HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 21, 1999PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSiON/LOC~ ~PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA I;;;;~;;~~;;~~; - -
JANUARY 21, 1999- .REGULAR 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 Attomey; 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
appeared in residents' to attend and he did not want anyone in the audience
waiting
DISCLOSURES:Mr. Matthes stated that his. employer, Culpepper & Terpening represents the
· applicant, Phil Drawdy, Agenda Item #3, therefore he will recuse himself fi'om this item.
Mr. Merritt stated that he has represented the owner of the property in the past and will therefore
recuse himself from 'Agenda. Item #3. - ~
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN:
Chairman 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 mtl'Call,, Ms, Wesloski
was elected Chai~an by a unammous vote):.
ELE
'=CHAIRMAN:
Mr, McCurdy nominated Mr. Meffitt for Vice-C~hai~~ "
Mr. Merd~ stated that he will,have to decline the nomination. He sometimes himself
due to the nature of hiS.buSiness.
Mr, Merritt nominated ~Mr, McCurdy for Viee-chairrnan,., . ~ with. Mr.~ Lounds~ ~sec°~ ~.~- gthe motion.
With.no other nominations, the floor was clo'sed to nominations, and upon rOtt Catl, ~. McCurdy
was elected.Vice-Chai~an by a unanimous vote. '- ...... ~..
APPROVAL OF .PLANING ~DzONING
REGULARMEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1998
Chairman Wesloski asked i'f there 'were 'any additions or cogecfions to the. ....... mi es:,
There being..no er. additions or,eo~eefions to ~the· esof the
Chai~an WeslOski asked:for:a.motion. :Mr,'Lounds
secOnded by Mr. Grande.
-Upon'roll call, the motion was approVed 7-0,.withMr. Moore,and
was
PUBLIC H~ARING -
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 ~-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) Zo~ng.District.
Mr. Flores stated that the subject property is located on the Somh 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-I' (Agricultural,
Residential - ! 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 c " . . '
ontractor,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,
Neighb°rhood) 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 ComlSrehensive Plan. St-affis, therefore, recommending that -you
forward this petition to the Board of County Co .mmissioners 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
Pierce, addressed~the Board .and stated that the
2980
Drawdy,
Street, Fort
Mr. Ladyko :stated ~that :he .is pleased staff is reco~ending~ the .petition- for~ app. ~ :.- ~ ~-.: ~ 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
stated that 'the 'applicant proposes .to develop., a small
averaging 6,000 square feet wit. h .associated parking,: Mth.:a¢ces
Midway Road, ~and a retention area located in the rear of the property.
Mr. McCurdy:asked Mr. LadYko if the site was robe ~designed~for
each.
' '' i ~'e 'relimin~ site
~ .... e a s~n!e contractor s..bmld ng,. h,~,~p ~
Mr. Ladyko : stated ':that it :is not proposed to b g
Mr. MCCurdy asked smffif this will .go t~ough the Site plan. approval, processi ~
Mr. Flores stated yes.
Mr. Ladyko'Providedthe preliminary site plan to the Board
be required, the
M~. Lounds .~ked staff to show on.the .o ad where South 25th S~¢¢t is.' lo,ed.in relaion m this
property.
Chairman WeSloski stated that in the info~ation Provided to the B.~
building'contraCtor's office" not. Offices.
Mr. Ladyko stated that since the application was. originally his
mind, .he-would be more than happy
Chairman Wesloski stated that five buildings will generate more ; office.
Mr. Ladyko stated .that .the 'amo~t or.building .coverage proposed in the preliminaw site plan is
approximately 14-15% of the t°tal Site, which is well under what. the zoning would allow. He stated
that typically the..range is 30-35°,4, 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 d~ng the site plan approval process when staffwill review access to the property, the
layout and the t~e of parking, the type :of trees, etc.
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Kelly what is the future of zoning of' thi~ 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, staff has
never fully defined what it will be, staff dOes not believe it should be strict commercial.
o
Mr. Trias stated that the staff report.indicates that this is "an orderly and logical development
pattem''. ~. 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 ~s .location when.in the past years, this Board has approved three other Commercial,
Office zonings in this area.
Chairman Wesloski asked' if there were any fu~her questions of Mr. Ladyko.
At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anYone that would like to speak in favor of this petition.
Chainuan 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 ·
chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board.
After considering.
the.standards of review as set forth in Section 11
Mr. McCurdy moved~that the~Planning .and Zoning
County
LuCie :County
the St. Lucie
fora
(Commercial, :OffiCe)Zoning District. :beCause and
moVing.tow~d.a.commercial use.
Mr, MoOre secOnded the motion, and' upon.:roll' ca!l'the, motion was approved 7-0.
Chairman Wesl°ski stated that the petition would be ,fo~arded to the:'Board ~of County
Commissioners with a ~reco~endati°n .of.approval, ,
PUBLIC HEA~NG
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 heating 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
roadwa.vs, 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: penni~ed in a residentially
zoned district ex.cent .as provided for in Paragraph B below.
Mr. M~hy 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 ~veway cOnnection, to the proposed o~ existing use is
vacant or OtherwiSe occupied by non-residential uses. For example, when you look at the. area"
surrounding the proposed ~veWay connection, it is:either (1) vacant-or(2) the do~nant 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 app
Mr. Murphy stated that i'f someone:,
now, they :woUld have to go back to
comply with all cu~ent county
and they would have.to go t~ough
that had been ~req~
noW if someone
ty,
not accessible
prior to this change, arewe loOhng
· are erroneous' or. inco~ect. " ·
Mr..Murphy stated .that at this time staffis not going to: assme that the zOni~s are erroneous or
inco~ect. ~
the property.:fights of the pmpe~ies, that may. have. .~ been zoned with an
old'zoning that has not been .... updated and shoUld have been,
Mr. Murphy stated that we are ,guaranteeing the. fights .ofthe property owner m ~at least ~m~e their
best ~pitch,
..... ave no' other way., to
wherein., you.have',to demonstrate, you .' ' ~'" ~ ~ .e :it was
Mr. Grande asked~. M~hy how many pr°Penies are located ~ the co
Hutchinson isl~d~proper~'
~ants property-fights which may be very.dangerous.
Mr. Murphy-stated .that the countY has enOugh
existing
precarious positions. .... should the continued, inte~.retation.~ .. as rendered be. that
be zoned:residential, therefore you ¢ t :use them ~for
zoning lines ~arein ~the v~Busp~s of ~e c . He dOes not foresee a.
really
to
M~..Murphy stated this-really appfies to the
residential ~.~d may bein
uses. He does not .see this :change as opening up the gates.
cannot do it, without having a relief mechanism-avai!able,
themselves up for various types of litigation,
non-"
Mr. Grande stated that
;ase
basis using the'V~ance or conditional use as the solution, by inco¢orating these Changes into the
code, the county be giving property owners with impro~)e-rly zOh~d Parcels property:rights .that they
houldn, t have. This would'put the county in a position .where they 'will not be able to stop the
~property owners in the future from.using access they shoUldn't be able to 'use,~.only because the
property was poorly zoned to start with.
Mr. ~Mu~hy stated that the method m ad&ess that specific issue would be to r.eview the entire'zoning
structure of the county. ~He stated that denying this change would :not cure the problem, it. would
only delay the issUe'untiI. a property 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
oppommity to some degree to do that relative to the comprehensive plan' updates. He would, caution
the 'Board that there'are that we must be. cognizant of, there should be
compelling reasons 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 The last time this Board visited this issue, he adopted Mr. Killday's
suggestion When he saw that it hadn't been done, he spoke
the Board :and the audience .to hear why.that was
not adopted.
Mr. Moore stated that Mr. ~llday 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 thos~instances that exist today, he
thinks .the Board~and the au_di, ence~Should listen ~o why Mr. KilldaY s language Would not W;'rk.
_
Mr. Murphy stated ~at there.will be situations'where the configuration of the parcel, the condition
or requirements of the adj:acent 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 ofthis 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.
a.safer..
design
chan
oWner, it
property.
Mr.: Murphy stated that other examples could.include
duplexes
haVe .:constantly wanted to.-use the back door approaches to get :in:
of old
sa
Mr. Trias stated that he is'not' familiar'with 'the background of the
Storage proj eot. He can :. underst~d
Heis a li~le
the draft ordinance.~
Isled Mini-
in
Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy Whathappens with
variety ofuses, .suCh
area. HOw would.this~apPlY inthe county.
:tO create new
a co~ercial
~ ~eas, with
Mr. Murphy~ stated that ~if you-are eoming-~ ~om ,the residential area
.commercial on.both sides, there.is no affect.
Mr.. Tfias ::asked i~ M what if.you~have ,a co~ercial establi ~i~i~:.middle of your
residential gea,
kill it. This
:least allow
~ O
you: can. t d it.
of the issues and
on of streets
have: a small
~ped
: zoning
Mr. Murphy , stated it kills it.
Mr. Tfias ~asked Mr, hy why wouid that be-a ~good thing.
·
Mr. Murphy stated.that.the way the Code is ~tten .and interpreted fight n°w,
mechanism :~suming :you.have the co~er¢ial zoning and the ~other
for'it to be ~considered, With :therecent '.
counter to the concepts ~of new and traditional ~and inte~ated :land use',
He .stated that ~e Board needs to decide if t~s: is,gOod Or bad. '
in an urban environment :suCh as Fort'~Pierce.
Mr. Trias stated that .in his opinion, there may be a better tool to ad&ess
specific concerns ~that apparently
in'the county,
Ms. ~Dreyer. asked if~this could possibly tead-:to the tail wagging~the
area. Would that not then be'an impetu
10
since you now have ~a~comme~cial 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-Co~ission 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
Chairman Wesloski stated that her understanding is thata 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 achange in zoning go forward through.the process, providing it meets ~all of the criteria,
including the public ..he~ng 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 Bprovide
a relief mechanism ~the property owner can take advantage of. This is no guarantee. It provides an
available mech~sm 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 Weslosh..asked ~Mr. Murphy if the warehouse on the beach were to come forward, would
.they be under the.new regulations,'
~. Murphy statedthat they would.be under the..new regulations and would require a conditional use
approval.
Chairman 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 Weslc
Mr. Murphy Stated yes. He stated that he'belieVes' the ,mendments outlined in ths.~afc .address that
point.
.Chairman Wesloski stated ~that Old ~Dixie Highway would.no
access
contained-
property, fi'om anything
situation where :this would still not..fit,
Mr'. M~hy stated that. We have to choc
have a .. commercial local .Street. For
industrial
Road,
· cannot
native.
Chairman Wesloski asked if ~ere ~e. any more :queStions 'for Mr: hy,
Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if the. North Hutchinson.I~sland Mini~Storage: property was zoned
when the land use designations .were' put into affect:
Mr. Murphy' stated that particular-p~cel
1.960's early. 1970':s. It has had different de~ees of co~ercial and different
has had :a non-residential use, No d al is a
low-intensity commercial, moderate intensity, .high imensiw,
late
but it
~:schoois, parks,
Mr, Me~tt ~asked~,:~, Murphy:~if:there~are a lotofo ..... prop'e~ies, that c~~,~e~zo~ ~t~ough,
before the land .use program was adopted in-1984. ~ ~
.
