that, for such pur-
pose 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 pro-
ceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be
Sworn in. Any party to the Proceeding will began
opportunity to cross-examine any individual~ng
during a hearing upon request.
This notice dated and. executed.-this 10th day of
February 1999.
LOCAL PLANNING'AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/S/Diana Wesloski, Chairman
PUBLISH DATE: .February 15, 1999
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION£RS
FAX# (561)462-1581
TRANSMISSION COVER FORM
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
RAYMOND L. WAZNY
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
AX NUMBER:
SENDER: JoAnn Riley
CO~ENTS :
PHONE NUMBER: 4 62 - 15 8 6
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
,Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner
Last Fax~
Date Tim~ Type
Feb 12 12-39pm Sent
Result: OK - black and white fax
OK COlor- color fax
Identification
95950106
Fax History Report for
St. Lucie County Florida
4621581
Feb 12 I999 12:41pm
,Duration Pa_ag_~ Result
1:25 2 OK
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION6RS
FAX# (561)462-1581
TRANSMISSION COVER FORM
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
RAYMOND L. WAZNY
DATE:
TO: ~~
DEPARTMENT.
FAX NUMBER:
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
SENDER: JoAnn Riley
CO~ENTS :
462 -1586
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 Viiginia 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/Copier/Scanner
_Last Fax
Fax History Report for
St. Lucie County Florida
4621581
Feb 10 1999 9:27am
Date Tim~ ~ Identification.
Duration Pa__ag~ Result
Feb 10 9:25am ~Sent 95950106 1:40
Result:
OK - black and white fax
OK ~co!or - color fax
3 OK
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
JoAnn Riley
I: d coo pe r~__, I i n k. free d o m .com
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 9:06 AM
St. Lu¢ie County Comprehensive Plan
Please fax a proof. Publish Date: 2/15/99. 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 and Conservation 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, February 25, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter
as possible, in Room 101, St. Lucie 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. Lucie 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 record of the proceedings
and that, for such purpose 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 re:quest of any party to the
proceeding, indiViduals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the
proceeding will be grated an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying
during a hearing upon request.
This notice dated and executed this 10th day of February 1999.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/SI Diana Wesloski, Chairman
PUBLISH DATE: February 15, 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
Phone - (561) 462-1586
Fax- (561) 462-1581
Send Bill 1:o:
St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982
nr~ Ril~, 2-25-~'9.a(JcomB..p..lan.txt
................................................... , ............................................................................................. ., ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Pa~e 2 ll
Phone - (561) 462-1586
Fax - (561) 462-1581