Loading...
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