.
Mr. Murphy stated that is co~eet, .He :stated~at' there were:use-s~in
changes were made to the code) that were: subject
been pemtted ~ the~previous category no
and churches are a good example.
Mr. Merritt s~ated that if we do not prowide .some method of relief, we are. op~ng:~-~:up~ the.
county
for lawsuits.
a potential problem in the way of access and damages regarding
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
by five or si
reqUired
or viSible from
to go into the
Mr.
waive the
and'put in trees that will not live.
to allow the Community Development .Director discretion to
screening 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 statedthat 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. Men'itt.asked Mr. Murphy if the security fund of $15,000 is not enough on the
original toWer. He Stated that hehas 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 doTM a tower and why are we
13
discouraging.the, co,i°cation with,. a $3,000 fee~._
for$
Mr.
Mr.. MushY
Mr.
be ,cheaper ~to
removing the tower.
.5,000 would cover the cost 0f taking it: down.
'tower would
involved in
access the prope~y.
Mr.. Merd~ stated that he h~-~a problem with the cost ~of $3,000-for remo~inga' coqocated' antenna,
he-Would like to see that ch~ged :and enco~age co-location.
Chairman Weslosh .askedif~there were ~any'more questions forMr, ~ ~ : ~.
Mr. Lounds asked ~.: M~hy how m~y applications
they increasing.
Mr. ,Murphy ,stated that hedoes not, have '~-,exact er.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. hy ifthe~eo
separate towers.
Mr. Murphy stated absolutely.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. hyff. the. $3,000.wouM'cover.. · .~, :the-cost.~
specific antenna and co-axiat cable offofthat P Ulg tower,
for
to t~e that
Mr. Murphy stated yes if it were necessary.
Mr. Lounds :asked Mr. Mushy why t~s. is-not leR~up to the tower.omer.
Mr. Murphy ~ated :that it could be,
of the tower. The present smm~e of the code isthat,
to. the $1'5.~,000 paid by· the original tower omer, the co-loC
14
change isan attempt
For instance, on-one
you $15,000 'to plaCe the co-locate.
taft felt Was a comradictory action~ on the part of.the-county.
you.to co-locate and.on the-other hand we are.going to i:harge
Mr. Lounds stated that he understands : and ~ agrees 'with the intent. He stated that he agrees with Mr.
.Men-itt Wheminthe county wOuld rather, have people.co-exist-on a.tower than build more towers.
He: stated that.S3,000 for a radio station may not be a lot of mOney, if itWere a small business that
needed that ante~a, height and location $3,000 may m~e 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-amended with
Section 7.05.05(A) as presented tonight.
Chairman .Wesloski stated that the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage is no longer a viable
project.
Chairman Wesloski asked.the Board if there were any specific questions of staff regarding Section
1.06.'02 and 7.05.05.
At this time., Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing on Sections 1.06,02 and 7.05.05.
Chairman Wesloski asked .if there was anyone who would like to speak on Sections 1.06.02 and
7.05.05:
Chairman Wesloski requested that Mr. ~llday's hand-out be made a part .of'the record.
Mr..Brian ~llday, 923 Jackson Way, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Killday stated that he
is speaking. tonight on behalf of the Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County. Mr. ~llday read
into the record as follows:
Dear Commissioners:
..
I here the record the position of the St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance with respect
to Ordinance 99'002. We have concerns with certain provisions of this proposed ordinance
as stated below:
1.06.02
7.05:05
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
USE OF ~SIDENTIAL 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 center lines of the streets and roads. If the intention had been to exclude the streets from the
15
. zoning
of the streets.
These
D de must .
single .as a
anWor other inappropriate 1and uses will be
Regulations, ~' ~ ~'' ~ '
He stated that Policy 1.1.8.4 requires that anY'commercial/n°n'residemiaI use in'residential.areas
must meet. the folloWing ~standards: .
2) The.property for which'the.commercial desi~ation is soUght is B:¢ated on an medal
or.major collector;~ and .
5) The site does not-have direct ~veway access onto', any local, or minor., icollector.street.
Policy 1,1..8,4 does not allow for.exemptions of t~s'mle. Mr.
for remedying the problems brought fo~h,, churches and commercial ~uses.in
these are on major Collector.or. ~arterial streets.
of
Mr. Killday stated that. there, is :no .needed to: mend the ,defiffiti0n 0f
clearly written as it w~: intended m be. Martin Co~tY' has the. same
''
as it spresent y written. If we change the .code to
arterial or major.. ..colleCtor. s~eet :or~ mad~ · fights'Of-way,~ .. shall beused
other access-p~ose to .any !other nomreSidential!y zoned land, or to' any
p ed :~. a residentially zoned~disffiet'' then it will
The'way it is written is not.
Mr. ~llday stated that
Development Code provisions~that allow for reasonable development.
cited would only serve to degrade our property values and quality
amendments are
very
. .
or. any
;not.
~, Plan,.and Land
these
of
to this statute.
Mr. Killday stated that the Land Development Code
position against t~gs tawsUit:s, ~it is wri~en
a problem they
challenged ~ it through the
certainly be
adopted and the pr°perty
county no longer ~h~ a Choice, the
Development ~
had
written and
~ ~ would
is
,the
their
16
property, TheCounty Commission;would.then be forced to approve the access.because 'it is written
in the Land Development Co'de.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 1.1,06~03, iStandards of Review, in reviewing the application of a proposed
amendment, tothe 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.
~ether 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 moveto St. Lucie COunty and buy a $250,000 water-~ont
home, when all at once the Land Development Code can be changed and you have
trucks accessing a storage warehouse or whatever may come forward, perhaps a
pawn shop. Yo~ 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 commemial 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.
~ether the. proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and
is .'in h~ony with .the pu~ose .and-interest of this Code. The citizens here .are
opposed to these amendments.. Where are those who are in favorof this. Who ask
the COunty Planners to changes these Codes and why are they not here stating their
public interest- ~ere:are the potential, litigants.
Mr. ~llday ~stated that he ~urges someone to make a motion to reject this and to listen to the.people.
..
Chairman Weslosh 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
7.05.05(C) and asked Mr. MUChy if this is correct.
Ms.,.Sp
if ~section
proposed driveway". If.they. put the drivew
property of Flotilla Terrace i
Ms. Spalding stated that She j
roposed, an~ since 'then
t Was exPlained What the residem:s
warehouse on thiS.property,
and .that would be
the
~ere
;.where
t to want .a
Chairman Weslosh: stated that Drag Ordin~ee 99~002 is not for the w~ehouse, .R-i~s for the whole
county.
MS, Spalding.stated thatn., o matter ~what staffproposes~ always p.ermitS~.~ . 'thew ~ use to .go on that
particular parcel. ~'
Chairman. Wesloski stated .that ~she Would not say that it' woUld pe~it'it,
opportunity to request to be pe~itted, but that:does not mean it would be~
MS, ~Spalding~ :Stated that ~she believes~ itwould be
Commission m turn it-dom.' She. stated ~.that- staff if .
property omer but not aboUt the 'hards~p~ forthe~ resi is.
Mr. Murphy stated that it is impo~ant to ~emember the third
as ma3t be specifically authorized. This is not a mandatory action, it is a~
type action. The~B°ard of C°~ty-C0~~sSioners
it down.
Mr. Murphy stated that staff is 'cognizant of what
impacts .on the.~ surro~ding area.
giVe it the.
County
Except
or.subjective
to.~
the
Mrl Murphy-stated that this .simply provides a mechanism. It is not a guarantee, you'have to meet
the: stand'ds. It does not guarantee ~approval-
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy .if the applicant, does not meet the stand~ds~ would they still
go forward-t~ough the'~hearing process.
I8
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. Murphy stated yes.
Mr. Grande stated that if this Board.does.not make' any changes at all, property owners who are
affected haVe the fight .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 Co~ission level. If this Board makes' these corrections we are reversing the process
and in affect gi~ing the.proPerty owners the fights to-expect relief.
Mr. Mmphy'stated~that presently there are no provisions. The property owner may come in, request
a development plan Or access fights 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
·
.that case to the satisfaction of the County C0~ssion, they
may grant of relief.
Mr2 Grande'.stated that :they may hope to exercise a fight 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 h the.summer of~1.9-98
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.insetted. 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'of7.05.05 as it is today. You will
note that it was adopted in August of 199.0. 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.lq ur which is the .proposal that is before:
proVided by Mr. Murphy tonight. It is now thirty three lines lOng.
Mr. Doran stated.that do you, as an .adviSory~ board
governmental units. South Beach has been driven to their current.
Pl~ng Departmem~ overstepped:its~authofity. LikewiSe, N.o~hBeachhas
:legal fees opPosing.the vafi~ces the'Planning D. epa~/ment, provided in
That is still before the Courts-. . -:~
Mr. Doran stated please listen to us,
happened.after :the 'Worksh .p , the languageexp~sion.
semitb
ordinance, strongly .urge this
ill
Mr
area~ compared to the .rest iof the CountY.
WO~
intelli~
It does to
taxed
and he
a very
-Chairman Wes!osh ~ked if therew~.~' -~yone dsewho would like ~to spe~ onS~ions.L06,02:.and
7.05.05.
Mr:, Leslie Savino, 3207 SoUth L~e~iew lc, Fo~Pierce,-:
that ~s prope~y faces: the s~eet'where
stated that
Mr'.
streets are slowly being converted into Co .~ ~ erdal.streets, Commemialism
areas, people move out, co~emial properties move. in:, _
Mr.
there is no co~emialiSm that
that we have~today akeady
that he believes this pmpe~y was mis-zonedofiginal!Y. It is~not .a
Mr. Savino Stated that he comPliments:.members
of
the
Commission
These changes are not applicable :to only in some areas,
it'as is.
leave the street
20
as
this change.
not North
by case basis,
Mr. Bill He~, 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 co~erdiatly
zoned property, in the middle of a residential neighborhood, wanted to obtain the most value for his
prop residential.to conform with the other.uses. He stated
that a reSidential area like North BeaCh, the' values for the residential property
would equal the prOperty.
Mr. Heam stated ~that :he: would like to suggest that the Board delete the following from Section
7,05, (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 lan~age 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
'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 them 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. ~en it was'put together, it was. not cast in stone. The Board was giving the
21
proper at
some:
these
Mr. Tfias he agrees with
fund : a.street.is and
because it
Mr. Tfias made~amotion to reject the changes ~afted ,by staff.
t° address, the
Mr, Grande seconded themotion.
Chairman ~:~ i'.,
Mr. Lounds stated that he would like for Mr, Trias to explain whether ' or : not he iS~asking
for
Mr.
be substituted for what: ~staff presented.
Kiliday's
language
Mr.. Trias stated that his motion is to reject the ges dra~ed~by staff, .~ ..:: ~ ~
Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any fu~her discussion.
Chairman WeSlosh asked the Recording-:Secretaw to.call .the mil.
UPon rollca!l the .motion w~de~ed 6'3'
Chai~an WeslOski stated that she would ente~.ain another motion.
.Mr. Lotmds' ~ked Mr. Murphy What differs from-m...~llday, s~!, interpretati°n of Seeti0n'7.05,05(A)
and the language proposed by staff.
Mr. Murphy stated that there isno difference other th~
refers you to .paragraph B. The only difference in the lead4n
..excluding a~efial or'major collector street or mad fights-of-way,
word "street" versus "roadways".
Mr. Killday,
staff,' is the
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. M~hy if the ~exeepfion clause is to cover the ~:C ~om :a legal
perspective.
Mr. Murphy stated yes, in his opinion.
Mr. Moore stated that the · problem, . he h~ with :the proposed changes...
22
where' owners ~ofcomme~rcial property cannot use their property. ,The 'example given by Mr. Heam
is a.great argument because ifycgii-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 areas have been zoned residential, and the'owner bought
that PieCe o edand-paid taxes on that piece of a co~ercial
.rate you have basically cut.the omer they
cannot use:their
Mr. Moore stated that he disagrees with Mr. Killday's assertion that ifa prope~y:owner has not
challen e at this point, they are stopped from doing so. He does not believe this to
be tree.
example if a
c'ommemial
what he
legal challenge he believes there is an inherem unfairness. For
states they. are going to:develop a commercial'
existed as long as the residential, to say so~ that's
s is why he noW tends to favor what staff~i
Mr. Lounds stated that he a~ees with Mr: Moore. He feels the plea-of the residents. He.stated to
Ms. Spalding, Mr. Doran that he understands their feeling, He stated that he does
are that the'residents have 'to do in order to continue to protect their
pr°pe~y, their eir feelings.
Mr. Lounds stated that., every piece or.property with similar circumstances has the same fights of
protection and development asMs. Spalding, Mr. Killday and Mr. Doran are. trying to protect for
thek own. He stated it.is very a~irable the residents have brought these ideas forward andas a
group are hereto 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 f°rth mor~ths, ag°. H~.believes this is an a~tempt t° cOrrect the
wrong in ~uncl~fied 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 fight to develop their property
it could cause litigation. He stated that Mr. Murphy is not attempting to state that it would be
success'~l litigation. Hestated that this is recognizing a problem and attempting.to deal withit ~head
on. He stated that this i.san 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 tmique 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.
that would also bear on'that.
other issues
:ed
the In the
,ose to do s could get
.that
He state fimdamental
is not a
still
they
You ,co
not a thing the access
from A1A dom~
could
all
He stated case is that
the ;,~ 'then access is not ,the tool to: To the 'zoning.
Chairman Wesloski :stated that the Board is not here. to discuss that case,.
Mr. Murphy ~stated that'is eo~eCt but,in ,this ~on.e instance, it is~ not ~an access .question, .it is a
fundamental-zoning desi~ati0n on the-Property.'
Mr. Trias st.ated that he agrees With Mr, M . The issue is access
7,05..,05;~)~ and 7,05:05(C) ~e.~ele~,
confusion of, what is.:a lot ~d whm a
not necessary at ~this:point.
Ms. Dreyer stmed.that she applauds staff:for' bringing this problem to the
to cominue to do so,. ~She statedthat she does not agree.
violation of the pOliCies of the Comprehensive plan that were cited, ms
this is.a big Stick.to bring at a small problem for lawsuits that may or
not be in favor ofthis particular amendment. ~.
issue. Of the
like staff
would
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would entertain a motion.
24'
Mr. Merritt 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 Weslo:ski asked~ if there were any questions for Mr. Murphy on Sections 2.00.00 and
7;10.23.
Mr. Grade-stated that' he has. a philosophical problem with the language ~.contained in Section
E 3'"
7.10.23( )() the Community DeVelopment Directoi-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, Ifthese 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 ~o levels of variances. There are a series
ofadministrative 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 heating and are dimensiona1 with fundamenta1 impacts on an area.~ .... "
Mr. Murphy stated that the County Commission in prior years determined they did n°t 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 Bo~d of
Adjus~ent) that's fine. He :'believes this Will have a negative effect on development,and permitting
properties. Staffhas requested a number of times froma number'of entities to liberalize the variance
prOvisions to approve items atthe stafflevel as~ opposed to going through the Board'process. In prior
years., the ~Boar ~ds ~have been: ve~ 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. concem is~ that if we allow the
administrative variance procedure, we would preclude the hearing process, wherein interested parties
may want t0;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
Adm~mstrator 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.' Trias stated that-he agrees. With'Mr. ~Murphy'~s proposal,, and he
Chairman Wesloski stated tO Mr.. Trias that. she had not opened the
able to conSider his motion ~at this time.
be
public hearing,
Mr. MurphY. staed ~that the appeal .route for .administrative
Administrator and'then to the:Board ofCo~.ty Co~issioners, Inths
. C-o~ty
Mr. L°unds stated that several years ago.the Fke Disffict,constmcted
the landscaping cost several thOUsand doll~S mote because the
Road and
Chairman WeSloSki ':asked'if:there were.'any other questions: for Mr. Mushy,
Mr. MeCurdy-asked' ~.' if a co'located antenna is simply
existing tower,
Mr. MeC~dy.staed that the'~$3i000 fi~e: ispm~ ye, i
reasonable figure in his opinion.
Mr. Murphy'stated that the Board may change the $3~000 figure.
At this time, Chairman Weslos~'. opened the.public heariffg
Mr.'He~, who-resides in l~drio,
that were approved for construction prior to September 19, 1997 that have,
Mr, Murphy. statedno-ne tha heis aware.of.
Mr.-Heamstated that he has some suggested wording
definition-and the code ~d:~they ~e as ;.follows :
on page 4, PRE-EXISTING TOWERS
26
a more
7,10,23.
intent :of the
: he
would like this paragraph to read "Any, permitted, existing tower or antenna
constrUcted prior to September 1'9, 1997 (the effective date of Ordinance 97-023),
that it would qualify for a replacement for a larger tower that could hold a
communicatiOns antenna.
on page 6, P~OSE: 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
r ' "
subject'to these egulahons .
on page 7, GE~~: 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 ali remaining
ZO ' "
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
r "
structure or any a ea.
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 statedthat he'would l~e .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
m paragraph c: read ,'The Community Development Director may approve variances up to 10°,4 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~l 1, paragraph P, he would like the first sentence to read "Any permitted
-existing telecommunications tower erected before September 19,'1997 (date".
Mr. Hearn stated that he hopes this Board will giVecare~l 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 ordnance and make it 'a little more difficult to place towers in areas
27
thatthey are not.permitted in. ~
Mr.
Table 7-40
sug ?that CN, CO, CG, IX and
a cogent. ~
Mr..Heam stated that he.is suggeSting that
areas.
Mr. Grande. stated to Mr, Hem inp aphc
in the future. ~.-Grande asked ~.iHeamifthere was
that this change be .made tonight.
now from
,reco~ending
Mr. Heam stated that he does not have the ability to reeo~end this c e ?tonight based on
,,
'Mr. MenStt asked Mr' Heam.why he wants to exclude IX.
Mr. ~Heam stated
property is rezoned to another zoning
structure.
the
A tower is temporary
Mr, Meffitt stated that .the property would have to gO ugh :a :rez
zoned IL or IH with a tower on it, yoUcan still rezone it,
have a property
~. Heam stated that he d°es not feel a-: or~
He stated a
people will 'want m .build up .scale homes.
too many
and
7.10.23'
Hearing no further argumen~ in favor ,Of~orin
Chairman Wesloski closed the pUblic portiOn of the hearing.
Mr. Grade asked. Mr. Murphy· ifhe~ has,~y~objections to. .... ~. ~.· .He~'~s
Mr. MurphY stated he has concern regarding the suggested ch~ges on:
extent that this does not conflict
agricultural enViroment,-he .does not believe this to be a
concern is. really
which.has ~a negative impact,
28
His major.
up hurting the primary indUstry in the County.
_
page 1:0, Table 7-40, CN, CO, CG, IX and I are not permitted uses ofright, they have
to be ~accessory'to..an existing commercial use on the property, They are subordinate
.to the commemial Use On ~the-property. It was felt the owner should not be penalized
for'plaCing'a tower on theirpmperty. They.know what they are getting into. If you
'have ahouse onthe property, that is not ~an accessory security residence, meeting the
: ntena you can t take .advantage of this exception, you have to meet the applicable
standards f0r 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
~ PRE-EXISTING.~ENNAS, 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
· approval, no harm. If this ~are some with lawful 'approval, staff will need to address this.
Chairman Weslosh stated that if someone would choose in their motion to pickup that wording,'.the
Board would need. to clahfy 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 ~. 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.ha~ing to go t~ough~ . . .... al Board of
- -Adju§tment variance.
¸Mr.
·
and 11
the erection, of an .ante~a ,array and'
condominium.
Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy' if these
Island,
:
Mr. Mmphystated yes.. He ,~her-statedthat there is no prohbifi°n of having
on the'mainland. If you can meet separation standards 'and meet 'the.:'
Development Code, .you could put.up a tower in the middle of Reserve.
Chai ~rrnan Wesloski askedwhat woUld be:'the pleasure of the Bo~d.
Mr. Lounds 'asked.Mr. Heam if he wanted to change an.ything in Table 7-40~
provision that
.ally, .
top of a
zones on the
building
of.the .~Land
Mrs: Heam stated that CN, CO,~.CG, ~ and I z0ning.distficts~ are not
towers are
structures that are accesso~usesmakes it easier to put
·
example, if you .om . a -'
happens to .be 'a.security residences, and the person living
not going ~to object,
Mr. Moore stated to Mr. Heam that he'.also .has a problem on'page
or
that
they are
·
Mr. Heam stated that is something we can't deal with tonight,
Mr. Moorestated that he ~~ands.wec~'tdeal thisto~.ght, He asked ~, Heam if this is
something that he does not a~ee with. ~ ~ ~'
Mr, Heam st£ted'that when you ~ake the required 750 foot distance and one p~~ may:or may
not-live in our co,unity, 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
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 se ty 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 arnotrot
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 mount. He would like'to recommend
co-location be reduce to $1,000 to ~enhance co-locating.
Chairman Weslos~..' stated that she would like to entertain a motion.
·
Mr. Grande made a motion to approve Sections 2100.00 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:
like to take
Mr. Kelly stated - that 'he has. an item not:on the agenda 'tonight, He
this opportunity to distribute draft ComprehenSive Plan information and .to
Mr. Kelly' stated that he wished Mr. KilldaY ~were still present because he is him. Mr.
Killday stated .that the County has a goOd Comprehensive
distributed to each Board Member the first of a series of drafts
Mr. Kelly stated that you will find ~GOPs, Whichis planner l~guage~f°r,~ GoalS,~ ObjectiVes and
PolicieS for a number of elements. '~
lhad been
Mr. Kelly stated .~ that amendments
made. New policies
Environmentally SensitiVe-Lands. Reco~endati°ns~fr°m'members of the
the study group) are indicated by italics. Staff continues to check for
requirements.
as close to the
.still-
~and .Zoning
Mr. Kelly. ~stated that.the numbering ~system is a mess.
old plan as possible. We will r er'everything
that have not'been included in your.package as they are not complete. The data
.
being ~ worked on..
.Mr. Kelly stated that he would propose the Bo~d begin to thi~
Chairman Wesloski with'the calendar for.. Room 101
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 adve~iSe each'he~ng
proposethat since staffhas only one mzomg petition scheduled
regUlar February meeting begin reviewing these elements, This
'begin to digest~ the info~ation ~provided tonight. The~
This will allow sometime to roll all of these things together.
~to
:thek
to
Mr. Kelly asked the Bo~d if Th~sday nights are a reasonable night that we, one or
two additional meetings. We could start with the February P&Z and then a few Thursday
nights after that. He stated that he did not feel comfortable picking Boardi He stated
that there is a lotof work that needs to be done.
Chai~an Wesloski asked Mr. Kelly if the Board should breakdom the info~ation into sections
and work on a few.sections at each meeting.
Mr. Kelly stated that certainly canbe 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 1 ~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 staffwill ~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. Kellystated yes, he believes they'would like a recommendation from the Local Planning Agency
as. a package.
Mr. Grande asked Mr, Kelly if staff has suggested to the County CommissiOn the phased approach
and that they also ~approve it' on a section by section basis.
Mr. Kelly stated.that staffhas not and that we can poll 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. poll '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 4t~ would be the first' Thursday.
Mr. Merritt suggested the second Thursday.
Chairman Wesloski asked'theBoard members if.the second Thursday
Mr..Matthes stated that. any Thursday is good.
are
any.three that ~need.pfiofitY:
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 ~t~e'm°re'time and perhapS'it shoUtd.be..heard alone.
Mr. Kelly stated ~that'Ms.' SheWChuk, the' Eeonomic Devel°pment Direct°r; '
Development element and 'she does not seem to~thi~ 'that it would require to heard~ .alone.
Chairman Wes!o'ski stated that the Board will hear Future Land Use, ;Coastal Management and
Conservation at the regular February meeting. ..
Ms, Dreyer asked.Chai~an Weslos~ if the B°~d~will"then ~to hear ~o ~0..or~i~ee elements
the following week.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the next me~ing :will be
Wesloski :stated that she would
~18th. Chairman
Mr. Kelly stated:that he would like-to do more than on_e,
Chairman Wesloski stated that she would recommend that the Board hear
at the March 11th meeting.
the ~three toughest
Mr. Kelly stated that Future Land Use,
elements. Some
be able to group them up and .go a little faster.
'Chairman WesloSki stated that' for'now the~B0ard will .not assign
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 [hat_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 l 8, 1999:
Regular Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning
Agency Meeting
March 11, 1'999:
Special Meeting of the Local Planning Agency to hear
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
March 1.8, 1'999:
Regular Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning
Agency Meeting
Subsequent the meeting of February 18th was moved to February 25tho
35
St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
Regular Meeting
St. Lucie County Administration Building- Room 101
January 21, 1999
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Pledge of. Allegiance
B. Roll Call
C. Announcements
D. Disclosures
AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM 1: ELECTION OF OFFICERS
AGENDA ITEM 2- MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 16, 1998, MEETING
Action Recommended: Approval.
Exhibit #1' Minutes of December 16, 1998, Meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 3.-' FILE NO. RZ-99-003. PHII~ DRAWDY
Petition 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. Staff comments by Hank
Flores.
Action Recommended: Forward Recommendation to CoUnty Commission
Exhibit #2' StaffReport and Site Location Maps
AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE NO. ORD-99-002, DRAFT ORDINANCE 99-002
Consider Draft Ordinance 99-002, for General Amendments to the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code. Staff comments by Dennis Murphy.
·
Action Recommended:. Forward Recommendation to County Commission
Exhibit #3' Staff'Report and Draft Ordinance
OTHER BUSINESS.
Ae
Other business at Commission Members' discretion.
Next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held on February
18, 1999, in Room 101 of the St. Lucie County Administration Building.
ADJOURN
Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
January 21, 1999
Page 2
NOTICE' All proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision
made by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter
considered at such meeting or heating, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such
purpose, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record
.es the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Upon the request of any party
proceedings, individuals testifying during a 'hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the
will be granted an opportunity to cross examine any individual testifying during a
g 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) Linda Pendarvis
Planning Manager (David Kelly)
Community Development Director (Ray Wazny) & Dennis Murphy
Assistant County Attorney (Jim Lancaster)
County Administrator (Mr. Anderson) & Phil Freeland
Growth Management Director (Julia Shewchuk)
Conner Consultants (fax Agenda to Karen @ 465-9904 and put packet out front)
Deighan Appraisal
Property Acq. 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. 10/5/98 - h:\wp\wp\p&z\pz-docs\packet, pz
HP OfficeJet
Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner
Fax History Report for
St. Lucie County Florida
4621581
Jan 14 1999 4: 00pm
Date Time Twe
Jan 14 3:58pm Sent
Identification
94659904
Duration Pages Result
1:28 2 OK
Result:
OK - black and white fax
OK color - color fax
HP OfficeJet
Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner
Last Fax
Fax History Report for
St. Lucie County Florida
4621581
Jan 14 1999 4'07pm
Date Time Type
Janl4 4'06pm Sent
,Identification
93379774
Duration Pages Result
0:43 2 OK
Result:
OK - black and white fax
OK colOr- color fax
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ST. LUCiE COUNTY~ FLORIDA
DECEMBER 16, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT' Ed Merritt, Stefan Matthes, Ed Lounds, Diana Wesloski,
Ramon Trias, Charles Grande, Noreen Dreyer (arrived at 7' 19 - excused)
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Albert Moore, Carson McCurdy (both excused)
OTHERS PRESENT: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Ray Wazny, Community
Development Director; David Kelly, Planning Manager; and JoAnn Riley, Planning Technician
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wesloski
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chairman Wesloski welcomed Mr. Trias, Mr. Grande and Ms. Dreyer to
the Board.
Mr. Kelly stated that the'petition of Adron and Pamela Chambers, Agenda Item #4, for a Change in
Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the CN
(Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District has been withdrawn from tonight's agenda and will
come back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not want anyone in the audience
waiting for the petition to be heard to have to wait.
The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency then recognized Ms. Donna
Calabrese, for her eight years of service on the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning
Agency Board for St. Lucie County.
Chairman Wesloski stated that for eight years, the third Thursday of each month, Donna gave of her
own free will, time attending the meetings, time reading the material/information provided by staff
(which sometimes can be lengthy), and time visiting the various sites, all for her community.
Chairman Wesloski stated that fi'om the Board she would like to say thank you for that time, because
time is a commodity that we can't get back.
Mr. Kelly stated that from the staff he would also like to thank Donna very much for her time and
service. He stated that staff needs volunteers from the community to make recommendations, staff
can't do it alone and shouldn't do it alone. He stated that staff appreciates not only the members as
they leave, but' new members as they come and those who continue to sit.
Ms. Calabrese stated that she appreciated the help of her fellow board members. She stated that this
Board has one of the most important jobs in the County with impacts on the quality of life,
environmental concems, economic impacts, neighbors of new developments, and the rights of the
private property owners.
Ms. Calabrese stated that staff is very dedicated and their ability to help this board make decisions
is very important and she urges the Board to lean on staff for support.
Ms. Calabrese stated that she enjoyed the time she served.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -
REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 1998
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes.
There being no further additions or corrections to the minutes of the November 19, 1998 meeting,
Chairman Wesloski asked for a motion. Mr. Merritt made a motion for approval, and it was
seconded by Mr. Lounds.
Upon roll call, the motion was approved 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ISSUES EXTRACTED
FROM DRAFT ORDINANCE 99-001
Mr. Kelly stated that on October 15, 1998, this Board continued this item to December 17, 1998.
He stated that at the November 19, 1998 meeting, this Board moved the meeting of December 17th
to December 16th, which placed this schedule in jeopardy because it had been continued to a date
certain of December 17, 1998.
Mr. Kelly stated that if there were members of the community who were planning on December 17th
and it was heard on December 16th, that would not have been fair.
Mr. Kelly stated that with all of the confusion, staff'believes it is appropriate to re-advertise and
would like to bring this item back to this Board in January.
PUBLIC HEARING
ERNEST BODINE
FILE NO. RZ-99-001
Chairman Wesloski explained the Planning and Zoning Commission heating procedures.
Mr. Hank Flores presented staff comments.
Mr. Flores stated that he was presenting the petition of Emest Bodine for a Change in Zoning from
the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural,
Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District for 9.70 acres of land located on the South side of Tilton
Road, approximately 1,600 feet west of Silver Oak Drive.
Mr. Flores stated that the surrounding zoning to the subject property is AR-1 (Agricultural,
Residential - 1 du/acre) to the north and east. RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) is
located to the south, east, and west.
Mr. Flores stated that the petitioner has requested this change in zoning in order to develop a single-
family home with horses and other livestock as accessory uses. He stated that the subject property
is in an area of non-conforming horse ranches and across Tilton Road to the north are two
conforming horse farms.
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. ~taffis, 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.
Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Flores if the petitioner is aware of a possible MSBU (Municipal Services
Benefits Unit) for roadway and utility improvements in this area in the future.
Mr. Flores stated that he is not sure if the petitioner is aware.
Mr. Matthes stated that the staff report indicates Tilton Road has a fight-of-way of 100 foot. He
stated that the maps he has in his office show 80 foot and asked Mr. Flores if a 20 foot dedication
had been done recently.
Mr. Flores stated that he would double check this.
Mr. Matthes stated that Leonard Road is part of Tilton Road in future programming that the County
has for an alternate U.S. 1 corridor. He stated that the ultimate need of fight-of-way is 130 feet and
asked Mr. Flores if the petitioner has been spoken to about possible dedication of a portion of that
130 feet.
Mr. Flores stated that staff'has not gone into that depth of detail.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Flores.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Bodine if he would like to address the Board.
Mr. Ernest Bodine, 2501 SE Leithgow Street, Port St. Lucie, addressed the Board.
Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Bodine if he had any comments about the petition or would he like
to address the questions.
Mr. Bodine stated that he has always wanted a little piece of land, and a little farm. His grandfather
was a farmer and had 50 acres of land. Before his grandfather died, he remarried, and the farm that
was supposed to go to his family was left to his grandfather's wife and ultimately when she died it
went to her side of the family. He stated that his family never received even a little piece of it. He
could never have anything like what his grandfather had, but he finally found his little piece and he
just wants to work it, put some animals on it and a house, and that's his heart's desire.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any questions for Mr. Bodine.
Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Bodine if he is aware this area could possibly be a MSBU (Municipal
Services Benefits Unit) District.
Mr. Bodine stated yes.
Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Bodine if he is aware that approximately 130 feet of fight-of-way will be
required on the front of his property.
,
Mr. Bodine stated that he is aware that it would be substantial, but he is not certain of the exact
footage.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Flores to confirm that the surrounding properties can accommodate five
dwellings per acre.
Mr. Flores stated that is correct.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Bodine if this will impede the ideas he has in mind for his property.
Mr. Bodine stated that the current zoning of his property is five dwellings per acre. He stated that
he has no desire to develop five dwellings.
Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Bodine if he has a problem with the surrounding properties having five
dwellings to acre.
Mr. Bodine stated no. He stated that there are other farms in the area that are zoned AR-1.
Mr. Men'itt stated that because of the wetlands in the area this will preclude most of the five units
per acre.
Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Bodine if the property is currently vacant or is there an existing single-family
dwelling unit on it.
Mr. Bodine stated that the property is currently vacant and wooded with no dwellings on the
property.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions.
At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing.
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.
Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Wesloski
closed the public portion of the hearing.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further qUestions of the petitioner.
Chairman Wesloski stated that the record should reflect Ms. Dreyer arrived at 7' 19 p.m.
Chairman Wesloski asked if there were any further questions of staff.
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. Men'itt moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Ernest Bodine for a Change
in Zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1
(Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District since there are no objections from any of the
surrounding property owners, and there is existing AR-1 zoning in the area. He stated that he
believes it is appropriate to grant the change in zoning.
Mr. Lounds 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.
OTHF, R BUSINESS'
Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Kelly if staff has established cut-off dates for the Planning and Zoning
Commission/Local Planning Agency.
Mr. Kelly stated yes.
Mr. Matthes recommended that staff circulate this for public knowledge.
Mr. Kelly stated that staff also has a list for Board of Adjustment and will circulate both lists for
public knowledge.
Chairman Wesloski asked staff if the Board will receive an annual report.
Mr. Kelly stated yes.
Chairman Wesloski asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Men'itt motioned to adjourned and was seconded by Mr. Matthes.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned 7:24 p.m.
PLANNING AND ZO~G COMMISSION REVIEW: 01/21/99
-File Number RZ-99-003
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DE~LOPMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Manager
January ,15, 1999
SUBJECT:
Application of Phil Drawdy, for a "Ch~ge in Zoning fi'om the AR-1
(Agricultural, Residential .- 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CN
(CO~emial, :NeighborhoOd) ZoMng DisMct. to the application,
.the.appliCant requested that his request b (Commercial,
.Office). ZOning District.
LOCATION:
South side of West Midway Road, approximately 1,320 feet
th
west of South 25 S~eet.
EXISTING ZONING:
AR-1 (Agricultural, Residemial - 1 du/acre).
PROPOSED ZONING:
CO (Commercial, Office)
FUTU~ L~D USE:
RU (Residential Urban)
PARCEL SIZE:
4.69 acres
Building Contractor's Office
SURROUNDING ZONING:
_
..~
._
AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) is located ~to the
north, Si)Uth, ~west; and east. RS-4 (Residential, Single-
Family - 4 du/acre) is located to the east and west. I
(Institutional) is located to the northwest. CG (Commercial~
General) is located to .the northeast. CO (Commercial,
Office) is located to the north and northwest.
SURROUNDING L~D USES,. The general existing use 'surrounding the property is.
residential. There are~ several-churches and a medical office
in the area.
· The Future Land Use Classification of the immediate
January 21,~ 1999
Page 2
Petition: Phil Drawdy
File No: RZ-99-003'
Fi~~MS P '~ ~ - '
ROTECTION.
UTIL1TY SERVI CE:
surrounding area is RU (Residential Urban) and RS
(Residential Suburban).
Station #6 (350 'East Midway Road), is located approximately
4 miles to the east.
The subject property.is in'the FPUA service area.
T~NSPORTATION IMPACTS
RIGHT'OF-WAY
· ·
SCHEDULED
TYPE OF CONCU~NCY
DOCUMENT ~QUI~D '
The existing'right-of-way for West Midway Road is 80 feet.
None.
Concurrency Deferral Affidavit.
STUD--S OF ~~EW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06'03,
~ST. LUCIE 'COUNTY L~D DEVELOPMENT CODE
In reviewing t~s
proposed rezo~ng, the Planning and ZOning Commission
~determinations:
Whether.the proposed rezoning is in conflict with.any applicable portions of the
~St. Lucie County Land. Development Code;
The proposed zo~ng district is consistent' with the St: Lucie County Land ~.
DevelOpment Code. Th~.CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning DiStrict is compatible ..'
with the RU Future Land Use.
o .
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St.
Lncie County Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed change in zoning is' consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie
County comprehensive Plan. The RU Land Use allows the CO Zoning District.
When the'standards of policy 1.1.8.4 are met, development of an office Operation at
this site meets those standards.
January 21, 1999
Page 3
Petition: Phil Drawdy
File No: RZ-99-003
e
0
e
e
Whether..and the'extent to Which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the
existing and proposed land uses;
The proposed zo~ng is consistent with existing .and proposed land'uses in the area.
The general use of the i~ediate surrounding area of the subject property is
residential with several churches,-a medical office, .and other institutional uses and
CO Zonings and. uses in the area.
Whether'~there hawe 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, andwhether or to the extent to which the proposed
amendment woUld exceed the ~capacity of SuCh pub but not
-limited to ~trans.pOrtation facilities, seWage facilities, water parks,
drainage, sChOOls, ~Solid Waste, mass tranSit, and emergency medical facilities;
The intended 'use for this reZoffing is not expected to .create significant additional.
demands .on any public facilities in this area.. Prior to the .approval~of ~any proposed
dewelopment, the applicant will need to provide documentation verifying that
sufficient facilities are in.place to .support the development.
Whether .a.nd the extent to Which.the proposed amendment would result.in
significant, adverse impacts on the natural.environment;
The propOSed amen~ent is not anticipated to create adverse impacts'on-the natural
enviroment. The~applicant Will be required to comply with all federal, state, and
local environmental regulations.
Whether ~and the extent to which the proposed amendment' would result 'in-an
orderly and logical deVelopment pattern, specifically identifying any negative
affects ofsuC:h patterns;
An orderly and logical development pattern will occur with this change in zoning.
The. surrOund~g :parcels of property are designated for residential, institutional, and-
some commercial office uses.
January 2.1, 1'999
Page 4
Petition: Phil Drawdy
File No: RZ-99-003
8~
Whether the proposed amendment would~be in conflict With the public interest,
and is in harmony:with the,purpose.and intent of this Code;
The pmposed.~mendment 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.
COMMENTS
The. petitioner, ~Phl Drawdy~has:requested this change in zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural,
Residential~- 1. du/acre) Zoning Disffict to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning DistriCt in order to
develop.a building co tractor soffice on the subject property. The.sUbjeCt property isin an area of..
residential-uses and some co~ercial °ffiCe uses.
Mr..Drawdy Originally applied for a change in zoning to the CN (Commercial,
Neighborhood) Zoning. District.-~en it was determined .that the proposed use would not b'e
P ed in the. CN Zoffing District, he: amended, his Petition.to reflect-CO Zoning. The County
Attorney has dete~ined'that the CO .Zoning Dis~ct is'a:subset of the CN Zoning District, and.
therefore, a re-adve~isement of the ~petition is not necessary.
Staff has reviewed this petition.and determined-that it conforms with the .standards of review
as set forth in theSt. Lucie CountY Land ~Development Code.and is not in conflict with the goals, '.
objectiveS, and policies"ofthe .St. Lucie. County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends .that you .
fo~ard..thi's petition.to the .Board :of County Commissioners with a ~recommendation of approval. -
.Please contact this office if You have any questions .on this matter.
Attachment
hf .... ~'
cc: -Phil Drawdy
J,P. Terpening, P.E.
File
Suggested motion..to 'recommend approval/denial of this requested Change in zoning.
MOTION'TO ~PROVE:
AFTER CONSID THE'TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,
INCLUDING.STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STAND~S OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE
T~T THE PL~G'~ ZO~G COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE
COUNTY BO~ OF COL~TY COMMISSIONERS GRANT ~PROV~ TO THE
APPLICATION OF PHIL DRAWDY FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AR'I
(AG~C~T~, ~S~ENTIAL - 1 DU/ACRE) ZO~G DIST.'CT TO THE CO
(COMMERCI~, OFFICE) ZO~G DIST~CT, BECAUSE ...... .
[CITE ~REASON ~Y - PLEASE BE SPEC~IC].
MOTION TO D :
~TER CONS~ G!'T~ TEST~ONY P~SENTED DUR/NG THE P~LIC HEARING,
INCLUD~G ST~F COUNTS, A_~ THE ST~ARDS 'OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 1.1..06'03, ST..LUC~ COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE
'THAT THE PLANN~G ~ ZONING CO~SSION ~CO~END THAT THE ST,'LUCIE
CO~TY ~BO~ OF CO~TY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE ~PLICATION'OF PHIL
DRAWDY FOR A C~GE IN ZONING FROM THE AR-1 (AGRIC~TURAL,
~SIDENT~ - 1 DU/AC~) ZONING DIST~CT TO THE CO (.COMMERCIAL, OFFICE)
ZO~G DIST~CT,-BECAUSE. ....
[CITE REASON WHY - pLEASE BE SPECIFIC].
9 b£ I
,M.NFIO9
Phil D-raWdy
Zoning
AR-1
I
I.
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
!
i
i
I
I
West MidWay Rood
CO
i
! - ! -
I !
I i
I I
I I
S.R. N'o. 712
CE O
Lone
RZ 99-003
Community Development
GeograPhic Information Systems
Map revised December29,1998
.
Land Use
Phil Drawdy
RS
i
i
I
I
I
!
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
We:st' Midway 'Road
I
I - !
I !
I !
I !
I I
! ................... .L .......
COM
S.R. No. '712
RU
Gl
I
I
I
I
!
!
[
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
i
!
I
I
i
!
.i
R:S
RU
rive
Lucy Lane
RZ
99-0'03
'Community Development
Geographic Information Systems
Map revised December20,1998
N
A, GENDA - PLANNING & ~ZONING COMMISSION
THURSDA Y, JANUARY 21, 1999
7:00P. M.
Phil DrawdY, 'has petitioned St. Lucie .County for a Change .in Zoning from the AR-1
(Agricultural, ReSidential- 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning
(Location:
South side of Midway Road, approximately 1,320feet West of $outh 25ta
~Street)
'.Please note that .aH proceedings before the LoCal :Planning Agency are electronically
recorded. If a.Person decides .to: :appeal any decision made by .the Local Planning Agency with
respect to. any matter'considered, at ~uch 'meeting or' hearing, he will 'need a record of the
proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may.need to ensure .that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which reCOrd indudes the testimony and evidence upon which the-appeal 'is
to be based ~Upon.~the~request-~ party to the procee&'ng, individuals testifying'during a h'earing
will be. sworn .in. Anypar~ to.,the proceeding will ~be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any
individual tcst~ing during a hearing upon request.. ~ritten comments received in advance of the
Prior to.this public healring,-.notice of the same was sent to all a-djacent property owners
January '8, 1999.. Legal notice was published in the Port st. Lucie News and The Tribune,
newspapers of general'circUlation in St. Lucie County, on January 8, 1999.
File No. RZ-99-003
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
PUB LIC HEARING AGENDA
JANUARY 21, 1999
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE is hereby given in
accordance with Sectior~ "11.00.03
-of the SL Lucie County Land .Devel-
opment Code and.the proVisions of
the St. Lucie County ComprehensiVe
Plan, the following applicants haVe
reqUested that the St'. Lucie C°unty
PIc~nnin'g and: Zoning Commissioh
C°nSide~-.Ihe followin~ requests:
1. ADRON AND.PAMELA ~CHAM-
BERS, for. a. Change in ZOning from
the RS~3 (Residential, Single-Family
-3 dU/a(~re) Zoning DiStrict f0 the
CN (COmmercial, NeighborhOod)
Zoning Distrirct' .for the fOlloWing
desCribed p~operty:
Indian RiVer Estates - Unit 03 -
Block 16, Lot 1 (Map 34/10S)
(0.41 ~ ac) (OR 11'56.1199) (Tax'
I.D. No. ~402,604,0055.000/7).
{Location:: Southeast corner of.
U.S. Highway No. 1 and EaSy
Street)
2. PHIL DRAWDY, .for a Change in
Zoning frOm the AR-1 (Agriculturali
ReSidential- 1 du/acre)Zoning
.District to the CN {Commercial,
Range
of the
~Midway Road as in OR 2
(4,69' ac) (OR 332,894) (Tax I.D.
No. 3405,421 ;0001-000/2).
.(LOcation:' SOuth side o~ Midway
Road, apProXimately 1,32:0 feet
West of SC~uth ~25th Street)
PUBLIC HEARINGS will be held
in Room 101, St. Lucie County
Administration Building, 2300 Vir-
ginia Avenue, F°rt Pi~rce, Florida
on January 21, 1999, beginning at
7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as
-' possible.
-- --'PURSUANT TO Sedi6~
286.0105,-Florida Statutes, if a
appeal any deci-
sion made by a board, agency, or.
commission with resped to any
matter considered at a meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of
the proceedings, and that, for such
purpose~s, he may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the pro-'
ceedings is made, which record
includes the testimony and evi.
dence upon-which the appeal is to
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/S/ DIANA WESLOSKI,
CHAIRMAN
Pub.: Jan. 8, 1999
~1', LUClE COUN1Y ~NING
AND ZONING ~COMMISSlON
' ~ pUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
JANUARY 21, 1999 '
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE:is hereby with
1
for the
described property:
IndlanRIver I
fOllowing
2, PHIL
Change in Zon
AR..1 '
Residential -
District to
[Commerci!
for the following
properly:
_
~ 5, Township 36 South.
Range 40 .EasL East ~h~ of lhe
NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the
(- less Midway Road as
220~1947 [4.69 ac) [OR
[Tax I.D. No.
~)001-000/2].
1,320 feef Wesf of'SoM~ 25th
PUBLIC HEARINGS will: b~;
In ROom 101, St.-Lucie .....
I, 2300 Virgini~"':.i
Fort 'Pierce, Florida--=:
21, 19:99,
.or (~'s~'' '
if a~-
by' a":
that, for
may need,,;:-
', i~::-:
qoe- ....
is te
· COMMISSION
ST. LUCIE COUN ~. FLORIDA
/S/DIANA WEsLOSKI.
...' CHAIRMAN -- :
.~.
Publish: January 8.;1999 -
!
" ~- .~ . .-~ls
LOCAL PLANNiNG AGENCY REVIEW: January 21, 1999
Ordinance 99-002
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO'
Local Planning Agency
FROM:
Dennis Murphy, Land Development Coordinator
DATE:
January 15, 1999
SUBJECT:
Consider Draft Ordinance 99-002 providing for a series of General
Amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.
Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 99-002 which proposes a series of amendments to the
County's Land Development Code. The amendments included in this Draft Ordinances are'
1.06.00
Rules of Interpretation
1.06.02
District Boundaries
The amendments to this section are for the purpose of providing clarification to the generally
accepted planning and zoning practice that public roadways are not considered to be zoned
for the purpose of access limitations or restrictions. This clarification has been determined
to be necessary because of a potential conflicting interpretation of the provisions of Section
7.05.05 of this Code that addresses the use of residentially zoned property for access to non-
residentially zoned property. Non-residentially zoned property includes not only
commercial and industrial uses, but also such uses as churches (I or RF zoning), Child Care
Centers, (CG, CN, I or RF zoning), schools (I zoning) and parks (I zoning).
Section 7.05.05 addresses further additional restrictions on the use of residentially zoned
property for access to non-residentially areas and other restrictions effecting the use of local
streets for access to non-residentially property.
Section 2.00.00
Definitions'
Draft Ordinance 99-001 proposes to amend several definitions effecting the County's
Telecommunication Tower regulations based on the recommendations of the County's
advisory counsel on telecommunication matters.
January 15, 1999
Page 2
Subject: Draft Ordinance 99-002
Section 7.05.05
Use of Residential Property for AcCess
This Section clarifies the issue of accessing private property from a public or private street
or road right-of-way.
Section 7.10.23
Telecommunications Tower Siting
The amendments to this Section address the recommendations of the County's advisors on
telecommunication issues as they relate to excluding certain types of broadcast facilities.
In addition this section provides for procedural amendments in the processing of
Telecommunication Tower apPlications; enhanced landscaping standards when these
facilities are adjacent to a street right-of-way; the exclusion of on-site security residencies,
which are only authorized as an accessory use, in the CN, CO, CG, IX and I zoning districts,
and which would be consistent with the existing exclusions granted for the IH, IL and U
utility zoning districts; a clarification on the aggregate amount of storage shed space that be
located at any telecommunication tower site; a clarification on the date to which a
telecommunication tower may be considered to be a pre-existing tower.
It should be noted, that the additional exclusions for the security residences is consistent
with other exclusionary provisions for residencies in commercial districts found in the Land
Development Code. This exclusion does not effect other kind of residences that may be
located in a commercial area that is within the prescribed radius of any proposed
telecommunication tower.
Staff recommend that the Local Planning Agency determine that Draft Ordinance 99-002 is
consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and that the amendments contained therein
be approved.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
DJM/cb
OR9902ml (disk 8)
cc' County Attorney
J. Heam
N. Spaulding
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
1.1
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3,0
31
32
33
3,4
3:5
36
3'7
ORDINANCE NO. 99-002
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1
INTERPRETATION, DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, TO
CLARIFICATION OF THE ZONING DI D'
COUNTY; BY AMENDING SECTION
PROVIDE FOR AMENDMENT TO
EXISTING TOWERS AND PRE
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY,
OR TOWER; BY AMENDING SECTION
PROPERTY FOR ACCESS BY PROVI
RESTRICTIONS; BY AM
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER
FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO
REGULATIONS; BY AM TI~
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CLARIFICATION TO ~NIN
FACILITIES MAY BE
REQUIREMENTS;
STANDARDS
IS
REQ
TEL
~0.Z3(M),
EQUIPMENT
PERMITTED
LOCATED
COUNTY LAND
OF
A
IN THE
TO
A
G SECTION
UNICATIONS
INDU
ME] G
,E OF RESIDE.
TION OF ACCESS
7.10.23(A),
O PROVIDE
THESE
7.10.23(B),
TO PROVIDE
WHICH THESE
CERTAIN
SECTION 7.10.23(E)
, TO PROVIDE
O MMUNI CATI O N T O WE RS
AGRICULTURAL ZONING
SECTION, 7.10.23(F)
TOWER SITING, SECURITY FUND TO
THE AMOUNTS AND METHOD OF
; BY AMENDING G SECTION 7.10.23
THE SEPARATION STANDARDS
ATION TOWERS; BY AMENDING SECTION
ATION TOWERS, BUILDINGS AND
AREAS, TO CLARIFYING THE MAXIMUM
FOOTAGE OF SUPPORT BUILDINGS TO BE
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER SITE; BY
7.1 0.23(P) PREEXISTING
TOWERS TO CLARIFY WHAT
ITUTES A PREEXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER;
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
,Underline is for addition
Strikc TkrcugD~ is for deletion
Page 1
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2,4
2:5
26
2'7
28
2!;}
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
BY PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISION, BY PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY~ PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY, PROVIDING FOR
FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE~ PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE~ PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
the following determination-
'ida, has made
1. On August 1, 1990, the Board of Cou Comm
County, Florida, adopted the St.
Code.
nd D~
.
The Board of County Com
amendments to the St. Lucie
through the following Ordina
adopted certain
~pment Code,
91-03 - March 14, 199'
91-21 -
93-01 - Febru~
93-05 - May 25
93-07 - May
94-18 - Au
95-01 - Ja
97-0t - 4, 199;
7-23 - 2,
993
4-07
94-21
96-10
97-09
May 14, 1991
June 2, 1992
February 16, 1993
May 25, 1993
June 22, 1994
August 16, 1994
August 6, 1996
October 7, 1997
,
propos
the Local Planning Agency/ Planning and
public hearing on the proposed ordinance
the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune at
to the hearing and recommended that the
be approved.
.
On
pro
Port
19xx this Board held its first public hearing on the
ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the
News and the Tribune on xxxxxxxx xx, 19xx.
xxxxxxx xx, 19xx this Board held its second public hearing on the
proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline is for addition
Strikc Tkrcu~ is for deletion
Page 2
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2:2
2:3
2,4
2:5
26
2'7
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
.
Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune on xxxxxxx xx, 19xx.
The proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code are consistent with the general purpose, goals,
objectives and standards ofthe St. Lucie County Comprehen lan
and is in the best interest of the health safety and the
citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the B
Lucie County, Florida'
of Co
PART A.
THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE ST.
LAWS TO READ AS FOLLOWS, INCLU
COU
AND COMPILED
H E
E ISIONS
1.06.00
RETATION
1.06.02
In the e
that any unce
on the Official
rules:
with respect to the intended boundaries of the various zoning districts
the Board of County Commissioners shall make the interpretation using
The zoning dist ndaries are the center lines of the streets, alleys, waterways, and rights-of-way,
unless othe~ indicated. Wherever designation of a boundary line on the Zoning Atlas coincides
n of a street, alley, waterway, or right-of-way, it shall be construed to be the boundary
ct except that all public streets and road rights-of-way, and those private streets and road
~mum County roadway standards, shall not be considered zoned fo~
Ordinance # 99 - 002 a
Draft #1
......... ~n~erline is for addition
Strikc Tkrcu~h is for deletion
Page 3
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2,4
2:5
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43,
C.
D.
purposes of enforcement of the provisions of Section 7.05.05 of this code.
Where the zoning district boundaries do not coincide with the location of streets, alleys, waterways,
and rights-°f-way, but do coincide with lot lines, such lines shall be construed to be the boundary of
such district., except that all public streets and road rights-of-way, and those private streets and road
rights-or-way meeting minimum County roadway standards, shall not be cons[ zoned for
purposes, of enforcement of the provisions of Section 7.05.05 of t
Where the zoning district boundaries do not coincide with
and rights-of-way or lot lines, the zoning district
shown on the Zoning Atlas.
alleys, waterways,
e use of ti;
Zoning district boundaries indicated as approximately
as following those boundaries.
CHAP
DE
2.00.00
DEFINITIONS
When used in this Code, the foil
the
023'
TOWERS ;:
ngs herein ascribed to them.
}nstruction for'-'~,:--'- '-"='"'lng .... :*--'--,-'-------~:,:------,
VVI il%JI I ~;a JJUll~l J-/gl I I Ill, CAI IU ~/I i%.Jlklq~/I IQ.
prior to September 19, 1997 (the effective date or Ordinance 97-
UN
A facility that is provide one or more telecommunications services, including, without
limitation, radio trtowers, other supporting structures, and associated facilities used to
transmit tel~ nications signals. An open video system is not a telecommunications facility to
the extent o~ video services; a cable system is not a telecommunications facility
tt it only provides of~ cable service.
TOWER OR TOWER:
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline~ for addition
Strike Tkrcu~P. is for deletion
Page 4
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1;9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2;7
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35;
36;
37'
38
39'
40
41
42
43
44
Any structure, and support thereto, designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting
one or more antennae intended to provide telecommunication services including lattice, monopoic
and
.quyed
towers.
-for
transm~ttln~
or receMn§ The term includes personal ~ireless servicea ~
'"'"""""" tad:" """
., facilities used for the provision of commercial mobile services, unlicenced wireless service~_
.(telecommunication services using duly authorized devices wh ' ' al licence~
and common carrier wireless eXchange access services F~ :Fthe term
in¢ludea radio and television transmission towers,
not to be a telecommunications tower:
1) a structure supporting a utility transmission I
2) a structure up to 150 feet in height supportin,
line(s), and antenna(e), When located in non
3) a structure supporting a amateur radio ante~
~nly, and
69KV or
~ing d
shall be considered
7.05.05
USE OF RESIDE
A,
No residentially zoned prope
for driveway, walkway, or any
land used for a purpose not per
S.
Exce
considered to be a
·
ntial
FO
shall be used
identially zoned land, or to any
3t.
be used
9rs, no stre. et or road
to commerciall~
or
rn
That the
~se of a treet considered to be a local resi.dential street
licant for such access
· ' that:
route or
is available to the
the
or other
The
within the area of the -ro--osed drivewa._, connection_,_Lg_to
or indust is ' vacant
iai uses
,
drJvewa,
street considered to be a local residentia! street or
a condition that is u-~i u~M~r io tl~e land siructu~
involve~ result in unneces~ for the
owner lessee or occu ant as distin uished from a mere inc~nvenien~rovisions of
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
_Underline is for addition
~;~r~ m,, ..... ~' is for deletion
Page 5
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2,4
25
26
2'7
28
2!;}
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38,
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
C.
7.10.23
A.
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
Ail 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 con be local
.residential street or roadway, no such driveway connection shall be its nearesl.
perpendicular edges more than 350 feet from the feet from and in thc
event th~ it shall be thc_
obli, .
to
operation of the roadway.
In a Residential Land Use cate__~no street or
roadwa shall be used for access to commerci;
comrr esidential Land Use
.an Arterial or Major Collector.
local treet or
ss to any
to be
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
PURPOSE.
The purpose of this section
telecommunications towe~
or antennas in the
Th~
O
d requirements for the siting of wireless
,
All new towers
where
·
or antenna that is' installed for the~se of a
Iicensed radio stati~
The ~his section is intended to
,
ealth, safety and general welfare of the residents of the
e County;
Minimize
pacts of towers upon residential areas and land Uses;
3. Encoura
impact
nd promote the location of towers in non-residential areas, where the adverse
community is minimal;
the total number of towers throughout the community by strongly encouraging the
of antennas on new and pre-existing tower sites as a primary option rather than
of additional single-use towers;
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft ~1
Underline is for addition
~trikc Tkrcu~h is for deletion
Page 6
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31.
$2
33,
34.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
B,
,
.
Encourage and promote to users of towers and antennas to configure them in a way that
minimizes the adverse visual impact of the towers and antennas through careful design,
siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques; and,
Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services
to the community through an efficient and timely application process.
In furtherance of these goals, the County shall at all times give due
Comprehensive Plan, zoning maps, existing land uses, and
hurricane preparedness areas, in approving sites for th
GENERAL.
.
n to the County's
itive areas, including.
,
.
Telecommunications towers may be located
"IL" Industrial Light, "IH" Industrial Heavy,
reouirements of this Section. Telecommunicat
use, subject to the requirements of this
districts.
use in the rural-5,
Zoning D bject to the
be located as a conditional
.00, in all remaining zoning
Telecommunications towers may
another use. A different ex
telecommunications tower
telecommunication tower
Co-location of teleco~
telecommunication:
telecommunication
certified by a
er
permitt
the same property as
that is proposed to have a
ude the installation of that
can be met.
ntennas more than one provider on existing
:ake over the construction of new
application shall include a written report
o practice in the State of Florida, stating the
ion within the search area of the feasibility of sharing a tower,
,
8)
towers for co-location; and
capacity of all available towers; and
frequency interference; and
--
ical service area requirements; and
I or electrical incompatibility; and
inability or ability to locate equipment on the tower; and
any restrictions or limitations of the Federal Communic---ations Commission
that would preclude the shared use of the tower; and
any additional information requested by the County.
Paragraph 4 through 7-- No Change
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline. is for addition
~rikc Tkrcu~l~ is for deletion
Page 7
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2,4
2:5
26
2'7
28
2!;}
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
$8
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
E.
¸.
AESTHETICS.
All telecommunications towers shall be enclosed by opaquesecurity fencing eight (8) feet in
height, re.qardless of the zoning district in which the tower is located..
Paragraph 8 through 11 -- No Change
Paragraph C & D -- No Ch~
All telecommunications towers shall meet the followil
.
At a tower site, the design of the buildings
textures, screening, and landscaping
surrounding building to minimize the visu~
shall retain their silver/grey factory
colors.
Except as noted in
landscaping and screening
Development Director shat
deemed
non-residential land
and viability at the
of plant
finished
shall use materials,
nto the natural setting and
any accessory buildings
stealth or neutral tone
constructi
3. The
·
sites must comply with the
opment Code. The Community
s of any written requirements as is
o enhan~ adjacent residential and
properly maintained to ensure good health
facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer
ew of the tower compound from property used
;tandard of a landscaped strip at least ten (10) feet
pound,except that, if the tower perimeter abuts _~
· ' buffer width shall be fi~
lng exotics, and natural land forms on the. site shall
;Sible. In some cases, such as towers sited on large,
around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. The
ible for deter~~
~is Code. All areas disturbed during project
replanted with vegetation according to Section '7.09.00, of this Code.
Telec,
Dire~ sider total relief from the r~
· of Para~ph 2 above, if the ~
Iions Tower meets the following standards and criteria-
The Telecommunications Tower is located in an AG-5, AG-2.5, AG-l, IL, IH or U
zoning district.
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline is for addition
~trikc Tkrcu~P~ is for deletion
Page 8
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1,8
1'.9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
F.
The Proposed Telecommunications Tower is located a minimum of 500 feet, or thc
tower height, whichever is greater, from the nearest public street or road right-of-
way, public park or play.oround, public or private school (K through 12) or any are~
zoned for residential or commercial uses. For the purpose of this para.qraph thi~
restriction shall apply to properties regardless of political boundary
_the proposed Telecommunications Tower base area
either existing ve.oetation or otl'
or made features
.4_ The ' ' soft,
or
build
or antenna a
,d from view b'
or other
erected
st be
of this
The County reserves the right to require that a
toWer.
be designed as a camouflage
SECURITY FUND
Every telecommunications service
with an irrevocable letter of credit
same amount, to secure the st
determined to be abandoned
the provisions of Section 7.1
of
0.23(P
,unt of
ity fund, or provide the County
in the
nna array, or tower that has been
the event the owner fails to comply with
fund. or--letter of credit, or other form
provided-for -----,~, ' ....... """ be *'""~::
q;~c;;4, q,,,J,I I Lq,./VVI~I OI 1(;21.11 IIILT;;];~;~;I~-
unic, ~d the $15,000
·
$3,000
G through K-- No Changes
SEPARATION
The followin~
requirements shall apply to all telecommunications towers for which a
required-
from off-site/designated areas'
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline~ for addition
m-....,,~.... ,.,-,~ ..... ~' is for deletion
Page 9
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
13
1,4
1:5
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25;
26
27'
28,
29
30,
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
a.
b.
Tower separation shall be measured from the base of the tower to the lot line of the
off-site and/or designated areas as specified in Table 7-40, except as otherwise
provided in Table 7-40.
Separation requirements for towers shall comply with the minimum standards
established in Table 7-40.
TABLE 7-40
From any habitable residential structure (except
for accessory security residences in CN, ,CO, CG~
! and U zoning districts)
From vacant residentially zoned land
'100% of
of tower height, whi
From any non-residentially zoned land and
accessory security residences in CN, CO, CG, IL,
and U zoning districts.
whicheve
setback or fall
The Community
requirements to
land, provided
feet.
~ble resi
3 V;
The
spe,
Deve
~n find
shall pe
variances from the separation
to vacant residentially zoned
a separation distance of less than 300
r shall not approve a variance except upon
directly upon the particular facts submitted to
d,
:erpretation of the provisions of Table 7-40 would render the
with FCC coverage requirements.
.
ing of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to
g properties, and will not endanger public safety.
e variance is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable
use of the land, building, and structures; and
The variance requested arises from a condition that is unique and peculiar
to the land involved and that it is created by the conditions of this Code and
not by the actions of the property owner or applicant.
The Board of Adjustment may approve variances from the separation requirement
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline is for addition
~~'~ ~ ..... ~ is for deletion
Page 10
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1,6
1'7
18
19
213
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
M,
P,
to habitable residential structures of less than 300 feet.
Paragraph 2-- No changes
BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE AREAS.
It is recognized that each telecommunications tower will
support and equipment buildings at or near the tower. D~
the following general standards shall apply, in additio
Paragraph 1 & 2--
.
Antennas located on towers shall comply wit
a.
Equipment/storage facilities shall no'
in area per tower site.
bo
Equipment/storage
standards of the zoning
modified by the
C.
All equ'
requirements )0.
som
~g on
e other
,ly with
ssociated electronic
er being erect~
s of the co
requirements:
:e total of 1,500 square feet
imum building setback
This requirement may be
to encourage co-location.
in accordance with the general
ges
o Changes
Any te
es which
owed to continu;
required to meet
any existing
requirements of
'IONS TOWERS.
before '~ .... ' '-'-'----*=, ,-- -~--,-,~
~,, ,o~,, ~,,~,.,,~ ,.,o,~ September 19, 1997 (date
t the F shall be allowed to continue
date. Routine maintenance of the tower and its support facilities is
ing tower that does not meet the standards of this section shall not be
~dards unless and until the tower is proposed for replacement. At the time
ns tower is proposed to be replaced or substantially improved, then the
section shall apply.
Paragraph Q-- No changes
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline is for addition
~rikc Tkrcu~h is for deletion
Page 11
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1,4
15
16
1'7
18
19
20
2 ][
22
23
24
25;
26;
27'
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
PART B.
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County
ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby superseded by
this ordinance to the extent of such conflict.
PART C. SEVERABILITY.
If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or decla~
such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this
shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or
applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance.
to be un~
O
such holding its
PART D.
APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE.
This ordinance shall be applicable throughout
PART E.
FILING WITH THE DEPA
OF
The Clerk be and is hereby directed
Administrative Code and Laws, Dep~
a certifi,
Cap
copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of
Tallahassee, Florida 32304.
PART F.
This ordi
with the Department of State.
PART G.
After mo ~nd se~
this ordinance was as follows:
Chairman
Vice Ch~
Lewis
John Bruhn
XXX
XXX
sioner Cliff Barnes
XXX
ommissioner Doug Coward
Ordinance #99-002a
Draft #1
Underline is for addition
~*-,,-~..,., .-r,,, .... g~' is for deletion
Page 12
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1,6
17
118
19
2t)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28:
29
30
31
32
33
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson
PART H. CODIFICATION.
Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lu¢ie County Code and Compil
word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention;
through H shall not be codified.
PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this xxth day of xxxxx, 1
BOARD O MISSIONE
ATTEST: ST. LUCIE C~ RIDA
DEPUTY CLERK
FORM AND
CTNESS:
DJM
99-002a(
ATTORNEY
and the
s of this
that parts B
Ordinance # 99 - 002 a
Draft #1
Underline is for addition
~trikc Tkrcu~h is for deletion
Page 13
PRINT DATE: 01/08/99
,4 GENDA - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
THURSDA Y, JANUARY 21, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Consider Draft Ordinance 99-002 (General Amendments to the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code).
Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically
recorded If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the
proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
to be based Upon the request of anyparty to theproceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing
will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any
individual testifying during a hearing upon request. ~ritten comments received in advance of the
public hearing wil! also be considered
Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune, newspapers of
general circulation in St. Lucie County, on January 11, 1999.
File No. 0RD-99-002
NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT
OR CHANGE OF REGULATION
AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND
The St. Lucie County Board of County Commiksioners propose to
adopt the followin~ Ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 99-002
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1.06.02, RULES OF
INTERPRETATION, DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, TO PROVIDE FOR A
CLARIFICATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES IN THE
COUNTY; BY AMENDING SECTION 2.00.00, DEFINITIONS, TO
PROVIDE FOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITIONS OF PRE-
EXISTING TOWERS AND PREEXISTING ANTENNAS,
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER
OR TOWER; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.05.05, USE OF
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY' FOR ACCESS BY PROVIDING
CLARIFI'CATiON OF ,~CCESS RESTRICTIONS; BY AMENDING
SECTION 7.10.23(A), TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITING,
PURPOSE, TO PROVIDE FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF THESE REGULATIONS; BY AMENDING
SECTION 7.10,23(B), TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITING,
GENERAL, TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION TO THE 'ZONING
DISTRICTS IN WHICH THESE FACILITIES MAY BE LOCATED,
SUBJECT TO MEETING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS; BY AMENDING
SECTION-7.10,23(E) TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITING,
AESTHETICS, TO PROVIDE STANDARDS WHERE A PRoPO~Ei~
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS IS LOCATED IN AN INDUSTRIAL ]
OR AGRICU~.TURAL ZONING 'DISTRICT; BY AMENDING~SECTiON; t
7.10.23(F) TELECOMMuNicATIONS 'TOWER sITING,. SECURITY
FUND '~d PROVIDE REQUIRED SECURITY DEPosITS; By.-t
AMENDI'NG SECTION 7.10.23 (L) SEPARATION, BY CLAR
THE SEPARATION STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUI
TOWERS'; By AMENDING SECTION ..7.10.23(I
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS, BUILDINGS ANb' EQUiPI~il
STORAGE AREAS, TO CLARIFYING 'THE MAXIMUM PERMIT
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF suPPORT BUILDINGS:TO BE LOCATED ~
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER SITE; BY AMENDING SECTI
7.10.23(P) PREEXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS TO
CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES' A PREEXISTING
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER; BY PROVIDING FOR
cONFLICTING'PROVISION, BY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ,
PROVIDING FOR APPLICAI~ILITY, pRovIDING FOR .FILING WiTF~
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE, PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION.
The Purpose of this public hearing is to amend the St. Lucie County
Land Development Code to provide for a series of' general
amendments to the.Code. '
A PUBLIC.HEARiNG on Ordinance 99,002 will be held before the St.
Lucie County Planning and Zoning COmmission/Local Planning
Agency.on ThursdaY, January 21, 1999 at 7:00 P.M, or as soon
-
-thereafter as possible, in.the Roon~ 101 of the.St. Lucie County
Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ri Pierce, Florida.
Matters affecting your personal and ProPerty rights may be'he.ard
and.acted uPon. AIl interestedl Persons 'are invited toattend and be'
heard' Written c°mmentS received in 'advance of.the public hearing.
will also be heard.
·
Copies of the proposed ordinances, are available for review in the
office 'of the .Community-Development DirectOr, St. Lucie County
Administration. BUilding,, 2300-Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida,
34982, during-regular business hours, Amendments to the
proposed.ordinance 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, commissio, ns, agency, COLmcil or advisory group,
person will need record of the' proceedings and that, for such
purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is madel Which record should include the testimOny
and evidence uPon. which the appea/~ isto be based. Upon the
request of.any:party to the.proceeding, individuals testifying during
a I~earing will be sworn, ir~.. 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 5th day of January' 1999.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSioN/` ·
LOCAL PLANNING-AGENCY
ST.'LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA .'
/S/DIANA WESLOSKi, CHAIRMAN
PUBLISH DATE: January 11, 1999
-NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT
OR CHANGE OF RE'GU LATION
AFFECTING'THE USE O,F' LAND.
The St. Lucie coUnty' Board of County'commissioners propose to ado
the following Ordinance: .
ORDINANCE NO.."99-002
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ~THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY
AMENDING SECTION 1,06.02, RULES OF INTERPRETATION, DISTRICT' BOUNDARIES, TO
PROVIDE FOR iFiCATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES IN THE CoUN-
, DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR AMENDMENT. TO
THE DEFINi .TOWERS AND PRE~EXIStlNG ANTENNAS, TELECOM-
' BY..AMENDING
SECTION :ESS 'BY PROVIDING cLAR-'
IFICATION OF SECTION 7.10.23[A], TELECOM-
TO THE
APPLlCAB! SECTION 7.10.23[B},.
TO PRO.VIDE CLARIFICATION TO~
THE ZONll !, FACILITIES MAY BE LOC~ATED', S[JBJECT TO'
,1.0,23(E) TELECOMMU-
.NICATIO STANDARDS WHERE A PROPOSED
DR AGRICULTURAL
23[F) TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
AMOUNTS AND
. MITTED
.SECTION 7,10:23[L} SEP,':
CAT!.ON.;
MAXIMUM PER-
TELECOM-
PROVIS
,'PRO- '
VtDING F, ; FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE, CODIFICATION.
amend.the St. Lueie .CoUnty
'L ;a. series' of general amend-
"ments to · .,:.-:' .: ..... .:;.
A PUBLIC HEARING on OrdinanCe,'99,002 Will "be held . .: before . the-st..
Lucie.County Planning. and Zoning Commission/LoCal Planning Agency
on Thursday,. Januar~ 21., "i 99.9. at '7:00: P~-M,:. or. as soon .thereafter
possible, in ROom 101 of the St. L~iC~ie Co, u:n~.;~.'dministration Building,
2300.Virginia .Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, M~lt~rs. affecting your Per-.
sonal anTd prope~ rights ~ay-.be heard and' acted Upon. '~11 interest-
ed'.persons a~e invited to at:tend:and be.h~a~d: Written comments
received in'advanCe of the;publiC'hearing will' also'be heard.
..Copies of 'the proPosed 'ordinances, are.av~ilable for ~review in 'the
office, of:the '.community ~D~.vel0pment Director, -St. ~ Lucie ,County
'Administration .Buildingl;'i-2300':".vi~ginia' Avenuei~:,,.Ft: pierce~ -Florida,
34982;' during 'regUla~ ibusihesS ,hobrs, '.Amendments .to "th~,~, pro~0sec
'Ordinance may~b~'.,made;,idf-tl~e Publicl, h~aring,
r.' ' ,. ''a;'- .~' , ~'
"'i, anyP. erson 'deCideS.'
any' matter oonsidered at. the',~eeting~.~!13-~fings ofany boa'rd,.!cOm,
mifie~S, cOmmissiOns,-':agencyi~council::o~'?'~dVisory.group' 'that PersOh'
will' need.'record. Of-. the proCeedings., and that', fOr:such purpose .may~
'need..to'ensure that a Ve~batim r~ord"of:the:proceedihg~-':iis made,
Which record :should include.the testimony, and.,eVidence upon Which
· the appeal-is to be based. UPon.fhe-'req~esf',Ofany party tO the)Pro-..
'ceeding/individUals testifying during, a-i~edring Will be. s~Vornin, J~ny
,.party to the proCeeding.will.be granted an' OPpOrtunity 'to crOss'-exam.
ine any individual testifying during,a hearing Lj'pon ,.request, -. ,..
This- no'tice dated and'executed., this 5th .daY. 0f.Januar¥., 1999;.,,~ '
PLANNING AND ZONING cOMMISsION/
LOCAL PLANNING ,AGENCY
ST. LUCiE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/S/DIANA WESLOSKI, CHAIRMAN
JPUBLISH DATE: January 11, 1999 ~ :-